Abortion in Australia

Since colonisation, abortion in Australia has always been regulated by state (previously colonial) law.{{cite journal |last1=Baird |first1=Barbara |title=Medical abortion in Australia: a short history |journal=Reproductive Health Matters |date=January 2015 |volume=23 |issue=46 |pages=169–176 |doi=10.1016/j.rhm.2015.10.002|pmid=26719008 |s2cid=6820335 }} Before the end of the 19th century, each colony had adopted the Imperial Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which, in turn, was derived from English laws from 1837, 1828, and 1803, which made abortion illegal under any circumstance. Since then, abortion law has continued to evolve in each state by case law and changes in legislation.

A legal precedent concerning the legality of abortion was set in Australia in 1969, by the Menhennitt ruling in the Victorian Supreme Court case R v Davidson,{{cite AustLII|VicRp|85|1969|litigants=R v Davidson (Menhennitt ruling) |parallelcite=[1969] VR 667 |date=3 June 1969 |courtname=auto}}. which held that abortion was lawfully justified if "necessary to preserve the physical or mental health of the woman concerned, provided that the danger involved in the abortion did not outweigh the danger which the abortion was designed to prevent". Since then, court rulings and legislative reform have helped deliver a medical framework for abortion in Australia; the Menhennitt ruling was later largely adopted by courts in New South Wales and Queensland,R v Bayliss & Cullen (1986) 9 Queensland Lawyer Reports 8. and was influential in some other states. Over time, this has come to be broadly defined so as to include the mental health of the woman, to which unwanted pregnancy is interpreted as clinically injurious.

Abortion rights received more attention over the 1970s across Australia, due, in part, to the efforts of many organisations and individuals such as the Abortion Law Reform Association (ALRA),{{Cite book |last1=Siedlecki |first1=Stephania |title=Populate and Perish: Australian Women's Fight for Birth Control. |last2=Wyndham |first2=Diana |publisher=Sydney: Allen and Unwin. |year=1990 |isbn=0044422202 |location=Sydney |pages=78–101}} Control Abortion Referral Service, and government initiatives such as the Royal Commission on Human Relationships, and activist medical practitioners such as Bertram Wainer.

In the mid-1990s, the conservative Howard government was in power in Australia, with conservative independent Tasmanian Senator Brian Harradine holding the balance of power in the Senate. Howard brokered a deal with Harradine to ensure his support for proposed bills, including the privatisation of national telecommunications provider Telecom. In return, Harradine received support for introducing restrictions on abortion.{{Cite web |last=Keane |first=Bernard |url=https://www.crikey.com.au/2014/04/24/the-lethal-legacy-of-brian-harradine-his-long-war-on-womens-rights/ |title=The lethal legacy of Brian Harradine: his long war on women's rights |date=24 April 2014 |work=Crikey |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200623155511/https://www.crikey.com.au/2014/04/24/the-lethal-legacy-of-brian-harradine-his-long-war-on-womens-rights/ |archive-date=23 June 2020 |url-status=live}} As a result, unlike other medications, abortifacient drugs were made to require approval from the Minister for Health before they could be assessed by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). As TGA assessment is a requirement for drugs to be sold in Australia, this created a ministerial veto.{{cite web |url=https://www.theage.com.au/opinion/tony-abbott-the-new-drug-watchdog-20051116-ge18va.html |title=Tony Abbott, the new drug watchdog |date=16 November 2015 |work=The Age |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200618032708/https://www.theage.com.au/opinion/tony-abbott-the-new-drug-watchdog-20051116-ge18va.html |archive-date=18 June 2020 |url-status=live}} Accordingly, the abortifacient RU-486, which was widely used overseas, was banned in Australia.{{Cite journal|last=Petersen|first=Kerry A.|date=2010|title=Early medical abortion: legal and medical developments in Australia|journal=Med. J. Aust.|volume=193|issue=1|pages=26–29|doi=10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb03736.x|pmid=20618110|s2cid=12758718}} The continued refusal by Tony Abbott, then Minister for Health, to allow abortifacients into Australia led to a private member's bill being introduced in late 2005 to transfer the approval back to the TGA. The bill was subsequently passed as the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Act 2006.{{cite web |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-12-01/the-facts-of-tonys-life/1164632 |title=The facts of Tony's life |date=1 December 2009 |work=ABC News |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201023084928/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-12-01/the-facts-of-tonys-life/1164632 |archive-date=23 October 2020 |url-status=live}}{{cite journal |url=https://ro.uow.edu.au/artspapers/178/ |title=Too Many, Too Late and the Adoption Alternative: Shame and Recent Abortion Debates |last=Albury |first=Rebecca |date=2007 |journal=University of Wollongong |access-date=3 January 2020}} From 2006 to 2012, the drug was still not registered by the TGA, and medical practitioners needed special status from the TGA in order to prescribe it;{{Cite news |url=https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2019/ru486-time-lift-restrictions-medical-abortion |title=RU486: time to lift restrictions on medical abortion |last=Swannel| first=Cate|date=2019|work=Med. J. Aust.}} even after registration, its use still has special conditions and restrictions. There is opinion among medical experts in Australia that abortifacients are over-regulated.{{Cite journal|last1=O'Rourke|first1=Anne|last2=Belton|first2=Suzanne|last3=Mulligan|first3=Ea|date=2016|title=Medical Abortion in Australia: What Are the Clinical and Legal Risks? Is Medical Abortion Over-regulated?|url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30136784/|journal=Journal of Law and Medicine |volume=24|issue=1|pages=221–238|issn=1320-159X|pmid=30136784}}

