The Abortion Legislation Reform Bill 2023 has been presented to the public as a means to align Western Australia’s abortion law with other states and bring it up to date. However, in reality, the bill fails to achieve either of these objectives. Notably, it overlooks four crucial provisions that were included in South Australia’s abortion law reform in 2021.
One of these provisions in South Australia was a ban on sex-selective abortions, which was introduced based on research conducted at La Trobe University. The research revealed a significant gender imbalance in certain ethnic communities in Australia, with 125 boys born for every 100 girls. It is utterly disturbing to think that the WA Bill would permit the abortion of a baby solely because of its gender.
Another significant omission in the WA Bill is the requirement for reporting so-called “failed” abortions. In states where late-term abortions have been made easily accessible, there have been a substantial number of cases where the baby is born alive. In Victoria and Queensland, these instances must be reported. Shockingly, between 2010 and 2020, 328 babies in Victoria and 398 in Queensland were born alive after failed abortion attempts, left to die without any medical or palliative care. South Australia recognized the importance of medical care for babies born alive following a late-term abortion and included this provision in their legislation.
To ensure that women have a true choice regarding abortion, the South Australian legislation mandates that women seeking information about abortion must be given details about where they can access independent counseling. Surveys consistently show that more than 50% of women who have undergone abortions felt pressured to do so. Therefore, this requirement should be supported by anyone who claims to be “pro-choice.”
In contrast, the WA Bill simply allows late-term abortions if the performing doctor can find another doctor who agrees that the procedure is appropriate in the given circumstances. It permits late-term abortions for psycho-social reasons, essentially allowing abortion up to birth for any reason or no reason at all. South Australian legislation is slightly more restrictive, permitting late-term abortions only if there is a significant risk of serious fetal abnormality or a serious risk to the physical or mental health of the mother. Surveys indicate that there is not widespread community support for late-term abortions of healthy babies who have a high chance of survival if born prematurely.
Interestingly, WA Health Minister Amber-Jade Sanderson dismissed a parliamentary e-petition calling for the inclusion of the South Australian provisions, labeling it as part of a “misinformation campaign from the pro-life Christian lobby.” However, she contradicts herself when she acknowledges that a small number of babies do pass away post-termination. It is also worth noting that medical research has shown that babies can begin to experience pain from 13 to 15 weeks gestation. As post-13-week abortions typically involve inducing labor using misoprostol, the unborn baby goes through significant trauma during the delivery process. Yet, the Bill does not require pain relief for the unborn baby during post-13-week abortions.
Since its landslide victory in 2021, the Labor government has refused to allow amendments to its legislation. The passing of the Aboriginal Heritage Bill in the lower house in just one day exemplified the government’s disregard for proper governance. However, Labor MLC Kate Doust should be commended for her courage in proposing amendments to incorporate the South Australian provisions into Western Australia’s abortion law. It remains to be seen whether members of the upper house prioritize party loyalty or a commitment to sound legislation.
Please note, the views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and may not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.