How Anthony Albanese’s comments on abortion show he just doesn’t get it

Listening to Anthony Albanese dismiss abortion as a matter “for the states” this week was depressing.

This is what happens, I thought, when male politicians who don’t have a clue tell women they should just be grateful we don’t have a “divisive” abortion debate in Australia. Ignorance is bliss. And women are still paying $500 to private operators for a legal procedure that should be free under Medicare.

But that’s a matter for the states, OK?

You would not believe the number of male MPs I have interviewed over the years – including health ministers – who have no idea how much women are paying.

And so it was that when the Prime Minister was asked if he would require public hospitals to offer abortions, the PM’s answer was swift.

"No" he replied.

"It’s a state matter, state matter. States control hospitals". But wait a minute.

Wasn’t the argument that the states should be left to decide abortion rights exactly what the US Supreme Court just held? (It was.)

Of course, the Prime Minister had plenty to say when that happened.

When the US Supreme Court recently overturned the Roe v Wade decision, he said it was a “setback for women”.

Missouri was first to ban the procedure, making no exception for rape or incest, and other states – Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Utah quickly followed.

“Well, people are entitled to their own views, but not to impose their views on women, for whom this is a deeply personal decision,” Mr Albacete said.

And yet, the decision to overturn Roe v Wade did not ban abortion in America. Instead, it held it was a matter for the states to decide. And those states moved quickly to restrict access.

Strange, then, to listen to the Prime Minister now also argue that he doesn’t want to discuss reforms to ensure abortion is available in public hospitals because – wait for it – it should be a matter for the states.

Lifestyle Health Problems

Anthony Albanese’s comments on abortion show he just doesn’t get it

Asked about abortion policy this week, the Prime Minister fell back on a weak two-word answer which showed he just doesn’t get it.

The national family planning organization MSI Australia is calling for a national approach to abortion care ahead of the women's safety meeting in Adelaide today. MSI says Medicare rebates, public hospitals and more state funding should be on the table to improve national accessibility to pregnancy termination.

Comment

Listening to Anthony Albanese dismiss abortion as a matter “for the states” this week was depressing.

This is what happens, I thought, when male politicians who don’t have a clue tell women they should just be grateful we don’t have a “divisive” abortion debate in Australia.

Ignorance is bliss. And women are still paying $500 to private operators for a legal procedure that should be free under Medicare.

But that’s a matter for the states, OK?

You would not believe the number of male MPs I have interviewed over the years – including health ministers – who have no idea how much women are paying.

And so it was that when the Prime Minister was asked if he would require public hospitals to offer abortions, the PM’s answer was swift.

"No" he replied.

“It’s a state matter, States control hospitals.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese dismissed abortion as a matter “for the states.” Picture: NCA NewsWire / Jeremy Piper

But wait a minute.

Wasn’t the argument that the states should be left to decide abortion rights exactly what the US Supreme Court just held? (It was.)

Of course, the Prime Minister had plenty to say when that happened.

When the US Supreme Court recently overturned the Roe v Wade decision, he said it was a “setback for women”.

Missouri was first to ban the procedure, making no exception for rape or incest, and other states – Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Utah quickly followed.

“Well, people are entitled to their own views, but not to impose their views on women, for whom this is a deeply personal decision,” Mr Albacete said.

And yet, the decision to overturn Roe v Wade did not ban abortion in America. Instead, it held it was a matter for the states to decide. And those states moved quickly to restrict access.

The US Supreme Court recently overturned the Roe v Wade decision. Picture: Brandon Bell/Getty Images/AFP.

Now, it’s true that there are no Australian states that are threatening to ban abortion or make it a crime for doctors to perform one.

But there are still big problems in terms of access to abortion in Australia in some jurisdictions.

This week, the Prime Minister pointed out that abortion was legal in Australia and happily observed how wonderful it was that we didn’t have the “divisive” debate that occurred elsewhere.

“It is a good thing that in Australia, this is not a matter for partisan political debate,” he said.

But is it?

Is it really a “good thing” we are not debating abortion in Australia when low income women are being forced to spend $500 out-of-pocket to get one?

There are very real consequences for the privatization of abortion in Australia.

Just a few years ago, Tasmanian women forced to board planes and ferries to secure an abortion on the mainland.

The reason? The only private provider closed down "and" the state government refused to direct public hospitals to perform the procedure.

This was a national scandal.

And Scott Morrison and Greg Hunt shamefully did nothing to demand the Tasmanian government offer women access to abortion in that state. That public policy disgrace was one of the reasons the ALP moved to announce a policy in 2019 of requiring public hospitals to provide abortions.

But after some MPs complained it may have caused a backlash from religious voters in Western Sydney, Mr Albacete decided to put the idea in the too-hard basket.

Women are not a minority group. They are 50 per cent of the population.

And depending on what stats you believe, a substantial number – up to one in three, by some estimates – will access a surgical abortion or the abortion pill at some point in their life.

Improving access to healthcare for women, particularly low income women, should be core business for Mr Albacete.

It does not need to involve a big fight with the states. But it does require new policies to ensure women don’t face out-of-pocket costs.

New policies to make it easier and cheaper to get scripts for contraception and long-form options like IUD's.

What part of this duty of care to female voters does the Prime Minister not understand?