In 2006, after losing his veto power over abortifacients, Tony Abbott lobbied for funding of alternative counseling to pregnant women through church-affiliated groups to lower the national abortion rate,{{cite web |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-02-21/abbott-pushes-abortion-counselling-plan/803060 |title=Abbott pushes abortion counselling plan |date=21 February 2006 |work=ABC News |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161028155410/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-02-21/abbott-pushes-abortion-counselling-plan/803060 |archive-date=28 October 2016 |url-status=live}} without success. In 2010, however, while he was seeking election as Liberal Party leader, Abbott pledged not to make any changes to abortion laws.{{cite web|url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-abbott-pledges-to-make-no-changes-to-abortion-law/story-fn59niix-1225903064089|title=Tony Abbott pledges to make no changes to abortion law|date=9 August 2010|author=Nicola Berkovic|work=The Australian |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100811172758/http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-abbott-pledges-to-make-no-changes-to-abortion-law/story-fn59niix-1225903064089 |archive-date=August 11, 2010 |url-status=dead}}

In 2017, Senator Cory Bernardi moved a motion to ban sex-selective abortion. The motion was voted down (10–36).{{cite web |url=https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2017-11-16/2 |title=Motions - Abortion - Gender grounds |work=They Vote For You |date=16 November 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190722034507/https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2017-11-16/2 |archive-date=22 July 2019 |url-status=live}}{{cite web |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-16/bernardi-making-provocative-motions-hanson-young-fires-up/9158076 |title=From croissants to communism: Bernardi uses Senate motions to make ideological points |first=Louise |last=Yaxley |date=16 November 2017|work=ABC News |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201101031115/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-16/bernardi-making-provocative-motions-hanson-young-fires-up/9158076 |archive-date=1 November 2020 |url-status=live}} There is no evidence that sex-selective abortions are common in Australia, though according to the Human Rights Law Centre, attempting to create bans on the procedure is a "well-known tactic of opponents of abortion to limit women's access to abortion".{{Cite web|title=Explainer: Responding to abortion and sex selection claims|url=https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/2019/8/15/explainer-responding-to-abortion-and-sex-selection-claims |date=15 August 2019 |work=Human Rights Law Centre |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200310195103/https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/2019/8/15/explainer-responding-to-abortion-and-sex-selection-claims |archive-date=10 March 2020 |url-status=live}}

The National Women's Health Strategy 2020–2030, published by the Department of Health in 2019, listed "equitable access to pregnancy termination services" as a key measure of success for maternal, sexual and reproductive health.{{cite news|url=https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/05/national-women-s-health-strategy-2020-2030.pdf|title=National Women's Health Strategy 2020-2030|publisher=Department of Health|date=30 April 2019|accessdate=26 June 2022|page=23}}

