A timely sequel to "The Handmaid's Tale" - book review

"The Testaments"

by Margaret Atwood

Chatto & Windus, London

2019

"The Testaments," Margaret Atwood's 2019 Booker Prize-winning novel, is her response to the question of readers of "The Handmaid's Tale:" how did Gilead fall? She's had 35 years to come up with the answer, and she doesn't disappoint.

Atwood uses a similar narrative technique to the one in Handmaid's Tale, also set as historical documents served up at a history symposium. The difference is that this time, they encompass three perspectives: Aunt Lydia, from the generation that lived through the triumph of Gilead, and two girls of the next generation, one brought up in a Gilead household, to become a Gilead wife; the other, from across the border in free Canada.

Although a fan of the first season of the companion TV series, I found the violence and hopelessness in the second season too much to keep watching. "The Testaments" didn't dwell on the same ground covered in "The Handmaid's Tale," although it alluded to it. In my opinion this made it an easier read, and allowed it to explore other perspectives on compliance and resistance to arbitrary power.

I'm trying to avoid spoilers, so I'll just say Atwood does a great job at not only answering that question, and others raised by The Handmaid's Tale. In her acknowledgements, she thanks World War II resisters she has known - and their influence is apparent in the text. Atwood also refers to the axiom that guided the writing of both books: that no event should appear that hasn't actually happened in human history. In this sense, although "The Testaments" is a work of fiction, it is also a work of history, and a manual for resisting fascism, revealed in its virulently misogynistic theocratic form - in fictional Gilead, and in a growing number of countries around the world today.

NSW Reproductive Health Care Reform Bill 2019

My submission to the parliamentary committee

Dr Kamala Emanuel

11 August 2019

As a NSW abortion provider and an abortion rights advocate, and as a woman who has undergone abortion in NSW, I support the Reproductive Health Care Reform Bill.

Even with the best access to sex education, contraception and emergency contraception (which NSW doesn't have), there is no pro-active way for people engaged in potentially reproductive sex but not prepared for parenthood to guarantee they won't become pregnant. And sometimes, wanted, planned pregnancies become impossible to continue, whether for health reasons or any number of personal crises. Like contraception, miscarriage and childbirth, abortion is a part of reproductive life; between a fifth and a quarter of women and people with a uterus

Gender-biased sex selection and abortion rights

As an abortion provider and abortion rights advocate, I follow abortion news, which means sometimes links like this one¹, to an article decrying abortion for sex selection, appear in my inbox.

What I have noticed is that abortion opponents argue against sex selection abortion in order to establish a precedent that allows the state to determine that certain kinds of abortion are not permissible. If the state can override the decision of the pregnant woman in one instance, it undermines the central contention of abortion rights activists that the decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy belongs to the pregnant person².

Very often, arguments will be couched in feminist terms. Whether crudely³ or subtly⁴, they seek to use feminist language of opposition to discrimination to appear to take a feminist high ground - in a completely anti-feminist attempt to undermine support for women's and pregnant people's autonomy. Their arguments only work if we accept the premise that the foetus with XX chromosomes or with ultrasonic evidence of female reproductive organs is a person with a right to life, a girl being killed because of her gender. In passing, I will point out that there is more to determination of sex than 2 combinations of sex chromosomes, and more to determination of gender than anatomical sex. But even if, on the whole, embryos with XX chromosomes, or foetuses with female reproductive anatomy, would, if born, be girls, are they, in utero, girls with rights beyond the right of the pregnant person, rights that trump the right of the woman or pregnant person to determine whether or not to continue the pregnancy? Opponents of abortion don't (and can't) prove this - they just mobilise legitimate indignation and anger at discrimination against girls and women, in an attempt to get it to spill over into an attack on abortion rights.

Gender-biased sex selection⁵ is a problem. But it's not the problem opponents of all abortion would have us think. It is a manifestation of the same devaluing of girls and women that underpins our oppression. In the societies where it is documented, the combination of influences on gender-biased sex selection usually includes deeply held values about the worth of sons over daughters, the role of sons providing for parents in their old age, women's relative exclusion from the paid workforce and lower pay where included, discriminatory inheritance patterns and (at least in parts of India) marriage customs such as the expectation brides' families will provide a dowry.

What this means is that if it is to be effectively confronted, the social context needs to be changed. Not surprisingly, measurable impacts on reversing son preference have been demonstrated by social measures affecting the underlying factors. Economic security in old age (in the form of savings or pensions), women's participation in the workforce, changes to the rights and responsibilities of women in relation to their family of birth, and media campaigns promoting the value of daughters have all had an impact.⁶

One important finding reported in a UN interagency statement on tackling gender-biased sex selection⁷ was that educational programs that stimulate discussion and allow for participants to share their experiences and thoughts in relation to conflicting values are more empowering and effective than those based on judgemental criticism of "bad" behaviour.

There is evidence of prenatal sex selection taking place in Australia, predominantly among women born overseas, most notably from India, China and South-East Asia.⁸ A 2018 study of births in Victoria found that in these populations, the male/female ratio at birth is significantly above the biological norm of 105:100.

Banning abortion performed for sex selection is only likely to put obstacles in the way of women and pregnant people seeking care and support, and risks harming already marginalised women.

The issues that should be of concern are not whether to ban abortion performed to enable sex selection, or to prevent women from undergoing blood tests or ultrasound examinations that may enable them to know about their pregnancy's chromosomal sex or reproductive anatomy. For healthcare providers in particular, the point at which a woman is making a decision to abort a pregnancy is not the point at which to refuse care or impose judgement. It is a point for promoting our patients' health and autonomy, including by the provision of safe abortion if that is the pregnant person's decision.

What we should be concerned about (healthcare professionals and wider society alike) is to identify and support women at risk of coercion into abortion, or facing harassment, violence or other kinds of pressure if they give birth to girls. We should support efforts, particularly efforts by young women of affected communities, to challenge and transform the culture of son preference.

We'll know we're succeeding when the sex ratio at birth returns to the biological norm - not by taking measures that undermine women's rights, but by implementing those with the capacity to enhance them.

