Fair Agenda

On Wednesday September 17, Independent SA MP Sarah Game introduced her Bill to restrict the care doctors can provide their patients after 23 weeks of pregnancy. Sarah Game has described this bill as “a good first start,” and has made clear she is “pro-life from conception.” 

She wants to override current laws - and interfere with the ability of doctors to provide their patient with the best care.

This Bill is an attempt to roll back abortion laws in South Australia starting with abortion care later in pregnancy.  It was due to be debated in the South Australian Legislative Council on Wednesday October 15 but was rescheduled to Wednesday November 12

A woman can need to access abortion care after 23 weeks for a range of complex, distressing and deeply personal reasons. She may have received a catastrophic diagnosis for her own health and need to end her pregnancy for the best chance of recovery, or an abuser may use the pregnancy to trap her in the relationship, and have obstructed her ability to access earlier care, she may be a survivor of incest or sex trafficking. She and her medical team should be able to discuss the best care options in her unique circumstances. 

Sarah Game is trying to give politicians the ultimate say - by limiting the care a woman’s medical team can legally provide to her. Specifically, she wants to remove key legal provisions that allow a medical team to consider the needs and health of the person who is actually pregnant,  essentially subverting a woman's needs to her function as the incubator of a pregnancy. 

Here is a breakdown of the current laws (introduced on the recommendations of the SA Law Reform Institute), with red indicating the provisions that Sarah Games’ amendments would delete from the laws. It is worth noting that the South Australian Law Society has also condemned the proposed changes. 

The Current laws - text in red italics is what is being removed
6—Terminations by medical practitioner after 22 weeks and 6 days

1. A medical practitioner may perform a termination on a person who is more than 22 weeks and 6 days pregnant if -
   two medical practitioners consider that, in all the circumstances—

(i) the termination is necessary to save the life of the pregnant person or save another foetus; or
(ii) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve significant risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant person; or
(iii) there is a case, or significant risk, of serious foetal anomalies associated with the pregnancy; and

9—Mandatory considerations for medical practitioners performing terminations after 22 weeks and 6 days

In assessing matters for the purposes of section 6(1), a medical practitioner must, when determining whether to perform a termination, have regard to the following:

(a) whether it is essential to perform a termination of an affected foetus in a multiple pregnancy at a gestation that does not risk severe prematurity and its attendant consequences for the surviving foetus;
(b) whether there are serious foetal abnormalities that were not identifiable, diagnosed or fully evaluated before the pregnancy reached 22 weeks and 6 days, including but not limited to abnormalities involving the brain, heart, renal and skeletal systems, or whether the foetus has been exposed to infective agents which may damage or limit the gestation and development of the foetus;
(c) whether the patient has had difficulty accessing timely and necessary specialist services before the pregnancy reached 22 weeks and 6 days, including but not limited to patients experiencing significant socio-economic disadvantage, cultural or language barriers and those who reside in remote locations;
(d) whether a patient has been denied agency over the decision to continue a pregnancy or not, including (but not limited to) the abuse of minors and vulnerable adults to sexual and physical violence including rape, incest and sexual slavery;
(e) whether the abuse outlined in paragraph (d) includes circumstances in which such abuse is not apparent, or the pregnancy is not diagnosed until an advanced gestational age;
(f) whether medical or psychiatric conditions may become apparent or deteriorate during the pregnancy to the point where they are a threat to the patient's life;
(g) whether the patient has a deteriorating maternal medical condition, or late diagnosis of a disease requiring treatment incompatible with an ongoing pregnancy (such as malignancies)

When we need healthcare, we should be able to rely on a system that supports us to make an informed decision, and access to a team who can provide the best care for our circumstances. Politicians should not be overriding and limiting the treatment that is best in our complex personal circumstances.

Key medical organisations have condemned this proposed Bill with the RANZCOG, Australian College of Midwives and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners all making their opposition clear. 

The question is simple: do we trust a woman and her medical teams to make the best decisions for their specific and unique personal circumstances — or do we hand that power to politicians who have no idea what it’s like to walk in their shoes? 

South Australians fought hard to ensure abortion care was recognised as healthcare and that the decision to continue or end a pregnancy rests with a woman and her healthcare team. We must stand up again to defend that principle.

What Can I Do?

These proposed changes  will be debated in the South Australian Legislative Council on October 15. Make sure that  Members of the Legislative Council know that South Australians want a woman’s access to safe abortion care protected. Email the Legislative Council Members now

If you have already taken these actions - thank you. Please share our petition and letter writing action with friends and family