Speech in Parliament: Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care (Termination of Pregnancy) Amendment Bill
29/07/2011
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (16:33): Given that it would seem this debate is going ahead today, I wish to place my position on the record. If nothing else, I feel that this bill serves as a good reminder to us that sometimes issues that seem simple at first can actually turn out to be the most complex.
The general concept of this bill; that is, informing individuals and couples of their options when it comes to pregnancy is something that I do support, but I must say that I am concerned that the way this bill is structured might mean that the information given out could be more hindrance than help. I am not, and I do not believe that anyone is, pro-abortion, but I make no secret of the fact that I am ‘pro-choice’ on the issue of abortion, and it is in this context that I raise my concern about this bill.
The Hon. Mr Hood stated, when introducing this bill, that he believed that there is ‘no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy’. I believe what he meant was that there is always someone out there, be they a foster or adoptive parent, who is ready and willing to take care of the child. This may well be true. I do hope so. However, whilst I would not dare to insinuate that the Hon. Mr Hood is lacking in biological knowledge by any means, I would make the point that a child and the pregnancy from which that child results, though intertwined, are two separate things—two separate experiences, if you will.
Pregnancy, as I am sure we are all aware, is one of the most life-changing and all-consuming experiences a person, a couple or a family can go through, and much of the time this is a wondrous thing. However, there are also many circumstances which may mean that a pregnancy is not going to be embraced and enjoyed by the woman and others involved: instances, for example, where the pregnancy is the result of rape; instances where the mother is very young or where carrying out the pregnancy is almost certain to put the health or even the life of the mother in serious jeopardy; or, less extreme but still relevant, an instance where the woman simply does not want to be pregnant and finds the change in and disruption to her body burdensome and terrifying, rather than enjoyable.
I am fortunate in that I have not been in any of these situations, so I would not dare to speak for these women who have, but I do suspect that it would be asking a lot of them, to say the least, to expect them to go through what could be potentially lifelong physical or mental anguish for the good of someone else getting a baby out of it. Indeed, some women and families do choose to do this, and I applaud their bravery, but at the end of the day this is far too complex and subjective an experience for it not to be up to the individuals involved. For these reasons, I disagree with the Hon. Mr Hood’s assumption that no pregnancy is unwanted, and it concerns me that his intention for this legislation is built on that foundation.
I have further concerns about this bill in that, while I believe that distribution of honest, impartial and informative pamphlets about pregnancy options is a good idea, I do not believe that this bill sets out how this distribution must be done in enough detail to ensure that a woman will not feel pressured about her choices. The bill states that a woman must be given the information about options ‘at the time of personal examination by the medical practitioner who will be performing the termination’.
Clearly, this implies that the information will be distributed once the woman has already decided to have an abortion. I entirely object to this, as I think a woman who has already made the decision to have an abortion might feel that her doctor thinks she is doing the wrong thing if said doctor begins informing her of her options at this late stage. This worry of mine is further compounded by the fact that this bill does not specify that abortion must also be listed as an option in the pamphlet, so it is hardly putting all the choices on an equal footing.
If the proposed information could somehow be distributed at an earlier stage in the process of decision-making, I would be much more inclined to consider this bill. I understand that there have been conversations around that issue, and I look forward to seeing the results of them, but as the bill stands it is far too vague and under-detailed to reassure me that there is no possibility that it could be used to intimidate or shame a woman out of having a termination. I will never use my vote to support a measure that could lead to such an appalling curtailing of choice.
Indeed, I would suggest that if the Hon. Mr Hood wants my help in lowering the number of abortions performed in South Australia, he should introduce legislation that addresses the reason for most abortions. Most abortions, I would argue, are a result of unwanted pregnancies. If the Hon. Mr Hood can reconcile himself to the existence of such pregnancies, then maybe we could work together on implementing a more thorough and effective safe sex education program throughout the community. That way the people who do not want to get pregnant will know how to avoid it, and they will not need to even consider the option of abortion.
To me, that would be an effective and ethical way of lowering the abortion rate, but somehow I unfortunately suspect that the Hon. Mr Hood might not be interested in supporting this method, just as I am not interested in supporting his, as a woman, as a person and as a human rights activist.
Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. B.V. Finnigan.
