Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the private member’s bill, the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. Despite the stated intentions of the bill—that is, to place the decision on the safety and release of RU486 into the hands of the Therapeutic Goods Administration—in essence and in truth this is a vote on pro-abortion and anti-abortion beliefs. This is because RU486 is another aid to the process or act of abortion. If it were not so, we would not be elevating the matter to the level of a conscience vote in this parliament.

A conscience vote in parliament is extremely rare and inevitably arises on matters of pro-life and pro-choice issues. The conscience votes I have been involved with in my term in parliament have been the euthanasia issue of 1996 and the embryo experimentation matter of 2002. Both were clearly embedded in moral stances and life issues, as is the bill before us. So I notify the Senate that my vote will be against this private member’s bill. I respect the fact that this is a conscience vote, where each is free of party disciplines. But the core of the decision we make today ought to be clear. If you believe that life begins at conception—that is, the body grows and the soul exists—then what choice do you have but to reject the act, the aid or the promotion of abortion?

Since the landmark case in 1969 titled the Menhennit ruling, which effectively legalised abortion on demand, the number of abortions in this country has risen until it is now nudging 100,000 per year. It is accepted across the social spectrum and from every point of view that this number is disturbing; this much we agree on. Another consequence of the Menhennit ruling over the past 35 years or so is that what was fundamentally an early-term abortion judgment—in essence, up to about 12 weeks—is now being reasoned to justify late-term abortions. This new dimension to Menhennit has reached the outer limits, with a documented case of an abortion at eight months in Melbourne and even evidence taken in the committee hearing into this bill that an abortion at nine months is acceptable on the grounds of the unfettered rights of women over those of the unborn child.

Whilst this is the point our society has reached since the Menhennit ruling, there has also been a seismic change in the attitude of pro-choicers and society towards that ever-posed question, ‘When does life begin?’ When Menhennit ruled, the common belief of pro-choicers was that the foetus was not ‘life’ at anything less than 12 weeks. Science has been the instigator of this major shift in attitude. Science has proven that all senses and early body forms exist within seven days, and the rate of growth of the embryo between one and seven days is as fast as that in any other term of the whole human growth experience. In other words, the embryo is hurtling towards its human existence and selfhood. I make this point to show that the old debate of whether the foetus is ‘life’ or not is over. Society and even pro-choicers now accept that it is ‘life’. The science is far too compelling.

What today’s abortion debate really centres on is how much weight is given to the rights of the woman over the rights of the unborn child. So it is a rights debate—complete rights, unfettered rights, limited rights, equal rights and so on, but it is a rights debate. And that is exactly what we are debating here today: the rights of women to have abortions by yet another method. Therefore, the bill before the Senate goes beyond a debate on process only and it is absurd to try and convince those of us participating in the debate that it is otherwise.

It follows then that I give my support to the continuation of the 1996 amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 that placed substances such as RU486 in a special group of drugs known as ‘restricted goods’, on the basis that they are drugs which are intended to be used to induce abortions in women. ‘Restricted goods’ is the proper term for drugs that induce abortion. A substance is therapeutic if it relates to the treatment or cure of a disease, and drugs that induce abortion are not administered to women with the intention of treating or curing a disease.

Furthermore, the TGA has no reference by which to judge the ethical, moral, social or psychological impact of this drug. Judgments and decisions made about such medicines require a higher level of scrutiny, and that inevitably should lie with the elected federal representatives. No-one should doubt that passing this bill by voting to support it will inevitably see the release of RU486, particularly given the modus operandi of the TGA. In the past, it has been heavily reliant on sourcing its standards and its conclusions from equivalent overseas agencies, in particular the USA Food and Drug Administration.

While it is said that the TGA is in the best position to judge the safety of RU486, that argument fails to look at the issue as a whole or acknowledge that there can be exceptions in the referral of drugs to the TGA. This is one such exception. Therefore, I conclude it is a risk to refer the matter to the TGA, based on its methodology and its inability to consider the moral and ethical aspects of this drug’s use.

Medical evidence given in the committee hearings into this bill, along with individual research based submissions, produced compelling evidence that this drug is not safe. It is certainly not, as it was originally marketed, a convenient do-it-yourself, at-home procedure. In fact, it relies upon three visits to the doctor and a cocktail of other drugs beyond RU486. The possibility of death from the use of RU486 has been recorded in the New England Journal of Medicine, which estimates the rates of maternal mortality related to its use as being about 10 times those of surgical abortions. The possibility of infection, haemorrhaging and the need to return to undergo a surgical procedure is even higher. Furthermore, researchers suggest that this chemical procedure is more psychologically traumatic than the surgical procedure. One of its so-called attractions is privacy—home alone. But this does not justify its release. It is in fact a good reason not to release it.

It is worth noting that, where this drug has been most frequently used, the very body that released the pill onto the market, the US Food and Drug Administration, is currently investigating a number of deaths associated with RU486. It has recently convened a meeting with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to investigate these deaths. This ought to be of serious concern to anyone advocating the release of this drug onto the Australian market. That is, deaths, permanent injuries and psychological scars are ever-increasing as this drug is popularised.

Further, in discussing the safety of the drug, not enough attention has been given to the drug misoprostol, which is the second and equally potent drug in the cocktail of drugs required to enact the termination. This drug will not be placed under the scrutiny of the TGA as an abortifacient. This is because it is not labelled for the purpose it is going to be used for. It is a drug used to treat ulcers. Evidence was given before the committee that in trials of misoprostol as an abortifacient in 40 per cent of cases the drug failed in its purpose. The concern over its safety for such use has prompted the manufacturer to issue a statement that it is not involved or in any way endorses the study or the use of misoprostol as an abortifacient either separately or in combination with other medical therapies. In fact labelling for the drug contains prominent warnings and contraindications for its use by pregnant women. In short, the cocktail of drugs used to achieve termination is of unacceptable risk.

In conclusion, Australians in the great majority now believe that there are too many abortions, estimated to be between 90,000 and 100,000 a year. This is common ground for pro-choice and pro-life advocates. Care and counselling services for women before and after any decision are also common ground. I urge the Senate to reject this bill and work on what is common ground.