Dr Leslie Cannold
The current debate around RU486 is about whether or not the safety and efficacy of a drug should be impartially evaluated on the basis of the medical evidence by the Therapeutic Goods Association (TGA), or whether this drug should continue to be singled out as the only one whose availability is subject to the personal bias of the health minister.
Luckily for pro-choice supporters, the opposition and the government have had no choice but to take a stand because the Democrats will move an amendment to the Therapeutics Goods Act when the government introduces its own amendments to this piece of legislation. There appear to be no parliamentary procedures available that will allow either party to avoid the question coming to a vote.
However, it is unfortunate that the debate is shaping up to be one about the rights and wrongs of abortion, and thus one that will be settled by a conscience vote. Labor set the tone by giving its members a conscience vote a few weeks ago, and now the PM is signalling he may do the same.
This debate is not about abortion. It is about whether drugs (whether they induce early non-surgical abortion or treat cancer) should be evaluated by the health minister or by the TGA. It is about whether medical evidence or the personal and/or religious views of the health minister should determine whether RU486 is safe and effective. (RU486 is the only drug that is currently evaluated by the health minister and not the TGA. This has come about because of right-wing Christian Senator Brian Harradine's amendment to the Theraputic Goods Act.) This means that there is no case for a conscience vote.
The government must support the Democrats' amendment designed to lift the ban on RU486. Once the ban is lifted, all questions about the drug's safety and efficacy for city and country women will be turned over to the TGA, the only body with the capacity to deliver an impartial ruling based on the medical evidence.
The health minister can't be trusted to act with the necessary degree of professional impartiality on this or other questions to do with women's reproductive health.
Not only do the facts make a conscience vote inappropriate on this issue, a conscience vote also poses a number of risks, including that until the vote on lifting the ban is taken, MPs and senators will be besieged by the vociferous, aggressive and well-organised anti-choice minority.
It is also likely that a conscience vote will be close so that even if pro-choice forces win, a close vote will embolden anti-choice activists and politicians in the government and opposition. This will mean that for the rest of this term, anti-choice politicians — egged on by their supporters — will be proposing a multitude of private members' bills.
It is imperative that supporters of reproductive choice urge the PM to commit to lifting the ban on RU486.
[The Prime Minister can be emailed at <http://www.pm.gov.au/email.cfm>. Dr Leslie Cannold is a spokesperson for Reproductive Choice Australia. For more information visit <http://www.reproductivechoiceaustralia.org.au>.]
From Green Left Weekly, November 30, 2005.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.