Facts
Abortion Law in Queensland [0]
Medication abortion and the law [0]
Australian law [0]
The law and service provision [0]
Summary of Victorian reforms of 2008 [0]
Surgical Abortion [0]
Medication Abortion [0]
Conscientious Objection [0]
Australian Service Provision [0]
Risks of Abortion [0]
Societal
Issues
Counselling [0]
Public Opinion [0]
Religion and Choice [0]
Abortion Rates [0]
Abortion as contraception [0]
Abortion at a later gestation [0]
top [0]
Queensland Criminal Code [1] (1899) under Sections 224, 225
and 226. Women can be criminally prosecuted for accessing abortion.
Section 224. Any person who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a woman, whether she is or is not with child,
unlawfully administers to her or causes her to take any poison or other noxious thing, or uses any force of any kind, or
uses any other means whatever, is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.
Section 225. Any woman who, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, whether she is or is not with child, unlawfully
administers to herself any poison or other noxious thing, or uses any force of any kind, or uses any other means whatever,
or permits any such thing or means to be administered or used to her, is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment
for 7 years.
Section 226. Any person who unlawfully supplies to or procures for any person anything whatever, knowing that it is
intended to be unlawfully used to procure the miscarriage of a woman, whether she is or is not with child, is guilty of a
misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.
However, due to the R v Bayliss and Cullen court case in 1986 (see below) and the resulting judgement, an abortion is
lawful in Queensland if carried out when there is serious danger to the woman's physical and mental health from the
continuation of the pregnancy. Section 282 of the Criminal Code attempts to define a lawful abortion and is used as a
defence to unlawful abortion. The wording was amended in September 2009 to include medical abortion:
A person is not criminally responsible for performing or providing, in good faith and with reasonable care and skill a
surgical operation on or medical treatment of:
a) a person or unborn child for the patient's benefit; or
b) a person or unborn child to preserve the mother's life;
if performing the operation or providing the medical treatment is reasonable, having regard to the patient's state at the
time and to all circumstances of the case.
R v Bayliss and Cullen
In May 1985 the Queensland police under the Bjelke-Petersen government raided the Greenslopes Fertility Control Clinic
which had opened in 1976 and had undergone political pressure since that time. Police interrogated women and took away
20,000 confidential patient files to be copied and studied. As a result, Doctors Bayliss and Cullen were charged with
procuring an illegal abortion contrary to Section 224 of the Criminal Code, and inflicting grievous bodily harm.
The presiding judge at that trial R v Bayliss and Cullen (1986) was Judge McGuire. At the conclusion of the trial, Doctors
Bayliss and Cullen were found not guilty, and the basis for lawful abortion in Queensland currently rests on Judge
McGuire's decision. Until 2009, the law on abortion had not been tested as the prosecuting authorities have
'turned a blind
eye', and the Queensland Parliament has not acted to address Judge Maguire's concern around the uncertainty of the law.
More information on the proceedings of the Bayliss and Cullen case are available at the Children by Choice website [2].
top [2]
Cairns 2009
In April 2009, a 19-year-old Cairns woman was charged under section 225 in the Queensland Criminal Code, for procuring her
own miscarriage. Her partner was charged under section 226 for assisting her. The case was committed to trial in September
2009, with their trial set to begin 12 October 2010 - they face potential jail terms of seven and three years respectively
if convicted.
Police allege the couple arranged for a relative to bring a supply of the drug misoprostol, used in medical abortions, to
Australia while on a visit from the Ukraine. It is further alleged the woman used the drug successfully to terminate her
pregnancy at 60 days, after the couple decided they were too young to parent. Police claim the couple made no inquiries
about the availability of abortion in Cairns.
The couple face a combined 10 years' imprisonment if convicted of the offences, which have been brought under the
antiquated Criminal Code provisions relating to abortion. This is the first time in over 50 years that a woman has been
charged in Queensland for choosing abortion.
The charges caused two Cairns doctors providing medication abortion to cease doing so, for fear their patients would be
similarly targeted. Read their article in Crikey [3] for a full description of their concerns. This sparked a similar reaction from
doctors practicing in public hospitals around the state. Download a
timeline of events for more information (PDF 162KB) [4].
top [4]
top [4]
Current provision of services following 2009 withdrawals and legislative changes
Since the reforms were put through, most doctors (though notably, not all) have gradually returned to providing medical
abortion. However, conversations with doctors have revealed two things: that they resumed providing not because of a
certainty that they were legally protected from prosecution but because they felt they could no longer turn women away from
services they wanted and needed; and that the uncertainty within the medical profession on the legality of abortion in this
state has, if anything, increased since the September 2009 reforms.