1 https://caldronpool.com/researchers-say-discrimination-against-women-starts-in-the-womb. This one is particularly obnoxious, implying in its sub-heading that researchers who identified prenatal sex selection in a cohort of Australian women conclude that abortion is not beneficial to women, when that is, rather, the presupposition of the authors of the article and an opponent of abortion, nothing to do with the study, who they misleadingly quote.

2 I use the terms woman and pregnant person in recognition that while most people capable of becoming pregnant are women, some pregnant people are trans men and some are non-binary people or people with other gender identities.

3 E.g., https://caldronpool.com/researchers-say-discrimination-against-women-starts-in-the-womb

4 E.g., https://lozierinstitute.org/sex-selection-abortion-the-real-war-on-women

5 As distinct from abortion to avoid passing on sex-chromosome-linked diseases or conditions.

6 https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44577/9789241501460_eng.pdf

7 https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44577/9789241501460_eng.pdf

8 https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/47/6/2025/5057663

Dutton out

Sportsbet favours Labor to be elected to the federal seat of Dickson in the May 18 federal election. The seat is currently held by the minister for cruelty to refugees, Peter Dutton. Across Australia, people have had a gutful of the heartlessness.

The Refugee Action Collective held  a protest outside everyone's least-liked potato's electorate office on May 11, attracting a lot of support from passersby.

As RAC spokesperson Mark Gillespie pointed out, the fight for refugees' rights will be boosted by a defeat of Dutton, but it will be far from over, as the cruelty has bipartisan support. He announced a rally to be held on July 19, the 6th anniversary of Rudd (Labor) that asylum-seekers arriving by boat would "never, ever" be settled in Australia.

I had a few words to say. When women are forced to become refugees, they don't leave the patriarchy behind them. When the Nauru detention centre was being prepared, the head of it resigned, warning that women would nor be safe from sexual assault there. Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton are responsible for letting that cone to pass.

We won't stop till all the refugees are free.

Word art

Laser etch or charcoal sketch

Razor or quill

With words and skill

We craft

     Hammers

Leaning towards meaning

Like a phototroph to light

Or nailing it

     To shape reality.

Safe Access Zones, Free Speech and Abortion Rights

May 28th was the Global Day of Action for Women's Health. Around the world, the preceding week was punctuated by significant actions for abortion rights. The most significant was the resounding "Yes" vote in the May 25 Irish referendum on removing the ban on abortion from the constitution. This gave a shot in the arm to the campaign for abortion rights in the Six Counties of Northern Ireland, where the anti-abortion provisions of the UK's Offences Against the Persons Act of 1861 remain in force. Hundreds gathered in Belfast on May 28th to launch a campaign to push the UK government to lift the ban on abortion rights there. The same day, protesters in Brisbane rallied to push to overturn similar legislation in Queensland.

In NSW, May 24 was marked by the passage through the state's upper house of a bill to protect access to abortion clinics. It is due to be debated in the lower house next month.

If passed, the bill will introduce stiff penalties ($5500 fine or 6 months in gaol or both, for a first offence; $11000 or 12 months or both, for a second offence) for anyone harassing people entering medical clinics where abortions are performed. Similar penalties would apply to anyone interfering with or obstructing anyone trying to enter the clinic, anyone trying to talk or give literature about abortion to anyone entering the clinic (if it is likely to cause distress or anxiety), and anyone filming or recording anyone in the vicinity of the clinic without their consent.

The legislation is designed to create a 150m buffer zone around the clinics and clinic entrances, to allow anyone needing to access the clinics - patients, support people and staff - to do so in privacy and without intimidation or abuse from those opposed to abortion.

Tasmania, Victoria and the ACT all have similar legislation. There are moves to introduce protective legislation into WA, and the Queensland Law Reform Commission, due to report on modernising the state's abortion laws by the end of June, invited public comment on the issue of safe access zones among other issues.

In NSW, WA and Queensland, where there is no protective legislation, groups opposed to abortion regularly set up outside clinics to try to prevent abortion by intimidating or convincing patients to change their minds. They are especially active in the 40 days of Lent, observed by some Christian traditions. (For some reason ostensibly to do with following the person who said "Don't judge others, so you won't be judged," while other people are giving up chocolate, they give up minding their own business.) Outside a WA clinic this year, they were distributing information with links to an organisation based in the US, "And then there were none," that aims to end abortion "from the inside out," by convincing staff to stop providing services.

But some clinics are subjected to the harassment year round. MLC Penny Sharp, who co-sponsored the NSW bill, described the behaviour, which extends from displaying distressing images and attempting to hand unwanted literature to people, to sprinkling holy water on people, and calling people "murderer."

Even quiet prayer and polite greetings - in a context where it is clear that a judgement is being made against the decision to undergo abortion - has potential for harm. At best it represents a form of observation that poses a threat to women's right to access reproductive healthcare in privacy and dignity. While many people undergoing abortion find the decision straightforward, for others, it is difficult and painful and the distress of the decision and procedure can be compounded by the scrutiny and judgement of others. In any case, it is not a form of scrutiny, stigmatisation, harassment or interference consistently meted out to men, or indeed, to anyone for any other kind of healthcare.

We don't accept it for anything else, and we shouldn't accept it for abortion care.

Opponents of the legislation (in the NSW upper house, predictably, Fred Nile) claim the law will impede the exercise of free speech. Free speech is an important right for progressives to defend. Historically, legislation curtailing political rights of bigots and haters has been used to attack the left. Freedom of speech is not a right well codified in law in Australia. The High Court has ruled that the constitution contains an implied protection of free speech, but defines it narrowly in terms of participation in activities connected to parliamentary democracy. But clinic safe zone legislation does nothing to stop the development of public political campaigns anywhere apart from in the vicinity of the clinic. But by preventing behaviour intended to stigmatise abortion, and the harassment and intimidation of people accessing clinics, such legislation can promote the privacy, dignity and safety of women and people needing abortion, and the friends, family and staff who support and serve them.

