Abortion Law Reform Amendment (Sex Selection Prohibition) Bill 2025 - Second Read Debate
I support my Greens colleague Dr Amanda Cohn in opposing the Abortion Law Reform Amendment (Sex Selection Prohibition) Bill 2026. It is extremely disturbing that we are even entertaining the discussion of the topic of the bill in this House.
As stated by Dr Amanda Cohn, the bill is an attempt to recriminalise human rights that were ratified in this State through the 2019 abortion law reforms. Back then, the political discussion both inside and outside of this House was a bloodbath. To get to the 2019 reforms, this House held the third-longest debate since Federation, which included 26 divisions and 102 amendments. The hard-fought Abortion Law Reform Act relegated decisions on abortion to their rightful place in the healthcare sphere and removed the shadow of criminality which has haunted both people seeking abortions and practitioners throughout this State's history. Now history is repeating itself as I, and hopefully the majority of members in this place, stave off ill-intentioned amendments that will risk lives and livelihoods.
I reiterate the facts of the matter that get suspiciously lost in abortion debates. There is zero evidence of the moral panic where expecting parents and their healthcare providers are seeking out abortions after learning that their baby is a sex that is simply not preferred. When introducing this bill to the House, the Hon. John Ruddick referred to a paper which literally has the words "indirect evidence" in the journal article's title. The Western Australian authors of the paper also conceded that they have not established a causal relationship between abortion and skewed sex ratios at birth. That is the silver bullet evidence that the whole amendment hinges on. That sliver of circumstantial proof is up against a wealth of research that has been developed over decades which contradicts the findings.
In New South Wales, public prenatal care offers scans to identify the gender of a baby from 20 weeks onwards. Private practices in this State offer services from 16 weeks. I understand that there is the opportunity to undertake the non-invasive prenatal testing earlier on in pregnancy, but there is no verifiable evidence that those tests are occurring at rates that would influence the skewed ratios the bill suggests. As that type of testing is not publicly funded, it is a costly exercise. It is extremely important to stress that women and parents who make the decision to have an abortion past the first trimester of pregnancy are not making that decision lightly, and it is always done in tandem with a rigorous medical consultation process.
Ultrasounds done between 18 to 22 weeks of gestation can identify congenital disorders, which mean that a baby may be, to use the official terminology, incompatible with life. By that point, many potential risks that the pregnancy poses will become apparent, the most severe of those risks being death. That is not to say that I believe abortions should only be accessed under those extreme circumstances. I also do not believe that the decision to have an abortion is always one that causes distress, nor should it be. I firmly believe in bodily autonomy and fully support the range of medical and psychosocial reasons that cause a woman to want to, or have to, terminate a pregnancy, and there is no evidence that sex selection is one of them.
The way that so-called pro-life activists frame those seeking abortion is abhorrently misinformed. To deny pregnant women and their care practitioners the autonomy to access and deliver an abortion is to inflict harm and potentially death. The bill follows a concerning trend across Australia which seeks to undermine access to vital reproductive and maternal health care. Both the Queensland and the South Australian parliaments have recently seen proposed bills that restrict access to abortion. The South Australian Abortion Action Coalition has pointed to an incrementalism that is happening where evidence is ignored and criminalisation can creep back in through small changes to legislation. We must prevent that from happening in New South Wales. I acknowledge the incredible work of the 70‑plus organisations that fought alongside the NSW Pro-Choice Alliance to achieve the change that we have today in healthcare‑based abortion. The following quote from the alliance's media release speaking to the passing of the 2019 reform still, unfortunately, rings true today:
"The criminalisation of abortion affected the most vulnerable women most harshly as it is those living in rural areas, from minority communities and low socio-economic backgrounds who have been least able to access equitable care."
What is incredible is that these are the very communities that were thrown under the bus by the Hon. John Ruddick to justify the introduction of his bill. I am appalled by the overtly racialised framing of the issue. The discussions in favour of this bill target "ethnic communities" with "culturally high son preference". That terminology is not even a veiled dog whistle; it is straight up racist. It is all done to cover up a not-so-hidden agenda. The sensationalised language of "unborn babies" and "baby girls" used by the member speaks to the insidious framing that has consistently been associated with the globalised anti-abortion movement.
Just a few weeks ago Dr Joanna Howe staged a rally on the steps of this Parliament in support of the bill. There were big banners displaying images of embryos that were given the names Emma and Ruth. In a pretty ironic turn of events, the images were found not to be humans at all; they were newborn sugar gliders. The movement's misinformation runs so deep that its members cannot even get that simple fact straight. Less amusing and more concerning is the venomous language that those backing the changes are using, throwing around phrases like "modern day eugenics" and "feticide".
All we need to do is look to the United States to see the devastating impacts that abortion bans have. The Oscar‑nominated documentary The Devil is Busy showed the day‑to‑day operations of an abortion clinic in Atlanta after the fall of Roe v Wade. People now travel for days interstate for treatment. Upon arrival, they are assigned identifying numbers to maintain their anonymity. The clinic has around‑the‑clock security to defend its patients from the wrath of pro‑life activists. One quote from an employee perfectly encapsulates the dystopian nature of the place. She said:
"I never thought I would have more rights 25 years ago than my daughter does now ... There are people that made it to me [at the clinic], but how many did not?"
I share this woman's frustration and bewilderment in the Chamber tonight. I firmly believe it is the responsibility of all members of this place to prevent a future like that from happening in New South Wales.