In an important move for womens reproductive rights, the Australian Parliament concluded a very emotional debate and voted to end a de-factoban on the availability of the abortion drug RU486.

In a rare conscience vote, Members of Parliament (MP) approved on February 16 the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill 2005. The bill, which was sponsored by a cross-party group of women MPs, removes responsibility for approval for abortifacients like RU486 from the
Minister for Health and Ageing and returns its regulatory oversight to the non-partisan expert body Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

FYI: What is RU486?


RU486 or mifepristone is a safe, effective, non-surgical form of early abortion which is now available in several countries, including France, Great Britain, Sweden and the United States. Mifepristone blocks the action of progesterone, a hormone necessary to sustain pregnancy.
Mifepristone is used in combination with a prostaglandin called misoprostol. This drug has already been successfully used by millions of women worldwide as a method of early abortion, and may be a possible treatment for fibroid tumors, ovarian cancer, endometriosis, meningioma, and some types of breast cancer.

Aside from RU486, another method of medical abortion or non-surgical method of early abortion is methotrexate. Methotrexate, also used in combination with misopristol, terminates a pregnancy by inhibiting the production of folic acid. Methotrexate is currently the only method of medical abortion that effectively terminates ectopic pregnancy.

Source: Campaign for mifepristone & contraceptive research. Retrieved on February 24, 2006 from Feminist Majority Foundation <http://www.feminist.org/rrights/medical.html>.

RU486 or mifepristone was effectively banned in 1996 in a deal between Prime Minister John Howards conservative government and the even more conservative independent senator, Brian Harradine. In return for the latters approval of key government legislation, Howard agreed that the health minister would have the power to veto the drugs approval. Since its approval rested on the whim of one person, no pharmaceutical company applied to import and distribute it in Australia. In the meantime, all other new drugs in Australia are examined by the TGA.

The vote was a disappointment for the very conservative Health Minister Tony Abbot and for Howards, who both had argued for maintenance of the status quo regarding the drug.

Women hail decision

Civil society groups lobbying for the bill welcomed the decision. The Australian Reproductive Health Alliance (ARHA), a womens health agency promoting public support for enhanced reproductive and sexual health in Australia and internationally, hailed the decision as an important step to ensure that Australian women have the same choices available as women in similar developed countries. Currently, RU486 is being used to induce abortion in lieu of surgical procedures in more than 30 countries around the world.

ARHA said that the passing of this bill has removed an anomaly in Australian law and has ensured that evidence-based scientific evaluation remains the basis of Australias drug evaluation process. The decision is also in keeping with Australias international commitments to the International Conference on Population and Development in which the country has pledged to enhance reproductive rights, including the right to decide freely the number, timing and spacing of their children.

Australian Democrats leader Lyn Allison, one of the four female senators who sponsored the bill, commended the outcome not only as a victory for women's choice but as an important step forward in talking openly about the issue of abortion. "I hope it says to women, 'Look, it's firstly OK to talk about abortion - we're having a debate in the parliament'," she said. She added that it is likewise notable that we've settled this issue decisively with more than half the parliamentarians in this place affirming effectively women's opportunity to have safe terminations. We can all go forward with much more open-minds about this issue."

RU486 decision just a start

While the development is likely to lead to the approval of RU486, it does not mean that the drug will become available immediately. A doctor will have to apply to the TGA for permission to use the drug, and the body will conduct its own test before making a ruling. If it chooses to allow the drugs use, it will impose terms and conditions for use.

And while the RU486 decision was important, for womens reproductive choice activists in Australia, the bigger challenge remains in changing what Lachlan de Crespigny refers to as the countrys antiquated, unclear and varying abortion laws. De Crespigny is a faculty member of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the University of Melbourne.

According to the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA), 81% of Australians support access to abortion while only 9% are against it. Yet abortion in the country remains a subject of state law rather than national law and the grounds on which abortion is permitted vary from state to state. While abortion to protect the life and health of the mother is legal in every state, life and health are defined differently in the different states.

For Crespigny, this situation is dangerous for women and their doctors. Because abortion is a crime throughout most of Australia, doctors are anxious about, and many refuse to perform legal abortions because of unpredictable legal risk and potential public exposureDoctors are increasingly facing court action or investigation following abortion. This environment unreasonably denies women abortion. The solution, he said was to introduce a single, clear, national law on abortion that applies to all stages of pregnancy and protects against prosecution.

And as activists work for the respect and protection of womens reproductive rights in Australia, it must also be remembered that around the world, some 70,000 women--most of them from developing countries--die from complications due to unsafe abortions yearly and millions more are denied access even to basic contraception.

Sources:

Abortion pill vote lifts ban. (2006, February 16). Retrieved February 24, 2006 from
<http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/mps-strip-abbott-of-ru486-veto/2006/02/16/
1140037811387.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1>.

Australian Reproductive Health Alliance (ARHA). (2006, February 16).
Press release: Leading womens health agency welcomes outcome in RU486 debate. Retrieved February 24, 2006 from <http://www.arha.org.au/pressrelease/HoR_RU486%20Vote%20POSITIVE.pdf>.

de Crespigny, L. (2006, February 20). Vote no cure for abortion laws.
Retrieved February 24, 2006 from <http://smh.com.au/news/opinion/vote-no-cure-for-abortion-laws/2006/02/ 19/1140283944416.html>.

International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). (2006, February 6/).
Death and denial: Unsafe abortion and poverty: Questions and answers./
Retrieved February 27, 2006 from <http://www.ippf.org/ContentController.aspx?ID=13100>.

Peake, R. (2006, February 20). To be, or not to be? Existential questions Down Under. Retrieved February 24, 2006 from <http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2006/February /opinion_February61.xml&section=opinion&col=>