Clinic safety legislation should be enacted and enforced. Whether pregnancy termination is being contemplated because a wanted pregnancy has been found to be unable to survive, because an unplanned pregnancy is unwanted, or for any of the complicated reasons that can bring a pregnant person to an abortion clinic, no-one should be faced with the public shaming and humiliation that go on outside services at the moment.

In NSW and Qld, such protective measures, if introduced, will have an immediate impact on improving the wellbeing of those who access abortion services. However, such measures alone won't be enough to improve access to abortion, while the procedure remains on the criminal codes of those states and generally inaccessible through the public hospital system. To be safe and accessible, abortion needs to be legal and available in locations close to where people live. Last year, the NSW upper house rejected a bill to remove abortion from the criminal code, while a similar bill was withdrawn from the Queensland parliament without even being debated. The campaigns for abortion law reform in both states remain active despite these setbacks, and last week's victory in the NSW upper house can only be a further motivation for the campaign to make free, safe, legal abortion accessible on demand without apology.

Outside clinic in Midland, WA, February 2018. Would not be permitted under clinic protection legislation.

Outside an abortion service and advocacy conference, Brisbane, August 2018. Would not be affected by clinic protection legislation.

"Yes" victory in Irish abortion referendum

As the results of the Irish abortion referendum were announced on May 26th, scenes of celebration were shared around the world. The "yes" vote to repeal the constitutional ban on abortion had registered a smashing majority of 66.4%. Voter turnout was 54.51% - higher than for the 2015 marriage equality campaign and a record for any referendum in Ireland.

With 1,429,981 votes for repeal, campaign group Abortion Rights Campaign (ARC) Ireland points out, more votes were cast to remove the amendment than were cast to insert the ban into the constitution in 1983.

The 8th amendment, as it was known, recognised a right to life of the foetus equal to the right to life of the woman or pregnant person.

Under the ban, abortion has been subject to a comprehensive ban, even in cases of risk to the woman's health, conception from rape, and when fatal foetal anomaly have been diagnosed. Thousands of women travel abroad every year to obtain abortions in the UK and Europe, and thousands more risk the 14 year gaol term undergoing illegal abortion using imported medications without medical supervision.

The death of migrant dentist Savita Halappanava in 2012 from septic miscarriage was attributed to the ban, as legal uncertainty led to delays emptying her uterus while the foetal heartbeat was detected, even though her miscarriage was deemed inevitable and became the cause of her overwhelming infection.

Her death became the trigger for legislative reform and the push to repeal the constitutional ban.

After a series of public mobilisations, the issue was referred to the Irish Citizens' Assembly, which recommended a referendum to repeal the constitutional amendment and allow the government to make laws to regulate abortion.

Before the referendum, the government announced that if the amendment was repealed, they would introduce legislation to allow abortion freely up to 12 weeks of pregnancy, for medical reasons (with two doctors' agreement) up to 24 weeks, and for fatal foetal anomaly after that. They have pledged to introduce the legislation this year, and plan to establish services in Ireland in 2019.

The No campaign mobilised with images of foetuses, attempts to equate foetal life with the lives of children and pregnant women, misleading advertising claiming the government's proposed legislation would allow abortion up to six months, and claims to "love both" - arguing for adoption instead of abortion.

A statement issued by the Adoption Rights Alliance noted the offensive irony of the No camp slogan "Love Both". As advocates for those adopted under Ireland's closed, forced adoption system, they pointed out that none of the adopted people they are in contact with over two decades have ever been offered support by anti-abortion organisations. Similarly, it was anti-abortion crusaders who persecuted pregnant women and gave cover to the forced incarceration of unmarried pregnant women and girls (and those considered "at risk" of pregnancy outside marriage) in the Magdalene Laundries and other institutions - where they were forced to give birth and relinquish their babies for adoption.

Adopted People for Yes was one of the 97 groups that joined the umbrella group "Together for Yes," by the time the referendum was held. It emphasised compassion and care for women and pregnant people facing crisis pregnancy.

The Yes campaign was marked by stalls, fundraisers, rallies, public statements and social media outreach. Perhaps most striking was the scale of mobilising of volunteers to doorknock canvassing for votes. The Yes volunteers knocked on 500,000 doors, or about a third of all households in the country.

In public and in private, people facing crisis pregnancy told their stories of stigma and isolation traveling for abortion care; of taking medications to induce abortion without medical assistance; and of being denied care in their home country, when faced with a diagnosis of severe foetal health problems that would inevitably result in stillbirth or the death of the baby if born.

“Today’s results show what we in ARC have seen around the country for the last 6 years – that the people of Ireland were hungry for change. The grassroots community-led organising at the heart of ARC has been a huge part of the campaign’s appeal across all groups and communities. We especially acknowledge the work of migrants who did not have a vote and who were disproportionately affected by the Eighth, as well as the many trans and non-binary people affected.”

“This result is bigger than Ireland: we know the world watches us as abortion access is being eroded in other places. Ireland now has the opportunity to be a beacon to the world in terms of respect for people who can get pregnant.”

Close to the republic, calls have already been made for the UK to liberalise abortion access in Northern Ireland, where the issue has been devolved to the parliament of the six counties, and remains banned by an 1861 law. With the power-sharing agreement in a shambles and no executive government in Belfast for over a year, the demand is being made for the UK government to bring abortion law into line with the rest of the UK. A rally of hundreds launching the campaign was held in Belfast on May 28.

Another rally was held the same day in Brisbane. Buoyed by the victory in Ireland, sixty people gathered to call for repeal of Queensland's abortion laws - also modelled on the UK 1861 Offences Against the Persons Act.

Vigil for Savita Halappanavar, outside Irish consulate, London, 28 October 2017

Ireland: Abortion Referendum to be held May 25

Campaigning for abortion rights in Ireland has stepped up since the announcement of the date and wording of a referendum on constitutional change to allow abortion. The referendum will be held on May 25. It will ask voters whether to repeal the section of the Irish constitution that bans abortion, and to allow parliament to make laws to regulate abortion.

Currently, abortion is banned by the Irish constitution under an amendment (the Eighth Amendment) adopted by referendum in 1983. According to the amendment,

‘The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.’

