and ain't I a woman?: Principled opportunism?
The Paul Osborne "health regulation" legislation, passed by the ACT Legislative Assembly last week, supposedly provides women considering abortion a "more informed choice" by imposing a "more balanced" information package on them before they can consent in writing to the procedure.
The reality, that the legislation actually reduces ACT women's reproductive choices, is revealed in Right to Life "chairman" Margaret Tighe's hailing it as "one small step forward for mankind".
The process by which the legislation came to be adopted is also revealing. ACT chief minister Kate Carnell, publicly pro-choice, subordinated her feminist principles on abortion access to secure the numbers for other votes.
In particular, Carnell wanted to ensure approval for the sale of the publicly owned electricity supplier, ACTEW, in order to bail out the shortfall in the ACT public service superannuation scheme.
Some feminists argue that the experience of being a woman and/or the essential caring capacity in women makes them more progressive. To get more women into positions of power will, they argue, guarantee a better life for women.
Where obvious examples to the contrary are raised, such as Margaret Thatcher, it is argued that these women are "really men". Carnell's shameful deal on the Osborne bill shows that politics and opportunism are more accurate explanations.
The process by which the Osborne bill was passed demonstrated not only the career opportunism of one of the two women in the 17-member assembly, but also her total contempt for democracy, even in its most limited parliamentary form.
Consider the events:
- On August 26, Osborne introduces a surprise bill to outlaw abortion in the ACT.
- After a public outcry (rallies, pickets and public meetings), Osborne delays bringing on debate of the bill. Over time it becomes clear that Osborne's bill will not be agreed to "in principle" by the anti-abortion Labor Party MLAs. Carnell is the only Liberal who opposes the bill.
- The bill will clearly not get through without amendment, so Right to Life attorney general Gary Humphries circulates amendments on November 17.
- Pro-choice health minister Michael Moore begins bargaining with Osborne and Humphries to amend these amendments, without consulting any other anti-Osborne bill MLAs.
- For the bill to be amended, it first has to be voted for in principle. Knowing this would not happen, on November 24 Carnell votes to suspend standing orders so that Osborne's bill can be withdrawn and replaced by Humphries' amendments, now re-categorised as Osborne's new bill.
- On November 25, despite opposition by doctors and warnings from the director of public prosecutions and the anti-discrimination commissioner about flaws in both the new bill and Moore's circulated amendments, Carnell votes to proceed immediately with the in-principle vote on the new bill.
- The bill is debated (Carnell didn't even speak) and, with Moore's "moderating" amendments known in advance, the ALP members' opposition to the bill is broken. The bill is voted for in principle.
- Moore's amendments are introduced and the bill, which opens up many possibilities for further limitations on access to abortion, is rammed through at 3am.
Good one, Kate! With feminists like you making the decisions, we will soon face the same situation as in the USA, where anti-abortion litigation and lobbying by the likes of Right to Life have made access to abortion a travesty, and where the climate of moral outrage they have created means that the bombing of abortion clinics and the murder of doctors who perform abortions seem par for the course.
By Pat Brewer
[Pat Brewer is a founding member of ACT ProChoice.]