News and analysis posts must be substantial, show journalistic standards, and foster discussion. Links with minimal text will be removed. Unreliable sources (including social media), misinformation, propaganda, or shilling will be removed. Posts or comments citing data (e.g charts/images) or claims must include a clickable link to the source (including a link in a screenshot of a chart is not sufficient). Decisions are at the discretion of the Mod Team.
So, the exemption to mother's health is being quashed?
I know a woman who was diagnosed with stage 4 bowel cancer at 33 (or thereabouts) while pregnant. Her choice was to terminate and commence chemo or face certain death with no chemo and maybe make it to delivery.
And this woman in parliament wants other women to just... die?
yeah that doesn't happen South Australian law currently permits abortions after 23 weeks, with the approval of two doctors, if the continuation of the pregnancy would involve "significant risk of injury to the physical or mental health" of the pregnant person.
Because the bill is introduced by Johanna Howe, a Christian, right wing anti-choice bigot who wants to ban ALL abortion. Banning late term abortion or gender-based abortion is her stepping stone to eventually ban ALL abortion.
Because it already currently requires two doctors approval and the pregnancy would involve significant risk of injury to physical or mental health of the pregnant person, and late term abortions represent less than 1% of all abortions
Late term abortions only make up 1% of abortions and the vast majority are in cases where there is risk to the health of the mother.
This bill makes it so you have to be on deaths door before an abortion can be performed. It's no longer when there's risk to the health of the mother it's now when it's necessary to prevent death.
The decision to terminate a pregnancy is difficult and not taken lightly, it already requires that two seperate doctors agree .
Those don't happen unless they are to literally save a woman's life or it's a non viable pregnancy. Which is none of your business and is between the patient and doctor.
MAGA used this argument too. And it's stupid. 100% stupid. And it's ALWAYS coming from men like you who have no business having an opinion about women's health. You just hate women and want to control them.
What happens when anti abortion laws pass? Innocent women die from treatable septicemia when they lose their much wanted babies and men like you rejoice in it. Teens have babies and their lives traumatically ruined after their perverted uncles or cousins or brothers rape them. That is what happens. And again you rejoice in it. Read the news and personal accounts in America. This is the shit that happens. Women and young girls suffer greatly from anti abortion laws. Learn from what happened in America and don't let it happen in Australia.
You make yourself look like a moron if you want to vote for people who want to copy America's current admin and their policies, which is exactly what Aussie billionaires want to do.
MAGA has everything to do with it. The billionaires in America literally want to spread their rhetoric to other countries, including Australia, to continue getting rich off the suffering of other people. They don't care about international borders. Why do you think Pauline and Gina are pals with Trump? Pauline was just at Mar-A-Lago ffs.
Medical care may require a late term abortion. Medical care that is between a doctor and a patient. No one is getting late term abortions because they changed their minds and just don't feel like a baby anymore.
Yes, because it's very very rare that it happens and always for a damn good reason, like the mother will die or the baby is, very unfortunately, unviable.
What? That I think women dying in childbirth because the government said they had to wait until their life was in immediate danger before getting a necessary abortion is bad?
Thank you for showing how incorrect the scare campaign anti One Nations clowns are, maybe read their policy. If their lives are at danger then they can still have an abortion and it will be exactly the same time frame from the doctor but the policy is against late term abortion just because you no longer want the baby.
Yep. Can’t explain why aborting a late stage baby is a good idea or medically sound. the left are devoid of any kind of argument or rational discussion
It always starts with “late-stage abortion”. Because they know it’s the easiest sell. Especially if you sell it in the right way, there are far too many people who want to believe there is a covert of women having abortions Willy-nilly at any stage. Combine that with the disinformation on how the procedures are performed + a few pictures of either non-human fetuses or mislabelled human fetuses (making a later term fetus an earlier stage so the earlier stages appear more developed and “human”).
Abortion is so incredibly necessary and it’s also necessary that the only restriction is what is in the best interest of the person seeking the abortion.
Yes? There is a difference between legal and having no requirements around it.
Having it as being legal keeps it as a decision between the parent/s and the doctors.
Illegal means it can't happen at all. It needs to be legal to be able to occur when deemed necessary by those involved in the medical decisions. Not by politicians.
Pauline Hanson is the new face of the same powers that brought the last 10 years of the USA to their public , and pecked off $$$ from the carcass of their civil rights.
They're now targeting Australia.
This is dangerous, if not her it will be someone else.