According to Shauna Stanley of the Melbourne Irish Abortion Rights Campaign, the impetus for the amendment was the Roe v Wade ruling in the US. Anti-abortion activists in Ireland wanted to prevent similar judicial intervention from making abortion accessible to women in the republic.

Abortion rights campaigners have waged a campaign for over 30 years, beginning with the "No" campaign in that referendum, and continuing efforts that have borne fruit in a change in public attitudes, constitutional and legal change and now the growing call to repeat the Eighth Amendment.

Attempts by the state to restrict pregnant women's access to information about abortion and right to travel to obtain abortion were overturned by successive referenda, which added two further amendments to the constitution:

‘This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.’

‘This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.’

While the later provisions give people needing abortion some protection, it means (as many abortion rights campaigners point out) abortion is a problem that Ireland exports. As a result of the ban, an estimated 4000 women and non-binary or trans people travel abroad (mostly to the UK, but also the Netherlands and France) each year to obtain abortion. Up to 2000 risk a 14 year gaol term by taking medications obtained online, to induce abortion. The number who are unable to obtain abortion and simply continue a crisis pregnancy, with all the impacts that has, is unknown.

Ireland's abortion ban is among the strictest in the world. It is extensive, with few exceptions. The impact of the ban on abortion in Ireland is not only felt by women who are simply not ready for parenting, or who can't manage for socioeconomic reasons, but also those who have conceived from rape, are in coercive or violent relationships or have serious but not life-threatening health problems. Although the constitution refers to the "equal right" to life of the mother, the chilling effect of the abortion ban on healthcare providers and institutions is so extreme that in 2012 it led to the death of a woman, Savita Halappanavar, who was miscarrying. Although she was told her miscarriage was inevitable and requested medical intervention to empty her uterus, it was refused on the basis that there was still a foetal heartbeat - and despite her condition deteriorating as she developed overwhelming infection as a result of the miscarriage.

Savita's death galvanised the growing community opposition to the abortion ban, with massive and growing annual marches for choice calling for abortion to be legal. In a quirky twist, the appearance in around 2012, of insensitive graphic billboard advertising publicising opposition to abortion, itself sparked a renewed enthusiasm for organising and mobilising for abortion rights among a layer of the community.

A 2013 law, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, subsequently codified that threats to the woman's life (as distinct from health), including the risk of suicide, would constitute grounds for abortion.

Attempts by the parliament to widen eligibility of people who could become pregnant have been struck down by the courts, because of the constitutional protection of the foetus. According to Stanley, this has also led to a strengthening of the pro-choice movement and its focus on calls to repeal the Eighth Amendment.

According to Stanley, in 2016, the campaign started to gain more momentum. Recognising the centenary of the Dublin Easter Rising, the Abortion Rights Campaign ran a campaign under the slogan "Rise and Repeal," linking the campaign for abortion rights to republican struggle and Ireland's historical context. The campaign drew out the proclamation of the republic's founder that the it was to be one in which Irish men and Irish women would have equal rights - something clearly absent in an Ireland where half the population is denied reproductive justice.

In the same period, the Repeal Project apparel campaign took off. Black jumpers with the word "repeal" on them spread the message and sparked conversations among people who might not have identified with more traditional political campaign activism.

During the Polish "Black Friday" women's strike of 2016, when the Polish government threatened to wind back what little space there is for legal abortion in that country, members of the Polish diaspora within Ireland mobilised in solidarity. Inspired by this action, on International Women's Day in March 2017, the abortion rights movement in Ireland held a women's strike - wearing black and staying away from work.

In line with the rising activism and campaign visibility, opinion polls in recent years have shown majority support for liberalising access to abortion.

As the campaign for reform continued to gain traction, the issue was referred to the Irish Citizens' Assembly, an exercise in deliberative democracy involving a random selection of citizens, tasked with making recommendations about a range of issues. In April 2017, they voted to recommend a referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment and allow the government to legislate to regulate abortion.

In response, Leo Varadkhar, the Irish prime minister (Taoiseach), announced in September that the referendum would be held in mid-2018.

Announcement of the exact timing and wording of the referendum was delayed while the government awaited a Supreme Court ruling on whether the constitution provides for any foetal rights other than the right to life. The March 6 Supreme Court ruling that there are no other foetal rights under the constitution than the right to life paved the way for the decisions to be made on the referendum.

The Irish cabinet marked International Women's Day (IWD) 2018 by introducing the legislation to hold the referendum, and on March 25th, the May 25th referendum date was announced. The government has pledged that if the referendum is passed, it will introduce legislation to replace the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, decriminalising abortion for the pregnant person and introducing laws that make abortion readily available in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, with restrictions as to reason thereafter.

Together4Yes, a coalition of over 70 groups from across Ireland, launched its campaign - modelled on the successful marriage equality campaign - on March 22. In the lead-up to the launch, member organisations have been training canvassers and recruiting volunteers from across the country to undertake the task of doorknocking and engaging people across the country, with a focus on those who are undecided.

The breadth of support for the campaign is evident in the packed calendar of campaign activities around Ireland, from art installations, public meetings and campaign stalls to punk gigs, singalongs, story-telling and comedy events.

And the campaign isn't limited to Ireland. In 2016, the online campaign Repeal Global was initiated to call and coordinate solidarity actions to coincide with the major annual marches for choice. Just like during the marriage equality campaign, there are campaign committees in the Irish diaspora around the world. The London Irish Abortion Rights Campaign launched a #hometovote campaign urging eligible voters around the world to make plans to travel back to vote in the referendum.

In Australia, campaign events have been held since 2016, with rallies in Melbourne in solidarity with the marches for choice in Dublin in 2016 and 2017, and other actions in Sydney, Perth and Darwin. The Melbourne Irish Abortion Rights Campaign formed a contingent calling for repeal of the eighth amendment to march in Melbourne's IWD march in 2017.

