Politicians attack right to choose
On May 20, the Senate voted to ban the "abortion drug" RU486. Independent Senator Brian Harradine, an anti-abortion campaigner, introduced the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill to restrict the importation of RU486.
The drug was under trial for safety and being investigated for use as both a contraceptive (taken as the "morning after pill") and an abortifacient. RU486 can be used to abort a fertilised egg within seven weeks of conception.
Feminists have disagreed over the usefulness of the drug. Author Dr Renate Klein calls it a "problematic drug cocktail". Risks identified include blood loss, significant pain and vomiting, nausea and diarrhoea. Harradine has focused on these health aspects in his campaign.
However, many other feminists, reluctant to dismiss any possibility to retain and broaden women's access to termination options, have argued for the trials. And a significant number of health and women's organisations have come out in opposition to Harradine's amendment, including the National Council of Women, the Doctors' Reform Society, the Australian Women's Health Network, the Family Planning Association, the National Association of Leading Women's Hospitals and the Australian Medical Association. Dr Amanda McBride, chairperson of the Australian Medical Association's Women and Medicine Committee, says that RU486 has been proven to be safer than surgical abortions.
Harradine received bipartisan support for the amendment. Usually the Liberal Party and the ALP allow a conscience vote in relation to abortion issues. However, because it was under the guise of a therapeutic goods amendment, they were able to force through a bloc vote. It appears a conscience vote is only appropriate when it suits the right wing.
The Democrats and WA Greens senators voted against the amendment. In the past, the Greens senators, Dee Margetts and Christabel Chamarette, have differed over the abortion issue. Margetts has consistently supported a woman's right to choose. In this instance, Chamarette also opposed the amendment, but on the basis that it singles out one type of drug. This is a valid point, but it misses the central issue that the amendment is an attack on women's rights.
Margetts went further. In her speech she said: "It is not a safety issue at all, in spite of the existence of some safety issues with some of the drugs in this class. We do not see similar bans on tranquillisers or mood elevators, Valium or Prozac, even though they are questionable both socially and medically ... This amendment says, 'abortifacient drugs are especially bad'. If this amendment were passed, it would say that the parliament indicates that these drugs should be considered special and not generally allowed."
Margetts gets to the heart of the matter. Harradine's focus on the health aspects of RU486 is a furphy. Most fundamentally, he is attacking women's right to choose — with the Coalition and ALP's full support.
Margetts' speech concludes, however, by advocating a conscience vote on the abortion issue, because it is an ethical matter. This is incorrect. Abortion is not a question of ethics or morals, but of women's rights. The right to control their reproduction is crucial if women are to control their lives.
Women's freedom to make choices about their own bodies cannot be left to individual (mostly male) parliamentarians' consciences. The conscience vote issue is inextricably linked to the question of the accountability of parliamentarians: a conscience vote means that the views of parliamentary representatives are given more weight than those of the millions of women whom the politicians' decisions affect. Conscience votes are profoundly undemocratic.
According to a 1991 McNair Anderson poll, 81% of Australians support women's right to choose abortion. In voting to restrict the availability of RU486, Harradine, the ALP and the Coalition parties chose to ignore the wishes of majority of the population. They have been able to hide behind the conscience vote for too long.
By Trish Corcoran