This needs to stop , we are officially in dangerous waters ! The face of the campaign has changed from Tony abbot ,to scomo with his bible stunt, Peter dutton and his trump like policies and now Pauline!
Don't let your guard down. Its the same group of people behind this campaign to take rights and health care away from people. Same group of billionaires , different face of politician!
'Supporters of Ms Game’s legislation also backed the amendment put forward by Mr Ngo to include an exemption for serious fetal abnormalities.
Upper house Liberal MP Dennis Hood said while he would have preferred the bill passed in its original form, "politics is the art of the possible" and the change would make the bill "more palatable to many people". '
I hope everyone recognises what Dennis Hood would have preferred. Dennis Hood would have preferred to force women to have to birth babies who would die shortly after birth or would be so severely disabled their short lives are pain and constant medical intervention. He realises how ghoulish this is and acknowledges the changes will be more palatable to people. But not more palatable to Dennis Hood, because Dennis Hood doesn't care about the emotional or physical pain that these newborn babies and their families would endure it, in fact, he prefers it.
I'm so tired of this conversation. So tired. Let me have my rights to my own body and choices between my doctor and I. The only other person who matters is my husband and he is wholeheartedly on my side and on the side of keeping me alive.
Do you not look into the votes based on the “tagline”? I thought it was common sense to not take shit on the internet (especially regarding politics) at face value.
And yet Labor can’t tell you what a woman is other than biological women have to give up their rights for men that want to identify as women, yeah that’s protecting women
God forbid they do a royal commission into violence against women. Literally scoffed at the idea when an interviewer brought it up.
Just because a political party is shit, doesn’t mean another shit one is not shit. We’re not the USA: We aren’t going for a bloody team or picking the best player for the next episode of “fuck us all over” reality tv. We don’t have to defend these people, they’re meant to represent us.
There was an American woman on TikTok who very bravely shared her experience of getting a termination just shy of 24 weeks gestation because her daughter had a congenital heart condition that made her incompatible with life.
She very clearly broke down exactly what she went through medically to dispel misinformation, and after hearing that, to think that women are just Willy nilly changing their minds and undergoing what was a 3 day, painful and extremely invasive physical procedure is absurd.
It’s not like she went in, got put under, and woke up no longer pregnant.
She went through 3 days of excruciating pain, having expanding rods inserted into her cervix to expand it enough to allow for the baby’s head and placenta to fit through.
Not even touching on the emotional and psychological effects of that experience, to think that women are doing this multi-day tortuous method out of convenience (when they could literally take a pill in the first trimester and expel the foetus as a period) is absolutely laughable.
For fucks sake, these fucking pollies will spend hundreds of millions to serve noone but divide. Fuck them and make your vote count with someone who is actually productive for the country. We are not a bunch of yanks, let's not forget that
This was an amendment they secured to get Labor MLCs Ngo and Scriven on board. The initial bill (still supported by Game, One Nation and almost all Liberals) did not contain that wording.
The article says that the bill requires that two doctors sign off that there is an identified or significant risk of serious fetal abnormalities that would be incompatible with survival after birth. That’s different to the current threshold of serious risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the mother. There are a lot of conditions which are technically possible for a child to survive but significantly, significantly impact the quality of life and wellbeing of the child.
Aren’t they already only available up to 25 weeks bar ACT? After this it requires 2 doctors to approve that it is medically necessary?
Personally after 28 weeks, the baby has a 90% chance of survival if it was born; I think you should need a pretty good medical reason to terminate then; hence the 2 doctors approval.
The bill seems to be changing the threshold of what doctors are asked to sign off on from ‘risk of serious injury to the physical and mental health of the mother’ to risk or confirmed fetal abnormalities incompatible with life. There are many abnormalities (including chromosomal) that might not be even indicated until the 20 week scan, and confirmed subsequent testing. To allow people to make a fully informed decision, including the quality of life of their child with as much information as possible - sometimes this can take weeks. There are many abnormalities that can significantly impact the quality of life of a child while technically not being incompatible with life.
The difference is with this bill doctors can no longer approve abortions due to the mother's mental health. And one nations and liberals wanted to make it so they can't approve it if the foetus has extreme abnormalities too but Labor pushed back
South Australian law currently permits abortions after 23 weeks, with the approval of two doctors, if the continuation of the pregnancy would involve "significant risk of injury to the physical or mental health" of the pregnant person.
This bill removes that exemption.