Doctors within the public health system, who provide a limited number of terminations for women with maternal health
problems or who receive a diagnosis of severe fetal anomaly, have told us that since the reforms these terminations are
even more stringently monitored. Before the reforms, doctors were trusted to make a professional judgement on their
patients' circumstances on a case by case basis, to determine if an abortion was performed. Now, women in these
circumstances are routinely subjected to full psychiatric evaluations, sometimes by two different psychiatrists, which
determine their access to a termination. Children by Choice heard of a case recently where a young woman had taken almost-
fatal overdoses of drugs three times to try and end her pregnancy, not caring if the end result was her own death. Doctors
at her public hospital still refused her a termination. Other doctors tell us they have begun warning women of the
difficulties in accessing terminations before they embark on diagnostic testing during a pregnancy - a public service
offered to every pregnant woman throughout the country, the aim of which is to detect any possible problems with the
pregnancy or the health of mother and fetus. One implied outcome of these tests is the possibility a woman may choose to
terminate a pregnancy if problems are diagnosed.
The letter of the law as it stands states that the only grounds for a lawful termination in Queensland is to save the life
of the woman or to prevent a serious threat to her physical or mental health. Rape, incest, or a fetal anomaly - even one
so serious as to be incompatible with life, such as anencephaly - are not sufficient grounds for a legal abortion in
Queensland. If a woman is told at 13 weeks into her pregnancy that her baby will not survive birth, such as one woman who
contacted Children by Choice late last year was after a routine ultrasound showed her fetus was developing without a brain,
she cannot lawfully choose to terminate that pregnancy before it dies in her womb. Ironically, after she miscarries or
delivers a stillborn, treatment is available at any hospital.
With this law now being interpreted much more narrowly than before the 282 reforms, the only way that women presenting for
abortion on any of the above grounds - rape, incest, fetal anomaly - can legally access a termination is to prove to a
doctor that the effect of this on her physical or mental health is so extreme that she needs an abortion. In effect, women
who are perfectly capable of making a rational decision are not recognised as decision makers worthy of respect, and have
to feign hysteria or lie about their level of mental stress in order to access abortion.
Dr Caroline de Costa, an obstetrician and gynaecologist in Cairns, recently wrote of a similar case for top [4]
See below [4]), after the tabling of the Abortion
Law Reform Bill in Parliament.
The ACT fully legalised abortion in 2002, and now has the most progressive law in the country. All statutory and common law
offences of abortion have been repealed, and the procedure is now regulated in the Health Act. There is no evidence that
any increase in demand for abortion at any stage of gestation has occurred.
In contrast, law reform in WA, in 1998, had less positive outcomes. The law is unnecessarily confusing prior to 20 weeks
gestation, and after 20 weeks gestation access for termination is complex, requiring each woman's case to be evaluated by a
faceless committee. Documented problems with the regime include women feeling pressured to make a quick rather than
considered decision after a negative fetal diagnosis when the pregnancy is less than 20 weeks, and of women failing to bond
with babies they were compelled to deliver after being denied abortion by the committee. Read the Department of Health and
Department of Justice's Review
of the Amendments [5] (PDF 369 KB).
A summary of abortion laws throughout Australia can be found on the Children by Choice [6] website.
top [6]
top [6]
Pro Choice Vic [7] website for
news reports on the debates and the campaigns). These inflammatory tactics were unsuccessful and the bill has now been
passed into law, in a victory for women and choice in Victoria.
top [7]
Children by Choice [8] website.
The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist has prepared a resource document for health
professionals, summarising current medical evidence and reference material about methods of termination of pregnancy prior
to 20 weeks gestation. The Termination of Pregnancy publication can be downloaded from the RANZCOG [9] website.
top [9]
Reproductive Choice Australia booklet RU486 (Mifepristone): a factual guide to the Australian debate (PDF,
1.12MB) [10].
In the absence of RU486, an alternative method available for Australian women to procure a medication abortion is using a
methotrexate-misoprostol regimen.
top [10]
top [10]
Abortion Services in Australia [11]. For more information on service
provision in Queensland, including costs visit the Children by Choice [12]
website.
top [12]
RANZCOG [13], states that serious
complications after abortions are rare, and that mortality and serious morbidity occur less commonly with abortions than
with pregnancies carried to term. While minor surgery or the administration of medication does carry some risks, both
surgical and medical methods of abortion should not have any adverse effect on future fertility.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the UK identifies that there are no proven associations between
induced abortion and subsequent ectopic pregnancy, placenta praevia or infertility, a view supported by RANZCOG, who state
that women who have an uncomplicated termination are not at an increased risk of being infertile in the future.
