As proposed legislation to introduce 150-metre “safe access zones” around abortion clinics was debated in NSW parliament today, the people it impacts most – staff and patients – were desperately watching on.
The bill, co-sponsored by Labor MP Penny Sharpe and Nationals MP Trevor Kahn passed the upper house on Thursday afternoon after government MPs were allowed a conscience vote.
It proposes to make it illegal to obstruct, intimidate, distress or film without consent staff and patients within 150m of an abortion clinic, bringing the state in line with Victoria, Tasmania, Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory.
Under the laws, anti-abortion protesters caught interfering with staff or patients could be fined $5500 or jailed for six months. Repeat offenders face a fine of $11,000 and a year in prison.
The debate in parliament today was one that transcended political alliances.
“This is not a matter of left versus right, it is a matter of common decency,” Mr Kahn told the upper house. “It is not our place to judge these women, we do not know their stories.”
The bill is now expected to head to the lower house next month, and Ally* is one of the many women pleased to see the momentum behind it.
The 27-year-old Newcastle woman told Mamamia she underwent an abortion in 2015 at a Surry Hills clinic after her IUD contraceptive failed and her pregnancy became a danger to her health.
Top Comments
Guilty conscience?
No choice when two bodies are involved.
It is only one body, not two.
And she has nothing to feel guilty about. Those that are harassing those like herself should feel guilty and ashamed.
Yes abortions can be lifesaving - but it should be a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy even when there's no threat to her life or wellbeing - her body, her choice
Exactly. The woman in this article should not have felt she had to explain why she was having a termination, seemingly as a way of showing how it was excusable. It's nobody's business.
What about in the final trimester or even on the day before expected birth. Does your principle still apply?
I'm pro-choice btw, it's that fudgy line between when it is ok and when it is not that I find interesting.