
The availability or otherwise of the abortion pill, RU 486 (mifepristone), in Australia, was the subject of much debate in Australia this week.
RU 486 has been not been approved for use in Australia. Since 1996 it has had a unique condition placed on it - to gain approval, like any other drug, requires clearance from the Therapeutic Drugs Administration (TGA), but then, on TGA approval, RU-486 requires a formal all-clear from the health minister. No other drug is subject to this regime. This requirement was introduced by former Tasmanian independent senator Brian Harradine - presumably tied to some deal or other with the Howard government which at that time needed his support to get its legislative agenda through the Senate.
With Harradine around there was no prospect of RU-486 being considered an alternative to the surgical procedure. Without Senate control, the Howard Government needed an open line to the wily Tasmanian. Harradine was implacably opposed to RU-486. Drug companies remotely inclined to seek approval knew it would be a futile exercise.
With Harradine retired from the Senate, Liberal MP Sharman Stone started making noises about lifting the ban - she wondered why must women and girls in rural areas travel long distances for a termination when, potentially, there was a more convenient, less intrusive and less traumatic alternative?
Health Minister Tony Abbott, a fervent oponent of abortion, this week declared RU-486 unsafe, citing compelling evidence from Chief Medical Officer John Horvath, who had found the drug required strict supervision and could prove dangerous for women in remote and rural areas.
Obviously, Abbott went seeking advice to suit his own views. Backing away at 100 km/h, Horvath revealed Abbott had not asked for a general overview of RU-486; he had sought only specific advice about its use by women without access to medical supervision. It’s true a handful of the millions of women who have used mifepristone have died after using it without adequate supervision. But as critics have pointed out, this can be said of almost every drug. Why not let the TGA decide?
Sharman Stone’s response: “The issue of adequate supervision can in no way be seen as a hindrance to the reintroduction of this drug. It would seem to be a smokescreen for those trying to disguise a religious response.”
The Prime Minster is under pressure from Liberal MPs to allow a conscience vote on the issue. Sharman Stone and Liberal MP Mal Washer are leading the effort to ask the government to call for the vote.
“I would hope we had a conscience vote because I’m quite sure there would be people … who felt so strongly about it that they would cross the floor,” Stone said.
It seems that they might get their way, with such a vote being called for also by Deputy Liberal Leader, Peter Costello, who says, very reasonably:
“We need a clear statement from the medical experts as to whether or not this is safe,” he said.
“If it is, then a moral judgment arises as to whether this should be available.
“The moral judgment in my view, is a matter of conscience and should be the subject of a conscience vote.”
Prime Minister John Howard says he is considering allowing a conscience vote on the issue and will discuss the matter with his colleagues when he returns to Australia.
I’m not sure where I stand on abortion. Its not something I’ve ever had to face up to in my own life. Conceptually, I don’t have a problem with early terminations, where the foetus is not substantially formed …but the later in the pregnancy it gets the harder I find it to accept (this is getting to the point where a viable human life is being destroyed). I also have problems with the number of abortions performed - in Australia its said to be around 100,000 a year.