A proposed change to SA’s abortion law been described as ‘extreme right-wing’. Here’s what you need to know

A proposal to change South Australian abortion laws has prompted intense and heated debate, both in and outside of political circles.

The private member’s bill from Liberal MP Ben Hood would require women seeking to terminate a pregnancy from 28 weeks to instead undergo an induced birth, with babies to then be adopted.

The opposition has committed to allowing its MPs a conscience vote on the issue, which is already proving to be divisive, between — but also within — parties.

The health minister has described the legislation as an “extreme right-wing culture war bill”, while the MP who is behind it said it was “the right thing to do”.

What are the current laws?

South Australia’s laws on the issue were changed in 2021, when a bill to decriminalise abortion passed parliament and MPs voted to remove abortion from the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.

New legislation, the Termination of Pregnancy Act, extended legal protections to health experts involved in the practice.

The changes have allowed late-term abortions — defined as occurring after 22 weeks and six days — only in circumstances deemed “medically appropriate” by two health practitioners.

Such circumstances include cases in which ongoing pregnancy would involve significant risk of injury to “the physical or mental health of the pregnant person”, or of “serious foetal anomalies”.

Following several amendments, and a marathon late-night sitting of parliament, the changes passed the lower house by 29 votes to 15 in early 2021.

They came into effect in 2022 and brought SA into line with most other jurisdictions.

What is being proposed?

Mr Hood’s three-page amendment proposes several changes to the language of existing legislation.

Notably, it would add several clauses to the current act that, in essence, mean women seeking abortions after entering the third trimester of a pregnancy would be required to give birth.

The law, for example, currently sets out conditions for “terminations by medical practitioner after 22 weeks and 6 days”.

Mr Hood’s amendment proposes to change that language to “terminations of pregnancy after 22 weeks and 6 days and premature live deliveries after 27 weeks and 6 days”.

It would also add a new subsection that begins with this requirement:

“A medical practitioner may only intervene to end the pregnancy of a person who is more than 27 weeks and 6 days pregnant if the intention is to deliver the foetus alive.”

Mr Hood said that, under such a scenario, a baby born at 28 weeks would “receive neonatal care”.

“Then, if it is the choice of the mother – that baby will be put up for adoption,” he said.

What do doctors say?

Mr Hood’s proposal has been opposed by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG), whose SA committee chair Heather Waterfall said that abortion was “an essential service”.

She said terminations in the third trimester were typically “only in the most extreme situations”.

“They’re usually because the physical or mental health of the woman is endangered by the pregnancy, or because there is a significant concern with the foetus — the baby that could be born — that there’s something wrong with that baby,” she said.

Dr Waterfall said decisions around termination should be left to women and their doctors, “rather than being made by politicians”, and that compelling women to undergo premature birthing came with risks and unanswered questions.

“If the baby is born alive, then is the suggestion that that baby would be going to the neonatal intensive care unit for care?” she said.

“Babies do well if they’re born after 39 weeks gestation — before 39 weeks they possibly have a lower IQ, and definitely less than 32 weeks [they] have an increased risk of cerebral palsy, ongoing lifelong respiratory or breathing issues.”

Dr Waterfall said the number of abortions performed after 28 weeks was “extremely few” — a view shared by obstetrician John Svigos.

“Anything after 28 weeks certainly would be a late termination but, as it is, we very rarely ever got to the point where a termination is being considered after that time anyway,” Dr Svigos said.

What about MPs? 

Liberal upper house MP Michelle Lensink, who helped spearhead SA’s termination of pregnancy laws through state parliament’s upper house in 2021, said she would vote against Mr Hood’s bill, and described it as “one of the worst pieces of legislation” that she had seen drafted.

She said the proposed changes would create “added stress” for doctors when estimating a pregnant person’s due date, arguing that if they miscalculated the date and performed a termination when the foetus was older than 28 weeks, they could be found to have broken the law.

She said women’s mental health could be impacted if they were required to be prematurely induced.

“There are a lot of things in their piece of legislation that I think have not been thought through and I think would horrify a lot of South Australians,” she said.

“[Decisions to terminate pregnancy] are not flippant decisions for women or their medical team.”

Ms Lensink accused Mr Hood of trying to “correct a wrong that doesn’t exist”.

“I may be speaking out of turn, but I think some of my House of Assembly [colleagues] are more angry than I’ve ever seen them,” she said.

Independent MP Connie Bonaros admitted to such feelings, describing Mr Hood’s defence of his bill as “insulting”.

“I don’t think I’ve ever been more incensed by the words of a male politician, ever,” she said.

South Australia’s Deputy Premier Susan Close also condemned the proposal.

“The idea that we politicians ought to be dictating the particular outcomes in circumstances that are hard for many of us to imagine really troubles me,” Ms Close said.

Health Minister Chris Picton labelled Mr Hood’s proposal as an “extreme right-wing culture war bill”, and said it was “staggering that the Liberal Party are choosing to have this fight about this issue now”.

Opposition Leader Vincent Tarzia has rejected that characterisation, saying that “changing the laws around late term termination is not Liberal Party policy”, but a matter for individual MPs.

How has Mr Hood responded?

Mr Hood, a Liberal member of the upper house, said his bill reflected a need to find “balance between a woman’s choice” and the “right to life of a baby after 27 weeks and six days”.

“In the third trimester, 28 weeks, a baby has a 96 per cent chance of living,” he said.

Mr Hood said his proposal would not require any significant changes to the current delivery process.

“It’s important to note that the only method of abortion in the third trimester is the mother delivering the baby,” he said.

“That involves foeticide, which is an injection into the baby of potassium chloride, which would cause a cardiac arrest, and then the mother is induced and that baby would be born stillborn.”

Mr Hood said he was “not concerned” by Ms Lensink’s characterisation of his bill, and rejected suggestions he, as a man, had no right to have an opinion.

“In the drafting of this bill, six women — senior legal and medical experts — have been involved,” he said.

“I don’t necessarily think my sex or gender has anything to do with that.

“Colleagues may bring a private member’s bill to our party which I fundamentally disagree with, but what I agree with is their right to do it.”

Anti-abortion campaigner and University of Adelaide law professor Joanna Howe — who joined Mr Hood on the steps of SA parliament on Tuesday — said she had received strong support from many women.

“This isn’t a man trying to control a woman’s body. This is a woman’s issue,” Professor Howe said.

“There is some urgency about this — we are needlessly and brutally killing babies after 28 weeks. It might be one baby, it might be two babies, but over the course of a decade, that adds up.”

What happens now?

Mr Hood’s bill will be introduced to the upper house of parliament on Wednesday.

The opposition said it would allow its MPs a conscience vote on the issue.

Labor has not yet declared whether it will do the same, but Labor MPs have said they are waiting to see a copy of the bill.