Breast cancer
Around the world, reproductive health and anti-cancer organisations have rejected any association between abortion and an
increased risk of breast cancer. This rejection is based on reliable scientific investigation, documented in reputable
medical publications, and has been endorsed by the World Health Organisation.
One study published in the Lancet medical journal [14] in 2004 was an analysis of 53 studies, involving 83,000 women with breast cancer
from 16 countries, found that there was no evidence of a difference in breast cancer rates between women who had had an
abortion and those who had not.
Neither the United States Cancer Council or its Australian counterpart recognise abortion as a risk factor for cancer.
Emotional trauma
Every woman experiences the termination of a pregnancy differently, but there is no evidence to suggest that it can cause
permanent emotional strain. The American Psychological Association's Taskforce on Mental Health and Abortion reviewed 20
years of research and studies into the psychological effects of abortion and released its final report in 2008 [15]. It found no difference in the
psychological effect of terminating an unplanned pregnancy and carrying that pregnancy to term. Reviews of studies into the
issue have found a number of consistent trends:
The legal and voluntary termination of a pregnancy rarely causes immediate or long-lasting negative psychological
consequences in healthy women;
Greater partner or parental support improves the psychological outcomes for the woman and that having an abortion
results in few negative outcomes to the relationship;
Some studies have reported positive outcomes, such as feelings of relief, for women.
In 2005, The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) reviewed the evidence
on the psychological impact of abortion and concluded that 'Psychological studies suggest that there is mainly improvement
in psychological wellbeing in the short term after termination of pregnancy [and that] there are rarely immediate or
lasting negative consequences'. Read the RANZCOG report Termination of Pregnancy: a resource for health professionals (PDF 193 KB) [16].
For a summary of the extensive research findings in the area of mental health and abortion see Abortion, Informed Consent, and Mental Health [17] by Nancy Felipe
Russo and Lisa Rubin. A summary of the scientific research in this area can also be found in an article on post-abortion
issue on the National Abortion
Federation [18] website.
top [18]
Risks of abortion [18] above). Should this change, Pro Choice QLD would
support the updating of the information disclosed to women prior to their consenting to an abortion.
Counselling should never be mandatory. Pregnancy counselling, like other forms of counselling, is ineffective unless the
patient wants the service. Compelling a woman or couple who are clear about her/their decision to undergo counselling
undermines her/their dignity and is a waste of tax-payer resources.
For more information, read Marie Stopes International's study, What Women Want When Faced With an Unplanned Pregnancy (PDF 192 KB) [19]. For information on what an unbiased
pregnancy counselling service provides visit the Children
By Choice [20] website.
top [20]
What do
Australians Think About Abortion (PDF 291 KB) [21].
top [21]
What do
Australians Think About Abortion (PDF 291 KB) [22].
In 2008, The Melbourne Anglican Church put a submission to the Victorian Law Reform Commission supporting the 'Éprovision
of safe and affordable abortions with appropriate safeguards for women who, for whatever reasons, request them.' Read the submission from the Anglican Diocese of
Melbourne [23].
The Centre for Reproductive Rights has written a report on the perspective of abortion adopted by Christianity, Islam,
Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism, Religious Voices Worldwide (PDF
119 KB) [24].
A summary of the attitudes and beliefs of seven faith groups can be found on the UK Family Planning Association's fact
sheet on Religion, contraception and
abortion [25].
It is a myth that the Bible forbids abortion. It is largely silent on the matter, and what it does say is open to
interpretation.
Some Catholics affirm the moral capacity of women and men to make sound decisions about their reproductive lives. For
further information, see the website of Catholics for a Free Choice [26].
top [26]
Abortion in Australia (PDF 60KB) [27]. Further discussion
on the issue of abortion statistics can be found at The Parliamentary Library paper, How many abortions are there in Australia? [28]
It has been established by experts in the field that there is no relationship between the legality or otherwise of abortion
and abortion rates. One anti-choice argument for not liberalising abortion law in Australia is that it would result in an
increase in abortions. However, many other countries with legalised abortion access have a much lower abortion rate than
Australia.
The finding that there is no predictive relationship between the legal framework surrounding abortion and abortion rates
was reiterated in a 2007 article in The Lancet, by Sedgh, Henshaw, Singh, Ahman and Shah - 'unrestrictive abortions
laws do not predict a high incidence of abortion and by the same token, highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated
with low abortion incidence'. View the full article, Induced abortion: estimated
rates and trends worldwide (PDF 149 KB) [29].
In March 2008, the Council of Europe invited all member states to decriminalise abortion on the grounds that 'A ban on
abortions does not result in fewer abortions, but mainly leads to clandestine abortions, which are more traumatic and more
dangerous'. See their full report, Access
to safe and legal abortion in Europe (PDF 123 KB) [30].
top [30]
Unsafe Abortion [31].
