abortion
2 Jul 2009
You Can't Be Just A Little Bit Pro-Choice
Were Anna Bligh's public comments on an abortion case in Queensland deliberately misleading, or just an honest mistake?
At the Queensland ALP State Conference in early June, the party's long-held policy on abortion was reaffirmed. Labor's policy platform calls for "all legal distinctions between termination of pregnancy and other medical procedures [to] be abolished by repealing sections 224, 225 and 226 of the Criminal Code". Thus far, the Queensland ALP has failed to legislate this plank of the policy platform.In April, two Cairns residents were charged under these very sections of the Queensland Criminal Code. Tegan Leach, who is 19, allegedly took misoprostol (not RU486 as some media reports are stating) to induce a miscarriage around eight weeks into her unwanted pregnancy. Misoprostol is a drug approved for use for treatment of gastric ulcers by the Therapeutic Drugs Administration. Leach was arrested months after the alleged abortion took place. Her partner, Sergie Brennan, was charged with procuring and supplying drugs to procure an abortion. Brennan's sister allegedly brought the misoprostol into the country from overseas, but has not been charged.
According to The Australian, Queensland Premier Anna Bligh has claimed that this case is mainly concerned with the importation of misoprostol and its use without medical supervision.
"I think that no matter what happens with the law in relation to terminations you would still see prosecutions in these circumstances go ahead," Bligh said.
The implication of Bligh's comment — that the prosecution of Leach and Brennan bears on the importation of drugs rather than abortion — is misleading at best. The two defendants in Cairns aren't facing charges under drug laws. Leach and Brennan face lengthy prison sentences after being charged under the QLD Criminal Code (1899) in the chapter pertaining to "offences against morality" for procuring an abortion — a choice many couples have made before them.
Leach was charged under section 225 and faces a maximum seven years in prison. Section 225 states:
"Any woman who, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, whether she is or is not with child, unlawfully administers to herself any poison or other noxious thing, or uses any force of any kind, or uses any other means whatever, or permits any such thing or means to be administered or used to her, is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years."
Brennan faces three years and is being charged under Section 226:
"Any person who unlawfully supplies to or procures for any person anything whatever, knowing that it is intended to be unlawfully used to procure the miscarriage of a woman, whether she is or is not with child, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years."
The Section used to prosecute doctors for procuring an abortion is Section 224, which states:
"Any person who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a woman, whether she is or is not with child, unlawfully administers to her or causes her to take any poison or other noxious thing, or uses any force of any kind, or uses any other means whatever, is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 14 years."
However, Section 282 then goes on to state:
"A person is not criminally responsible for performing in good faith and with reasonable care and skill a surgical operation upon any person for the patient's benefit, or upon an unborn child for the preservation of the mother's life, if the performance of the operation is reasonable, having regard to the patient's state at the time and to all circumstances of the case."
The last time someone was charged in Queensland under section 224 was in R v Bayliss and Cullen (1986) when two doctors were brought before the courts. They were eventually found not guilty because of the parameters set out in section 282. It has been over 50 years since anyone was charged under section 225, and section 226 has probably never been used. The commitment of the Queensland ALP platform to repeal these sections seems far from radical in view of this case history. "I don't know what the government is waiting for before they decide to act," says Kate Marsh from pro-choice organisation Children by Choice.
Medical practitioners throughout Australia use misoprostol and a cancer drug methotrexate for "medical abortion". However, because Queensland law only allows "surgical" abortion to save a woman's life, the use of misoprostol for "medical" abortions isn't technically permitted. Medical practitioners are using these drugs "off-label" and apparently putting themselves at risk of prosecution — a calculated risk many doctors have taken to date. However, the prosecution of Leach and Brennan has already diminished women's choices surrounding terminations in Queensland as doctors reconsider what options they can legally offer to their patients.
Cairns doctor Caroline De Costa was one of a handful of medical practitioners given permission for a trial period to use RU486 and misoprostol to induce miscarriage before the nine-week mark of a pregnancy. De Costa has now ceased offering those options because of fears of prosecution.
