Finally, Victoria’s abortion laws make explicit the clinical practice of the past several decades, with the passing of the legislation in the Upper House on Friday.
Just as a reminder, until the passing of this bill, abortions in Victoria were permitted, essentially because of the Menhennitt ruling, a ruling by Justice Clifford Menhennitt in a criminal trial of a doctor charged with performing abortions. Mennenhitt’s ruling hung on Victorian law criminalizing “unlawful” abortions. No definition, however, was provided for what an “unlawful” abortion was. Mennennhitt’s ruling stating when, under the law of the time, the circumstances under which an abortion could be lawful – in short, to preserve the physical and mental health of the woman concerned.
The reasoning in that ruling was adopted broadly by other state Supreme Courts, and it is on this basis that abortion has been legal in Australia for the past 30-odd years.
Putting the rights of women to control their bodies on a more secure legal footing has been a long-standing goal for many, including a number of state politicians. But, during the Bracks era, it never quite seemed to happen, though, interestingly, he publicly supported the bill on the eve of its passing. Finally, Victorian MLC Candy Broad got the ball rolling by moving a private member’s bill removing abortion from the criminal code entirely.
The upshot of that was that a Victorian Law Reform Commission inquiry was called to examine legal options for legalization, coming up with three. The first would have encoded Menninhitt into law for all abortions, the third would have removed abortion from the criminal code entirely. Option B – abortion on request up to 24 weeks, and two doctors agreeing that a termination meets a test similarly worded to Mennenhitt thereafter, was ultimately adopted. finally passing the Upper House in a conscience vote by a 23-to-17 margin. The transcript is downloadable from here if people are interested.
There are a number of things I take out of this. The first is simply that this is good news for all Victorians, particularly Victorian women. Congratulations and thanks are due to all those that have had a part in getting this bill into and through the Parliament.
The second is the ongoing question of what Catholic hospitals will do about their maternity departments. One of the provisions of the law that has Archbishop Dennis Hart particularly up in arms is that the law requires doctors who won’t perform abortions to refer patients to doctors who will. Hart’s current position is that “Catholic hospitals would not, under any circumstances, perform abortions or provide referrals for abortions.” As noted on earlier discussions on this point, Hart’s ability to enforce such a policy is doubtful, but there remains a question of whether this will become a live issue.
Finally, there is a striking discrepancy between the votes of the state Liberal leadership and their conservative backbench. That raises all sorts of interesting questions for the future prospects of the Victorian conservatives, given that the extreme conservatism of the NSW Liberal backbench seems to have been the main thing keeping NSW Labor in power. I’d just note that the assumption that everybody who voted against the bill is a doctrinaire social conservative on other issues is likely rather an oversimplification.
The Liberal leadership resides in wealthy socially liberal suburbs close to the Melbourne CBD. The backbenchers are from outer suburban boganville.
Good news that the law should reflect what essentially has been the situation for decades.
On the Libs/Nats class of 2006, the Labor Govt will no doubt use a version of “extreme religious right nuts running the state” campaign based on these clowns’ voting records – just need a shadowy Opus Dei figure a la David Clarke and bingo bango – another election in the bag. You gotta be a whole lotta fundie to vote down gay rights and stem cell research in 2008.
As to the Catholic Hospital situation, as Laurelh pointed out on the other thread, there are already cases of third class care being delivered to unsuspecting citizens, which I was unaware of, in terms of emergency terminations, which may become routine if the Archbishop sees this through.
In the interim and while the machinations of Catholic Health is being played out – one practical measure might be for a ‘fact sheet’ to be handed out to every women by their GP, upon confirmation of their pregnancy, along with all the other facts sheets and bibs and bobs your doctor gives you, which summarises the different medical treatments you will receive in Catholic Health operated hospitals compared to a state operated hospital when you are pregnant, in the case of both emergency and natal care.
‘Consumers/client/patients/citizens’ have the right to know exactly what different treatment options are and are not going to be performed by supposedly ‘public hospitals’. The Department of Health should have been providing this information to women if some hospitals were treating patients based on religious beliefs, rather than purely medical and scientific grounds. Do they need a few lawsuits for wrongful removal of fallopian tubes vs the state for not providing this information to concentrate their minds perhaps.
For some reason or other, in the past Labor parties have been unwilling to push this line. Not sure why as it is indeed a vote-winner.
Probably because a number of the parliamentary Labor members don’t have a big problem with the sorts of conservative views held by many of the Liberals. Yes, they could go after the Libs as they did in NSW, but they’d be going after some of their own base too.
A point obliquely made by Christopher Pearson in Saturday’s Opposition Organ:
[Emphasis mine - PN]