Once again, women’s bodies are back at the mercy of men and their ‘consciences’

Following the state election on the weekend, Queenslanders are staring down the barrel of a conscience vote on abortion rights in a parliament where around 63 per cent of MPs will be men – on a health issue that concerns women’s choices.

Within the newly elected Liberal National Party itself, three out of every four MPs are men, and the three MPs within Katter’s Australian Party – which promised to bring forward a private member’s bill to repeal abortion laws – are all men.

Protesters outside the South Australian parliament before a narrowly defeated bill to outlaw terminations after 27 weeks and six days.Credit: AAP

There are few decisions that cut across party lines – be they family, religion, age, race and socio-economic status – as obvious as terminating a pregnancy. It is a deeply personal choice, one that does not discriminate.

In the lead-up to David Crisafulli being sworn in as premier, fears surrounding the legality of abortion began to resurface across the country. In Queensland, Robbie Katter announced his plans, while at the same time in South Australia a proposed law change that would force women seeking abortions after 27 weeks and six days to be induced failed to pass by just one vote. Then federal Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price entered the fray, saying she doesn’t agree with abortions being offered to women “anywhere past the [first] trimester”.

It’s been a stark reminder that the lawfulness of abortion rests solely in the hands of politicians whose views aren’t always made public before election day.

In 2023, Crisafulli made clear that should legislation to repeal abortion access be brought before the parliament under his leadership, he would allow MPs a conscience vote. During the election campaign, he was asked upwards of 132 times in one week alone about his stance on terminating a pregnancy, but he declined to give a clear answer.

However, we know his stance because his voting record tells us. In 2018, alongside the majority of his party, Crisafulli voted against legalising abortion (the bill was ultimately passed without LNP support).

The nature of a conscience vote means that parliamentary members can choose which way they vote without conforming to party lines.

Given the prevalence of men in the LNP, it feels even more crucial that their personal views be declared before they can wield the parliamentary tools – or weapons, depending on how you look at it – to engage in a conscience vote over the right to terminate a pregnancy.

As women tremble amid this reignited debate, a question worth asking is: if politicians are given the freedom to vote according to their beliefs, should they be required to disclose their views on topics likely to be subject to a conscience vote, such as abortion or same-sex marriage, before an election? It seems farcical that women’s rights can be jeopardised by politicians’ personal philosophies.

In 1996, federal independent senator Brian Harradine introduced an amendment during the passage of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill 1996 that restricted the use of mifepristone (also known as RU486) and other abortion drugs. The amendment meant these drugs were classified as a restricted good, meaning control of the drugs sat with the health minister and not the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

A decade later and after much pressure, then prime minister John Howard agreed to hold a conscience vote on the issue. Pro-choice organisations argued that given all other healthcare policies are voted for on party lines, this vote should have been no different.

Ultimately, the conscience vote overturned Harradine’s amendment, stripping then health minister Tony Abbott of his power to control the drug. But it raised the question that has reared again in recent weeks: on medical issues, should people who are not health experts be allowed to vote on and determine the healthcare of others based purely on what their conscience tells them?

The reasons people seek abortions are varied, and complex: personal beliefs, economic instability, want, medical complications, and more. Unwanted or unviable pregnancies do not show prejudice; behind every terminated pregnancy is an individual forced to wrestle with the conviction of choice. That is – of course – if she is afforded that freedom from the men in charge.

Madison Griffiths is a freelance writer and author of Tissue.