De Costa's legal advice has been that Queensland laws override any permission given by the Therapeutic Goods Administration in regards to use of the drug for abortion. Her colleague, Dr Michael Carrette, has also stopped offering RU486 and misoprostol for abortions. Both have urged the medical profession to down their tools, so to speak, until the laws are clarified.
"We have decided to stop RU486/misoprostol abortions until the law is changed. We are aware that at least one doctor in Brisbane previously doing methotrexate abortions has stopped. We cannot rely on the assurances of politicians that 'it will all be all right' when it is clear from our expert legal opinion that it's not," De Costa told newmatilda.com.
She believes the law is in urgent need of updating to reflect community views and current accepted medical practice.
"Unfortunately the Government has not listened to what we have been saying for the past three years [since they were given permission to dispense RU486] — that the law on abortion dates from the 19th century and needs updating, or in my opinion, decriminalisation," she said.
"Anna Bligh has repeatedly said that 'abortion is a matter for a woman and her doctor'. I entirely agree, but this is not the case at present in Queensland because abortion is a crime, and the doctor cannot provide a number of options for Queensland women available elsewhere in Australia."
"It's not about the morality or ethics of abortion. There is no reason why she cannot explain this to her Government and the public and send the current law to the Law Reform Commission to report back on, as has happened in Victoria."
Abortion was decriminalised in Victoria last year after the laws were reviewed by that state's Law Reform Commission — but Bligh is resisting calls to do the same in Queensland. She has stated that any changes to the laws governing abortion in Queensland would have to come about by way of a private member's bill — which she has no intention of introducing.
Premier Bligh has chosen to do nothing about the strict abortion laws in the state she leads, even though she is known to be pro-choice and a recent poll showed that 79 per cent of Queensland residents support reform of abortion laws. There was only slightly less support for decriminalisation among conservatives. Emily's List, a political network, which supports Labor women candidates who are pro-choice and supportive of action on child-care and equal pay, endorsed Premier Bligh at the last election. A representative from Emily's List has said they wouldn't be withdrawing support for the Premier over her inaction. "How each MP manifests their pro-choice position is up to them. We don't dictate to MPs that they should bring forward legislation or vote one way or another," National co-convenor of Emily's List, Hutch Hussein said.
Premier Bligh's actions, or rather inaction, on abortion laws has serious implications for the women of Queensland, particularly if the two defendants in the Cairns case are found guilty. A successful prosecution could lead the way to more people being charged under the moral offences section of a criminal code which was written at the end of the 19th century. Premier Bligh's public comments on the case obscure the issue. Indeed, the misleading nature of her comments irresponsibly deflects legitimate calls for action and reform on reproductive rights in Queensland.
The Cairns case has been adjourned until 8 July. Premier Bligh's office had not yet responded to newmatilda.com's questions at time of publication.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Anna Bligh is very keen to cultivate herself with the most base of evangelical Christians in Qld and across the nation, as is Rudd, and as was Howard and Beattie for that matter.
Her previous persona as a ‘leftwing feminist’ was ditched years ago as she sought ever higher jobs on the green leather.
Whatever once may have been there, as a social justice campaigner of some worth and merit, has long evaporated.
The ALP in Qld, as with the ALP in all states and in Canberra, has one imperative only, to remain on-side with business and with noisy rightwing groups, like the ACL, AOG churches, Hillsong, and worse.
This was no mistake on Bligh’s part.
If she had to be seen ‘going to Church’ she would be.
The lure of power, even when nothing useful comes from it, is all-consuming.
If only all the pro-abortionists’ mothers could have been allowed to abort their own babies, in the most compassionate way only a loving and devoted mother could do, well we wouldn’t have all the fuss today over trying to kill the unwanted and despicable little humans growing in wombs all over the country.
The saga continues…
Ah, Ahisma, many of them WERE allowed to abort their babies. They chose not to
The dignity of risk is involved here; as well as the right of a women to choose her own method of legal abortion.