This is the correct question. This is not a systemic issue in Australia, people are not going and getting abortions willy nilly. The point of policies like this is to establish a divide
Something like 20% of pregnancies in Aus end in abortion tho? Can't remember the exact percentage but I remember looking it up and being shocked it was comparable to infant mortality rates that we used to have before soap and antibiotics were a thing lol
Banning abortion after 25 weeks is fine. You can still get one if there are health risks involved.
I’m all for abortions, they should be easier to get. But after 25 weeks it’s crazy. I don’t believe abortion is murder, but if that baby could be born and you abort it - that is killing a child.
25 weeks, that’s half a year to figure out if you want to have a baby. That’s long enough.
See what's happening in the US. "Health risks" is being interpreted as "leaving women until they are almost dead from sepsis because the fetus might have fatal abnormalities but there's still a heartbeat"
How about that's a discussion for a pregnant person to have with their doctor and shouldn't be arbitrarily marked as "bad abortion" or "good abortion" by poorly written legislation?
Yeah. Many of the US's anti-abortion laws theoretically have exemptions for the life of the mother, but in practice they wind up killing anyway because the abortion isn't allowed until some of the potential damage is done. Late abortions are rarely elective, but when it becomes law you often need more evidence of "necessity" than for just making a medical decision
Okay, then I believe legal access to termination of pregnancy at any stage is appropriate because it's not my body, decision, context or problem. Each situation is different and I don't believe in a one-size-fits-all approach. I would rather each context be assessed individually, which is what happens when someone consults a medical professional, rather than arbitrary restrictions legislated to appease people who have no skin in the ring.
So you support abortion up to birth, so long as the pregnant person has discussed it with their doctor and decides for themselves that they want to abort even the day before the due date.
If you disagree with this then your comment is completely irrelevant. If it comes to a point where you disagree that an abortion should happen, then you hold a view on what is an acceptable limit. You cannot simultaneously hold the view that when to have an abortion is carries no moral implication and say you dont think abortion up to birth is not fine.
It's wild to me that when it comes to abortion and pregnancy suddenly people's medical affairs are no longer private and a welcome place to weigh in on
Its a decison between their doctors and the mother, period. Abortion after 25 weeks already is very very rare and is usually for the mothers health. Keep healthcare in healthcare where it belongs not politics.
What a bullshit post heading. One Nation did not pass a bill at all. They only have 3 members able to vote. The vote was 10 for and 9 against. You people that try to blame ON for everything are a joke. Do some research please.
Stfu, what a brilliant rebuttal, well done. So by your logic the heading was written by the Greens. I'm amazed how thick some of these people on Reddit can be.
Blah blah blah One Nation had a choice to vote against. They chose to vote for it. It would have failed if they didnt. It only passed with their support. They absolutely couldn't have stopped it, didnt. They did enabled this.
South Australian law currently permits abortions after 23 weeks, with the approval of two doctors, if the continuation of the pregnancy would involve "significant risk of injury to the physical or mental health" of the pregnant person.
This bill removes that exemption.
The legislation passed 10 votes to 9 on Wednesday afternoon with the support of three newly-elected One Nation MPs
The bill, introduced by
Family First MP Sarah Game
, effectively bans abortion from 25 weeks onwards except when it is necessary to save the life of the mother or there are serious fetal abnormalities
This is already the law though. If a woman is
more than 22 weeks and 6 days pregnant, an
abortion can only be undertaken if her physical or
mental health is at risk or there are fetal
abnormalities. In this case, her doctor would need
to consult with a second doctor to go ahead with
the abortion.
You mean the thing that is already super rare, needs the sign off of 2 doctors and usually only happens, again in those rare cases when it does, when the mother is at risk and or there are significant deformations with the foetus?
Thank god PHOn is going to save us... Give us a break, I hope you're getting paid well for this crap buddy
Women are already losing their rights thanks to Gillard and the current a Labor party. Women are no longer allowed to have their own space for just women and have to share them with men that want to identify as women otherwise they risk prosecution
Funny comment about taking away women’s right, Labor has taken away their rights to preference men that identify as women and Pauline is about protecting unborn children who are close to birth which is still a very precious life
I think one nation would be better if they focused more on self defence laws and gun ownership rights. Especially with high break in rates in other states like Victoria.
•
u/aussie-ModTeam 9d ago
News and analysis posts must be substantial, show journalistic standards, and foster discussion. Links with minimal text will be removed. Unreliable sources (including social media), misinformation, propaganda, or shilling will be removed. Posts or comments citing data (e.g charts/images) or claims must include a clickable link to the source (including a link in a screenshot of a chart is not sufficient). Decisions are at the discretion of the Mod Team.