Further information on contraceptive options can be found at Family Planning Queensland [32] and Marie Stopes
International [33].
For these reasons it is vital that abortion should be available as a back-up for women who are already taking other
measures to prevent pregnancy.
top [33]
Termination of Pregnancy Post 24 Weeks background paper (PDF 65KB) [34].
The decision to abort in any of these circumstances is a difficult one, and often made more complex by the lack of
available termination services for post-20 week abortion. Gestational limits for legal abortion have had extremely negative
outcomes for women in other jurisdictions, including in WA where a 20-week cut off has resulted in women having to make a
very fast decision on whether to abort after receiving a diagnosis of fetal abnormality later in pregnancy. Currently, in
Western Australia, women requesting termination past 20 weeks are referred to a committee, which either grants their
request, or denies them access to the procedure. The results of this regimen, according to an official report on the
workings of the law, have been:
women and couples feeling pressured to make a quick rather than considered decision when a negative fetal diagnosis
occurred just prior to 20 weeks lest they lose control after 20 weeks of the choice
women and couples feeling pressured to terminate even in the face of medical advice to 'wait and see' for fear of being
denied a termination by the panel after 20 weeks if the fetal diagnosis remained poor
women and couples feeling a diminished sense of personal control in making important life decisions
women/couples who are denied a termination feeling unique issues of guilt and grief associated with being compelled to
continue a pregnancy but having conflicted feelings about using counselling services to resolve such issues at the
institution that denied them the abortion
women/couples and medical professionals feeling concerned about the objectivity of the panel decision and of having
their choice judged by its unknown members
experts caring for women/couples expressing concern about the risk of self-harm and failure to bond with the baby faced
by women denied an abortion.
Read the Western Australia Department of Health and Department of Justice's Review of the Amendments (PDF
369KB) [35].
top [35]
Links:
[1] http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Acts_SLs/Acts_SL_C.htm
[2] http://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/nwww/auslawprac.htm
[3] http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/06/02/legal-issues-lead-cairns-doctors-to
-cease-medical-%0A%0Aabortion/
[4] http://newmediaproject.com.au/prochoiceqldorgau/sites/all/files/webfm/pdf/TimelineFacts210710.pdf
[5] http://www.health.wa.gov.au/publications/documents/ABORTIONREVIEWmaster180602.pdf
[6] http://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/nwww/auslawprac.htm
[7] http://prochoicevic.com/node/18
[8] http://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/nwww/clinicqld.htm
[9] http://www.ranzcog.edu.au/publications/womenshealth.shtml
[10] http://www.reproductivechoiceaustralia.org.au/Articles/RU486_final-
Feb06.pdf
[11] http://www.ranzcog.edu.au/publications/o-g_pdfs/O&G-Summer-
2007/AbortionservicesinAustraliaCaitCalcutt.pdf
[12] http://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/
[13] http://www.ranzcog.edu.au/womenshealth/pdfs/Termination-of-pregnancy.pdf
[14] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2804%2915835-
2/abstract
[15] http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/index.aspx
[16] http://www.ranzcog.edu.au/womenshealth/pdfs/Termination-
of-pregnancy.pdf
[17] http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_coun11.php
[18] http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/post_abortion_issues.html
[19] http://mariestopes.org.au/research/australia/australia-what-women-want-when-faced-with-an-unplanned-pregnancy-key-
findings
[20] http://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/nwww/counselling.htm
[21] http://www.arha.org.au/Resources_and_Links/abortion/What%20do%20Australians%20Think%20About%20Abortion.pdf
[22] http://www.arha.org.au/Resources_and_Links/abortion/What%20do%20Australians%20Think%20About%20Abortion.pdf
[23] http://www.melbourne.anglican.com.au/main.php?pg=download&id=10497
[24] http://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/pub_bp_tk_religious.pdf
[25] http://www.fpa.org.uk/Information/Factsheets/religioncontraceptionabortion
[26] http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/
[27] http://www.arha.org.au/factSheets/abortionaustralianew.pdf
[28] http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2004-05/05rb09.htm
[29] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2807%2961575-X/abstract
[30] http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc08/EDOC11537.pdf
[31] http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/9789241596121/en/index.html
[32] http://http://www.fpq.com.au/publications/fsBrochures/menu_contraception.php
[33] http://www.mariestopes.org.au/our-services/women/contraception-and-contraceptive-methods
[34] http://whv.org.au/publications-resources/publications-resources-by-topic?
letter=T
[35] http://www.health.wa.gov.au/publications/documents/ABORTIONREVIEWmaster180602.pdf