The fact that a nation asks young people to sacrifice their lives in wars is a far greater transgression of human rights and is a far more violent solution to what can often amount to similiar reasons.
Either its an economic solution to be resolved or its a political/social problem.
In a nation’s case a young death in war is glorified; whereas in the case of a woman trying to save a marriage or keep a family together by ridding herself of one of hundreds of potential human beings she could produce, it’s demonised.
So getting rid of a little blob that may or may not miscarriage (like hundreds of other blobs of blood before it) is worse than sending young people in the prime of their lives into dangerous war zones to be killed and maimed!
This is society at its most hypocritical and self-righteously morbid.
I am still struggling with the use of the word moral in a secular law. Surely we can start to put aside that loaded word and start to think about ethics, which are at least aspirational and changable rather than mired in a decreasingly relevant JudeoChristian dogma.
The law has no place in this decision anyway, just as it has no place in decisions about suicide or euthanisia. Surely some of the most basic rights are those that arise from personal decision making about our own bodies. Indeed abortion is a human activity, like drug use, that regulation and legislation has done little to change. Obviously this is related to the inability to police such decisions.
If haters like Ahimsa want people to stop having abortions they should continue their abusive polemic, if that is their preferred method for socialising people toward ‘approved’ activity. For this is a social matter, not one for lawyers or police.
The nasty suggestion that pro-abortionists (what is that anyway, someone who is keen on abortions, like happy to see them happening? Do such people exist? Perhaps we should stay with pro-choice, which is used for a reason) should have been aborted themselves has so little logic that is barely deserves attention. Suffice it to say that as long as there are unwanted pregnancies there will be abortion, its not genetic, Ahimsa, its behavioural.
Quite right Dr. Dog
If there was any truth in the so called basis of this "crime" they would bring a charge in relation to the illegal importation.
As groucho Marx said " I’m aman of Principle if you don’t like these I have others" So says Anna Bligh!
Atheistno1
The whole problem is religion. They just can’t leave the individual to decide for themselves. They think they are Doctors & lawyers who have a ‘GOD’ given right to medal in other peoples lives & decide whats best for everyone.
This alone tells us that they are not the intelligent species & choices are what have made the world what it is today.
Without religion, there wouldn’t be so many quarrels & wars. People would have a clearer understanding of what they wish to accomplish in life.
Take it from an Atheist, "there is no such thing as ‘God’.
Anna "Margaret Thatcher" Bligh strikes another blow for the Far Right Religious in Queensland. Well said, lambofchrist and Dr.Dog.
If this woman ever had any ethics and ‘Left Wing’ progressive credentials, they were left behind a damned long time ago.
Now, she is endeavouring to take Queensland further Right than it has ever been, and Bananaland has always been a place of Religious Nutters, insane God Botherers (remember Joh ‘Belching Peanut’) and very bad Red- Necks.
Gawd, (there we go again!) the ‘other mob’ are starting to appear as rational human beings in comparison. And that is really saying something!
That massive tooth display she delivers when she supposedly smiles, and in reality shows her bloodied fangs, scares the Hell out of me! Dazza.
As usual, I find myself substantially in agreement with Dr Dog, the thinking canophile’s choice for the Senate.
I am totally horrified that this young couple are having to go through such a terrible trial when they were being responsible citizens. Whoever did this knew the law so well and wanted to make them suffer for a despicable purpose, we are yet to find out.
As an ALP member it is so sad that Anna Bligh is not putting this anachronistic law into the dustbin of history - made before women got the vote.
To think that our Premier and MPs would be so influenced by a Patriarchal religions based on stone age texts just makes us a theocracy like Iran!
I had an abortion. It was the best thing to do in my circumstances. Accidents happen even when you use contraception.
Science has understood the workings of the reproductive system and assisted us to control our destiny. If anti-abortion people used their energy to supporting family planning and health care for child birth in third world countries where maternal deaths are a staggering figure the world would be a much happier place. Julie