The Senate today decided in favour of the Private Members Bill advocating RU486 distribution decisions be removed from the Minister of Health to the TGA. I hope a similar decision is made when the Bill goes to the House of Representatives.
The 7,.30 Report this evening showed grabs of various politicians in the Senate giving their reasons why they were voting for and against. Essentially, most of the women voted for and some obvious men (e.g. Tony Abbott whose views are well known) voted against.
This forum consists of, if I've perceived it correctly, a majority of blokes.
I'd be really interested to know from everyone who takes an interest in this subject how you would have voted if you'd been a Senator today.
I find it incredible that so many men who obviously don't have any understanding of what it can be like to be faced with an unwanted pregnancy, can be so bloody patronising in stating blandly that they just don't believe in abortion. It would be a different story if they actually had to go through the pregnancy and take responsibility for caring for the child afterwards. Tony Abbott even had the effrontery to suggest that the change of approvals from himself to the TGA for RU486 would probably result in a huge increase in backyard abortions! The medication has to be prescribed by a doctor, for heavens' sake. As Amanda Vanstone pointed out, no one is suggesting women will be able to rock up on into their local supermarket, buy a couple of packets and rock on out to the desert and take the pills miles away from any medical assistance should that become necessary.
Surely this drug would be a preferable means of terminating an unwanted pregnancy to having to undergo a surgical abortion.
I'd be really interested to hear the views of members, male and female on this apparently controversial subject, and also the question to the blokes:
:"Do you think it should be a woman's right to choose what she does when faced with an unexpected pregnancy?"