In the countdown to the referendum, Stanley says, the campaign focus is on fundraising. "Living in Australia, it would cost $2000 to return to Ireland to vote. Irish citizens who have been out of the country for 18 months aren't allowed to vote. And the laws about donations to electoral campaigns are quite strict. Only citizens can donate. Many of us are going to return to Ireland some day. And we want to return to an Ireland that has proper healthcare. If you need an abortion, you should be able to get it in your home country. We want to do something. Even if we can't vote, we can raise money to support the campaign. We want to reach out to members of the Irish diaspora in other cities, to support them to be part of the campaign - whether it's organising fundraisers, or participating in the social media campaigns, or encouraging to talk with their grandparents back home."

And in the spirit of the solidarity that connects the Polish and Irish struggles, she added, "and we want to support the campaigns in Australia, in NSW and Queensland. We'd like to support organising solidarity in the states where abortion is legal, to help the campaigns in NSW and Queensland, where it's not."

Connect with the Melbourne Irish Abortion Rights Campaign on Facebook at "Irish Pro Choice in Oz."

Why I'm Not Speaking at IWD 2018

I'm writing because I was advertised to speak at the Brisbane/Meanjin International Women's Day rally this year and I want to explain why I have withdrawn.

The Women's Abortion Rights Campaign, of which I've been a member for a year, was invited to provide a speaker, and asked me to do it. Since then, the rally organisers announced as an entertainer someone known to publicly express views hostile to trans people - the person who at last year's IWD rally carried a sign saying "trans activism is misogyny". The underlying message - that activism of trans women for recognition of their gender, and for inclusion in society as women, is in itself misogyny - only makes sense if trans women are not recognised to be women.

International Women's Day is a day to commemorate and deepen the struggle for the rights of women. As women press for abortion rights around the globe and around the country, the struggle for legal, accessible abortion in Queensland is at an important stage this year. International Women's Day offers an opportunity to amplify our call for abortion to be legal and for safe abortion to be widely accessible.

The struggle for abortion rights and the many connected struggles for women's liberation, are made stronger by the solidarity of all women, across all intersecting oppressions. I believe an International Women's Day that excludes some women weakens the struggles of us all.

In this context, I argued that WARC should not stay silent on a platform where transphobic views are likely to be expressed. Instead, I argued we should include in our contribution a recognition that abortion rights sit as part of the broader struggle for the rights of all women, including trans women.

This was not acceptable to WARC. The substantial argument made was that it is "not transphobic" to say "trans women are not women." But this is virtually the definition of transphobia.

[Update: To clarify: I am not accusing WARC of transphobia. The decision made was to say that WARC is opposed to transphobia. However, in a context where the argument was being made that to misgender trans women is "not transphobic," I believe this fudged the issue.]

All women have an interest in ending transphobic exclusion. Exclusion is clearly harmful to trans women, but has an impact on all women. If trans women "aren't women," who gets to decide who are women? Policing women's bodies means it isn't only trans women who are singled out, but potentially anyone deemed too tall, too hairy, too muscled, with too deep a voice. At worst, demands to check genitals, or for blood tests represent intrusions offensive and demeaning - harmful to anyone subjected to them.

I felt that to stay silent when trans women's involvement as women in the struggle for women's liberation is disputed was a compromise that should not be made - not on International Women's Day, not by WARC, not by me.

WARC's decision not to speak up meant I felt I was left with no choice but to withdraw from speaking. I wouldn't share a platform where racism or homophobia were being expressed without speaking out. Transphobia is just as dangerous.

For myself, I am committed to the struggle for abortion rights and access in Queensland, for abortion law reform and free, safe, legal, accessible abortion on demand without apology (which I was looking forward to speaking to at the rally); and to the many-faceted struggle for women's liberation. I'm keen to contribute in a way that advances our march towards an inclusive feminism for the 99%, a feminism that doesn't leave any woman behind.

International Women's Day rally Brisbane/Meanjin

Over 300 people took part in the Brisbane/Meanjin International Women's Day rally and march at Emma Miller Place on March 10.

According to the information provided by the rally Working Group and rally speaker, retired academic Diane Zetlin, Emma Miller Place itself is of historical significance - for the Aboriginal community, the feminist movement, the trade union movement and numerous other social justice struggles, with countless public demonstrations being held there. It was named after labour and women's movement leader Emma Miller who famously led women textile workers defying a mounted police attack on a general strike for union rights in February 1912. The women charged police lines, defending themselves with the hatpins they stuck into the horses' rumps. Again the women's liberation movement faced off against the police, in 1978 defying Joh Bjelke-Petersen's ban on street marches as they attempted to leave the site (then known as the Roma St forum).

The 2018 march was led by a group of '78ers - veterans of that rally.

A range of pressing issues for women were addressed by other rally speakers. Ros McLennan, secretary of the Queensland Council of Unions, spoke of the need to address the gender pay gap. She slammed the federal government and employers for their attacks on penalty rates, set to get worse when new legislation takes effect in July. Owing to the concentration of women in low-paying, part-time, casual and precarious work, the impact of cutting penalty rates will be disproportionately borne by women.

Yamatji woman Janine Kelly spoke of the injustices facing Aboriginal women. She relayed a message from her auntie Carol Roe, Aboriginal elder and grandmother of a young woman killed by medical neglect in WA's South Hedland lock-up, calling for justice for Ms Dhu and an end to the racism that kills Aboriginal people in custody. She played a powerful song for Ms Dhu by rappers The Cat Empire; a new recording of it is to be released in the coming week.

Deb McLoughlin, a '78er from the Women's Abortion Rights Campaign, spoke passionately for abortion law reform and for access to abortion in the state's public hospitals. Erin Cameron from Sisters Inside recounted the marginalisation and discrimination facing incarcerated women. Griffith University Senior Law Lecturer Zoe Rathus outlined the difficulties women face in dealing with family law, debunking myths about women's preferential treatment in custody matters, and describing the bind women leaving violent relationships can be placed in: if they try to protect their kids, they may be in violation of court orders; if they comply with court orders, they'll be treated as not believable if they subsequently raise the issue of violence. And Sia Carolyn of the Brisbane Rape and Incest Survivors Support Centre highlighted the ongoing crisis of violence against women. A Palestinian woman spoke in solidarity with imprisoned young woman Ahed Tamimi. A group of Latin American women sang Spanish songs raising awareness of violence against women, and the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom performed a piece commemorating Emma Miller's contribution to the struggle against conscription.

