By Gabrielle Jackson
The
latest American cultural import comes to Australia via the Democratic Labor
Party Senator for Victoria, John Madigan. He has introduced a bill to ban
Medicare funding for sex-selected abortions in Australia.
Sounds
reasonable, doesn’t it? Especially when you consider that most sex-selected
abortions result in the termination of female foetuses.
Or
does it?
If we
believe a woman has the right to choose, then we must believe that all women have the right to choose,
whatever her reasons may be. We cannot say that only educated, liberal,
westernised feminists have the right to choose because their reasons are more
amenable to our beliefs.
A
woman’s reasons for choosing to abort are neither my business nor my concern.
Her right to choose is my only concern and it must be defended at all costs. I’m
not sure whether –in countries such as Australia – the provider should even
have the right to ask a woman’s reason. Aren’t we capable of making this
life-changing decision all by ourselves? Or do we still need the circumspection
of others (usually men) to ensure we’re making the ‘right’ decision?
It’s
the same argument that is used for free speech. I don’t believe in that right because
I like to listen to the opinions of people who agree with me. I don’t defend
women’s right to choose because I assume she’s choosing to abort because she
was raped, or she’s young, or for any other ‘good’ reason. Women, and men,
fought for abortion to be legalised because they believed a woman had the right
to control her own body. To start introducing clauses is to diminish the crux
of the defense of abortion in its entirety.
And
therein lies the secret of this spurious bill. There is no evidence to suggest
that sex-selected abortions are happening at a concerning rate in Australia at
all. The bill, called the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Funding for
Certain Types of Abortion) Bill 2013, has been referred to the Standing
Committee on Finance and Public Administration, which has received many
hundreds of submissions, overwhelmingly in support of the bill.
The Women’s Centre for Health Matters also made
a submission,
pointing to the lack of evidence that sex-selection was even an issue in
Australia.
‘Were sex-selective abortions taking place in Australia on a systematic basis, this would be revealed through skewed gender ratios. Australia has a normal ratio of male-to-female births.
‘Looking at data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics from 2011, just over half (51%) of all births registered were male babies, resulting in a sex ratio at birth of 105.7 male births per 100 female births. This is a biologically normal sex ratio at birth and does not indicate a skewed sex ratio in Australia.
‘Taking a view of the population overall, we see that at June 2011 there were 124,700 more females than males residing in Australia, with 11.2 million females and 11.1 million males.’
In the latest posting of Anne Summers Reports – which does
a good summary of this debate – Summers claims that the make up of today’s
parliament is no longer pro-choice. What will happen to women’s right if the
anti-abortion activist Tony Abbott becomes prime minister is anyone’s guess.
(Let’s not forget that as Health Minister Abbott tried to personally veto the
import of the abortion drug RU486 - a drug that is on the World Health Organisation's list of essential medicines and is already available in more than 50 countries. Under the current government, it
has been recommended for cover on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which
would make a safe, legal abortion available for as low as $12. A final decision
is imminent.)
This isn’t to say that sex-selected abortions aren’t a
public health issue everywhere. I was in many hospitals in India and was
confronted with countless posters and pamphlets addressing the issue. Posters
reminded doctors and patients that sex-selected abortions are illegal. Doctors
face heavy penalties and even licence restrictions for performing these
terminations. But these penalties were framed within a wider public campaign
promoting the dignity of the girl child.
Of course, this campaign has a long way to go. Girls
who aren’t aborted are often left to fend for themselves. Abandoned, abused and
ignored. All countries, not just India, should be looking to build a society
in which it is not a burden to give birth to a girl, where her rights are
respected and she can grow up to be a valuable, loved and loving, member of her
family and the society she lives in.
If we don’t want women to abort female foetuses, we
should be promoting equal opportunity for women, not banning her right to
control her own body.
And we should see this bill for what it is in modern
day Australia – an underhanded way to restrict abortion by stealth.
Do look up this Anne
Summers Reports newsletter, which includes an impassioned article by the
American feminist and abortion provider Merle Hoffman.