The otherwise excellent rally was marred by a small group with transphobic signs (one of whom had been invited onto the platform as an entertainer). A large number of rally participants responded by expressing their support for trans inclusion in various ways. Some stood near and in front of them, holding signs affirming that trans women are women; many cheered when speakers expressed support for trans women's inclusion. On the march, chants were raised in solidarity with ending transphobia. And when the slated entertainer took to the platform, many left, some turned their backs, and others held signs expressing support for trans women.

#IWD #InternationalWomensDay #IWD2018 #feminism #women #StopViolenceAgainstWomen #AbortionRights #abortion #ProChoice #EndWomensPoverty #ChangeTheRules #JusticeForMsDhu #StopBlackDeathsInCustody #TransInclusion #TransWomenAreWomen #AusPol #Brisbane #QldPol

Abortion rights: unfinished business

As women and their allies around the world prepare to strike, rally and march on International Women's Day, abortion rights are once again placed on the agenda in many countries. And in Australia, a new movement for abortion rights is emerging. It's a movement that sits within the broader struggle for reproductive justice that includes the right to have and keep children, the right to contraceptive information and healthcare, the right to respect and autonomy when we're giving birth, the struggle against forced sterilisation, and more. It's part of the wider struggle for the rights of all women - including trans women. But it's still unfinished business.

In some ways, the movement never went away. In the heyday of the second wave of the women's liberation movement, the struggle for abortion rights was one of the central demands around which women rallied across Australia. Nineteenth century laws made abortion a crime. Protests for law repeal morphed into service provision and advocacy, but although in the 60s and 70s, law reform in South Australia and liberal court rulings in Victoria and NSW paved the way for safe abortion services to be established in many states, abortion access is still a postcode lottery. Nowhere is this more apparent than Western Australia, where abortion was mostly decriminalised almost 20 years ago, but access to publicly funded abortion services depends on whether or not you live in the postcode-determined catchment area of the small number of hospitals or hospital-contracted private providers that provide abortion in accordance with the principle established in the law - that it be by "informed consent" - not exactly on demand, but almost.

A lot of abortion law reform has been reactive. From the 1960s to the 1990s in Victoria, NSW and Qld, court rulings in cases of prosecutions under anti-abortion laws recognised (more or less stringently) circumstances when abortion could be legal. In WA and Tasmania, reform of anti-abortion laws was triggered by charges or police investigations into doctors performing abortion. In each case, rallies and other grassroots public actions were organised to give visibility to public support for abortion rights. Similarly, when a restrictive court ruling in NSW threatened to undermine the previously recognised legality of abortion in a wide range of circumstances. But starting with SA and the NT, and more recently, ACT, Victoria, Tasmania and again the NT, legislative reforms came about as a result of more pro-active processes, including legislators working with abortion rights groups and parliamentary responses to law reform commission reports.

Now, the momentum for change keeps growing.

In South Australia, abortion is accessible in designated hospitals - but only there, and only for women who meet the residency provisions. This is a problem for accessing abortion, which in other states can be completed at home.

In the Northern Territory, those who spearheaded last year's breakthrough decriminalisation that still retained some restrictions on abortion after 14 and even more, after 23 weeks have pledged to campaign for the full right to abortion.

At the time of writing, a crisis grips abortion service provision in Tasmania. In 2001, the feminist-run free-standing abortion clinic closed its doors after medical termination (ie, taking medications to induce miscarriage-like abortion) began to be offered by some doctors. This led to bottle-necks in the public hospital system. Services stopped completely after a medical student complained to the police that unlawful abortion was being carried out in Hobart's public hospital. In response to the crisis, Labor premier Jim Bacon recalled parliament, and minimal law reform providing clarity allowed services to recommence and new clinics to be established with legal protection.

Now, after years of private clinic provision of abortions, the much-expanded availability of early medical abortion has again led to a closure of the state's free-standing private abortion services. As a consequence, and in the absence of on-request public hospital services, women unable to obtain early medical abortion once again have to travel interstate for surgical terminations.

The state LNP government refuses to intervene.

By contrast, state and federal Labor have pledged public funding to establish a hospital-affiliated service to meet the need. If Labor wins the March 3 state election, they must not wait for the election of a federal Labor government to make sure public hospitals provide this needed reproductive healthcare. If the LNP maintains power, the crisis and hardship for women and people needing abortion will be set to continue. As former AMA head and Sydney city councillor, Professor Kerryn Phelps put it on ABC's "The Drum," there's no reason why hospitals can't be required to provide the service tomorrow.

In Western Australia, the state government is considering moves to create protective zones around abortion clinics, in line with similar protections in Tasmania, Victoria and the ACT. The need for this is most obvious around this time of year, when some people decide that for Lent, the best thing they can do to show their adherence to the guy who said "Don't judge, so you won't be judged," is to "give up" letting people enter abortion clinics without being confronted by "sidewalk counsellors" who want to convince women to continue their pregnancies, and clinic staff to find another job. In the words of one such group of zealots, they want to end abortion "from the inside out" - to reduce the number of people willing to be involved in abortion services, until "then there were none."

NSW and Queensland remain the only Australian states to keep abortion a crime without spelling out exceptions in the law. In the last two years, both states have seen a number of public rallies and creative actions to build support for abortion law reform. In 2017, both state parliaments failed the test when given the chance to recognise women's and pregnant people's rights to decide about this health matter for themselves.

In NSW, the state upper house voted down a bill to take abortion out of the criminal code and protect women from anti-abortion harassment at clinics. Opinion polling shows majority support for these measures. The bill was introduced by Greens MLC Mehreen Faruqi, and had wide-ranging support, from doctors and public health groups to anti-violence and civil liberties. Just not politicians elected to represent the community.

In Qld, independent MP Rob Pyne withdrew his bills to decriminalise and regulate abortion when Labor wouldn't bind its members to support them and the LNP announced its members would all exercise their "conscience" vote to vote against. In return for withdrawing the bills, Labor referred the issue to the Queensland Law Reform Commission (QLRC).

Women's Abortion Rights Campaign, a grassroots independent feminist activist group, has organised numerous rallies, pickets, petition campaigns and other activities aimed at building and expressing public support for change. It has initiated a rally on May 26 to mark the global day of action for women's health, under the slogan "Abortion rights: it's time." The rally will call for abortion to be decriminalised and for safe abortion to be free, safe and accessible "on demand and without apology." The rally will be held at King George Square, from 11am and will come a month before the QLRC is due to report.

Including the call for abortion to be free is an important component of the struggle for abortion rights. The law as it stands in Qld is a serious obstacle to the exercise of the right to determine whether or not to continue a pregnancy. But the lack of services won't be solved by decriminalisation without a commitment by governments to ensure that the public hospital system - funded to provide the range of healthcare needs - meets the needs for reproductive healthcare, including safe abortion.

We must insist that Qld Labor match the pledge of its Tasmanian counterpart and establish reproductive healthcare hubs throughout the state to meet the unmet need for abortion that remains an obstacle to the full exercise of women's rights.

While a lot changed with the rise of organised feminist campaigns for abortion rights in the 70s, and activism has continued in a range of forms since then, legality and free access to abortion in our communities remains to be won. The right to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy is a prerequisite for determining the course of our lives. This IWD, we again raise the cry, "our bodies, our lives, our right to decide."

Abortion referred to Queensland Law Reform Commission

In a move similar to the one that preceded abortion law reform in Victoria and Tasmania, Queensland state attorney-general and justice minister Yvette D’Ath has referred abortion to the Queensland Law Reform Commission (QLRC). It has been tasked with drafting legislation to modernise abortion law in Queensland. The current laws date back to 1899 and haven’t been amended since.

The terms of reference for the report and draft legislation appeared quietly on the QLRC website on 20^th June. The referral had been awaited since February 28 when Independent MP Rob Pyne withdrew from parliament his bills to decriminalise and regulate abortion. Those bills had been due to be debated the following day. In a February 28 media statement, state Labor premier Annastacia Palaszuk, deputy-premier Jackie Trad and attorney-general Yvette D’Ath pledged to refer the issue to the QLRC and that in the next term of government, Labor would introduce legislation, based on the QLRC recommendations, to “modernise” the state’s abortion laws.

At the time the promise was made to seek the commission’s advice and legislate in the next term of government, campaigners and doctors pointed out that putting it off until then introduced uncertainty, as the make-up of the next government is not yet known.

Over 1000 people signed a change.org petition calling on the Labor leaders to refer the issue immediately to the QLRC, have it report quickly and then move to make abortion legal in Queensland in 2017.

However, under the referral, the QLRC is not required to make its report until June 30, 2018, after the latest time for the next state election (May 5).

While the terms of reference for the QLRC report fall short of requesting advice on simple, complete decriminalisation of abortion, it does request advice on removing abortion performed by a medical practitioner from the criminal code, and for clarification of abortion law in the state.

Most abortions in the state are performed or prescribed by doctors, so removal of these from the criminal code would be an immense advance for the provision of abortion in Qld to be legal.

However, because of the lack of access to abortion provision by doctors, some Queensland women induce their own miscarriages without medical support.

An ABC report on 21 June quoted the manager of the state’s central pregnancy counselling and abortion referral agency Children by Choice, who said she saw “about one woman a fortnight who was considering” inducing her own miscarriage.

"We have women who either tried, or have asked how to do it," she said.

The most recent prosecution for abortion under the state’s criminal code was in relation to an abortion obtained by a woman with her partner’s help, without a doctor’s authorisation.

The narrowness of the terms of reference means that such pregnancy terminations (and help from non-medical support people) will potentially remain crimes. It’s not illegal for someone to manage their own healthcare needs without trained professionals, and separate legislation already prohibits people who are not health practitioners from providing healthcare that needs training. Making abortion by a medical practitioner legal is likely to reduce the number of women seeking to induce their own miscarriage, but singling out self-induced miscarriage as a crime threatens to punish women (and anyone who helps them) for the failings of a system that currently lets them down.

Furthermore, in some countries, trained health practitioners apart from doctors perform abortion. Given the refusal of many doctors to perform abortion, if the proposed bill only decriminalises abortions provided by doctors, it closes the door to other health practitioners – with proper training and qualifications, within their scope of practice – legally stepping in to fill the gap left by doctors refusing care.

On the other hand, the terms of reference instructs the QLRC to have regard to existing practices and services in Qld, existing legal principles, the government’s commitment to modernise and clarify the law, the recent parliamentary enquiries into abortion (held in consideration of Rob Pyne’s bills), the views of experienced clinicians, the views of the Qld community, and the laws in other jurisdictions.

Within such a scope, it will no doubt be possible to put forward arguments that a modern criminal code has no room for provisions that make abortion a crime.

Anti-abortion protester's appeal quashed

Melbourne

The Supreme Court of Victoria handed down its judgement on March 21, quashing the appeal of an anti-abortion protester who had been convicted for displaying images of aborted foetuses.

Michelle Fraser, an anti-abortion protester, had displayed placards of aborted foetuses with anti-abortion slogans, outside the Melbourne Fertility Clinic, in February 2013. In 2014, she was convicted of displaying obscene images.

The presiding judge had found that the display of the “disgusting” images had not been a form of political communication, but communication directed at the people running the clinic and those attending as patients.

Fraser sought to appeal the ruling as an infringement of the constitutionally implied right to free speech.

In dismissing the appeal, Justice Emerson noted that what is “obscene” or “disgusting” depends on the context: that images of aborted foetuses that might be shocking to the general public might be appropriate in a medical textbook or lecture.

She found that the law prohibiting the display of obscene images struck the balance between political communication and “the need to protect the public from unwitting and unwelcome exposure to images that are at the highest end of what is disgusting, repulsive, repugnant and offensive, having regard to contemporary standards.”

Victoria, Tasmania, the ACT and now the Northern Territory have now all legislated to create protest-free buffer zones around abortion clinics. The bill to decriminalise abortion in NSW, introduced by Greens MP Mehreen Faruqi contains a similar provision (as did the bill recently withdrawn from Qld parliament by Rob Pyne). The Victorian law came into effect after the incident for which Fraser was convicted.

Make abortion legal in 2017 - backgrounder and appeal

Abortion is still a crime in Queensland, even though 80% of people support a woman's right to decide. Queensland parliament recently failed to pass legislation to decriminalise and regulate abortion. Instead, the premier, deputy-premier and attorney-general promised to refer the issue to the Queensland Law Reform Commission (QLRC) and enact legislation based on the QLRC's report, in the next term of government. So far this referral hasn't been made, and there's every possibility it will report back too late for legislation to be introduced this year.

Join us to call for the referral to be made to the QLRC now, for it to report quickly, and for a public commitment that legislation to decriminalise abortion will be introduced in this term of parliament,this year.

The Queensland Criminal Code's sections 224-226 criminalise abortion. There are separate offences for the person performing abortion on a woman, for a woman trying to have one, and for anyone supplying or administering anything that will be used for an abortion. Judges have ruled that exceptions exist to prevent serious danger to the woman's mental or physical health.

There have been prosecutions but not convictions under these laws. There are doctors who will provide abortion more-or-less on request. But these doctors work mostly in the private sector, mostly in Southeast Queensland. They provide abortion with a thin legal protection (for women undergoing abortion and themselves), usually depending on forming a medical opinion that continuing the pregnancy and raising a child would pose a serious mental health risk.

This has wide-reaching impacts.

It means that women seeking legal, safe abortion are in a position where they must satisfy a doctor that the abortion is necessary to prevent serious harm to their mental health – that is, it is not recognised as simply a woman or pregnant person's right to decide. The law gives weight to anti-abortion stigma, by singling out a health issue and a women's rights issue, and turning it into a crime.

In practical terms, the legal ambiguity surrounding abortion means that anti-abortion hospital administrations don't need to ensure services are provided and can even discipline doctors who provide such services. While some public hospitals provide abortion according to the health department guidelines issued in line with the (restrictive) law, most abortions are provided outside the public hospital system and none in the publicly-funded, Catholic-run ones. Women and pregnant people pay more and travel further because the laws shield anti-abortion administrations who can hide behind a very narrow interpretation of “serious danger to the woman's mental or physical health.” For poor and marginalised women, especially those living in remote areas, the access barriers may be so high that safe legal abortion is simply out of reach.

The consequences – the invasion of privacy that occurs when prosecutions occur, the requirement for young people to get a court order to be allowed to undergo abortion, unsafe self-induced abortion, the birth of unwanted children, the financial burden of abortion provided privately, and disruption to medical careers as a consequence of legal or disciplinary proceedings – all add up to a current-day situation of inequity. Women and pregnant people are denied reproductive justice. Their health care professionals risk legal sanction and deregistration.

While getting abortion off the criminal code won't by itself solve all the access issues, they are a crucial step in that process. And it will be an important signal that the state recognises women to be the ones to make the decision about continuing or ending their own pregnancies – bringing it into line with contemporary Queenslanders' social values.

For decades, abortion rights campaigners have rallied and lobbied parliament for legal change and improved service access.

The ALP has a pro-choice position on paper, but refuses to ensure its members abide by it. Labor MP's have repeatedly told pro-choice campaigners that they didn't have the numbers to win reform, and that they'd legislate in their next term of government. The LNP has an anti-abortion position, but some of their members hold liberal, pro-choice views.

In 2016, Independent MP Rob Pyne introduced bills to decriminalise and regulate abortion. On March 1, the Queensland parliament was to have had the opportunity to put the 1899 laws in the dustbin of history where they belong.

The LNP promised they would allow a conscience vote on the bills to decriminalise and regulate abortion, but when it came down to it, announced they would all vote against.

Without a bound ALP pro-choice vote or LNP free vote, the bills were set to be voted down. Going ahead with the debate and vote in parliament would have forced all MPs to declare their position, allowing their constituents the opportunity to hold them to account.

The bills were withdrawn, with a promise by the premier, deputy and attorney-general that the issue would be referred to the Queensland Law Reform Commission and that the next Labor government would enact legislation based on the commission's report. So far, the QLRC referral hasn't been made.

The withdrawal of the bills means yet further delay to this already long-delayed step of justice for women and pregnant people. We refuse to accept quiet assurances that the next government will do what past governments have failed to do: to stop treating women like criminals for controlling our own reproductive lives.

It is not good enough to push it off into the never-never. No-one knows what the composition of the next parliament will be. However, since this is the path that has been promised, we want the QLRC referral to be made now. We want to ensure that it reports quickly. And we want this parliament, this term, under this government, to legislate to decriminalise abortion.

The parliamentary health committee has already twice conducted extensive hearings into the legislation, receiving submissions from psychological, medical, legal and ethical experts, women, women's rights and health care consumer advocates, abortion providers and numerous others. The 2002 Report of the Taskforce on Women and the Criminal Code advocated decriminalisation of abortion. While the QLRC will need to conduct its own research, it will have these reports, along with reports of the Victorian Law Reform Commission and those prepared for the Tasmanian parliament all available to it. Those who made submissions to the parliamentary health committee would be well placed to make submissions to the QLRC within a short timeframe.

The QLRC has a staff of 4, with only one other report currently underway, due to report at the end of June.

So a timeframe of 6 months for the report, which would potentially allow the matter to be dealt with in the term of the current parliament, would be quite reasonable.

We therefore request Premier Palaszczuk, Deputy-Premier Trad and Attorney-General D'Ath to ensure the immediate referral of this issue to the QLRC, with a timeframe for reporting of no more than six months, and to make a public commitment to introduce legislation to decriminalise abortion in this term of parliament, in 2017.

Sign the petition here: https://www.change.org/p/annastacia-palaszczuk-make-abortion-legal-in-queensland-in-2017