Before the 2019 federal election, the Australian Labor Party unveiled a national abortion policy for the 2019 Australian federal election.{{cite web |last1=Greenbank |first1=Amy |title=Labor promises free abortions, pushes to decriminalise procedure in federal election pitch |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-06/labor-promises-free-abortions-if-it-wins-government-at-election/10873612 |work=ABC News |date=6 March 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201026081229/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-06/labor-promises-free-abortions-if-it-wins-government-at-election/10873612 |archive-date=26 October 2020 |url-status=live}} The party's policy included requiring public hospitals to offer abortion procedures consistently under new Commonwealth funding agreements, encouraging New South Wales to remove abortion from its criminal laws and building an abortion clinic in Tasmania.{{cite web |last1=Tovey |first1=Josephine |title=Labor's abortion policy: all the issues explained |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/07/labors-abortion-policy-all-the-issues-explained |access-date=30 May 2019 |work=The Guardian |date=7 March 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201108003538/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/07/labors-abortion-policy-all-the-issues-explained |archive-date=8 November 2020 |url-status=live}} In response Liberal Party leader Scott Morrison stated the issue was controversial and sensitive and decisions should be left to the states. His Coalition colleagues were largely quiet on the matter,{{cite news |last1=Tingle |first1=Laura |title=Why conservatives are not making a fuss over Labor's abortion policy |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-14/conservatives-arent-making-a-fuss-over-labors-abortion-policy/10893662 |access-date=30 May 2019 |work=ABC News |date=14 March 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190720161950/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-14/conservatives-arent-making-a-fuss-over-labors-abortion-policy/10893662 |archive-date=20 July 2019 |url-status=live}} while anti-abortion groups including the Australian Christian Lobby and Cherish Life campaigned against Labor on the issue.{{cite web |last1=Martin |first1=Sarah |title=Christian lobby targets key conservative seats in test of US-style campaign activism |url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/10/christian-lobby-targets-key-conservative-seats-in-test-of-us-style-campaign-activism |access-date=30 May 2019 |work=The Guardian |date=10 May 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210104224846/https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/10/christian-lobby-targets-key-conservative-seats-in-test-of-us-style-campaign-activism |archive-date=4 January 2021 |url-status=live}} Cherish Life claimed that Labor had an "extreme late-term abortion agenda", and that "more babies would die" if they were elected.{{cite web |last1=Karp |first1=Paul |title=Labor condemns anti-abortion group's claims 'babies will die under Shorten government' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/09/labor-condemns-anti-abortion-groups-claims-babies-will-die-under-shorten-government |access-date=30 May 2019 |work=The Guardian |date=9 May 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201108003045/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/09/labor-condemns-anti-abortion-groups-claims-babies-will-die-under-shorten-government |archive-date=8 November 2020 |url-status=live}} Labor MP Ed Husic, who retained his seat at the election, said the misrepresentation of the party's abortion policy was a factor in his decrease in votes.{{cite news |title=Husic points to misrepresentation of abortion policy for Labor vote loss |url=https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/husic-points-to-misrepresentation-of-abortion-policy-for-labor-vote-loss/video/d9d76d35d0d3097d0782656e5f3a0d80 |access-date=30 May 2019 |work=Daily Telegraph |date=30 May 2019 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20210130013438/https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/husic-points-to-misrepresentation-of-abortion-policy-for-labor-vote-loss/video/d9d76d35d0d3097d0782656e5f3a0d80 |archive-date=30 January 2021 |url-status=live }}

In October 2024, the South Australian Legislative Council narrowly voted down 10 to 9, a bill that would have seen those seeking a termination after 28 weeks to instead undergo an induced birth, with the babies then being adopted – effectively banning abortion at 28 weeks.{{cite news|url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-17/abortion-legislation-vote-south-australia/104477762|title=South Australian upper house narrowly votes down late-term abortion law amendments, with controversy between MP's|author=|date=17 October 2024 |work=ABC News |access-date=18 October 2024}}{{cite news|url=https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/extreme-abortion-bill-narrowly-voted-down-in-south-australia/n8uc8loda|title='Extreme' abortion bill narrowly voted down in South Australia |work=SBS World News |date=17 October 2024 |access-date=18 October 2024}}

Abortion-related violence is rare in Australia. The first serious attack and murder by an anti-abortion activist occurred in 2001, carried out by Peter Knight. Knight forced his way into a Melbourne clinic carrying a rifle, kerosene, and equipment to lock the doors of the clinic. He was intending to murder all patients and staff in the building, though he was overpowered after shooting and killing a security guard. Anti-abortion activists had been protesting outside the clinic, though left 15 minutes before Knight's attack. Knight, described by the prosecution as a "hermit obsessed with killing abortion doctors", was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.{{cite AustLII|VSC|498|2002|litigants=R v Knight |date=19 November 2002 |court=auto}}.{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1440785.stm |title=Australian abortion clinic guard killed |date=16 July 2001 |work=BBC News |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201004100028/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1440785.stm |archive-date=4 October 2020 |url-status=live}} In January 2009, a firebombing using Molotov cocktails was attempted at a medical clinic in Mosman Park, Western Australia. Damage was minimal, and only resulted in smashed windows and blackened external walls. Police believed graffiti saying "baby killers" on the building was related to the attack; however, the medical clinic did not actually offer abortion services.{{cite web |url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/07/2460486.htm?site=local |title=Arsonists attack mosman park clinic |date=16 July 2001 |work=ABC News |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160306191129/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-01-07/arsonists-attack-mosman-park-medical-clinic/258558?site=local |archive-date=6 March 2016 |url-status=dead}}.{{cite web |url=https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/baby-killers-graffiti-bomb-found-at-medical-centre-20090107-7bji.html |title='Baby Killers' graffiti, bomb found at medical centre |last=Sapienza |first=Joseph |date=January 7, 2009 |work=WAtoday |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210102055703/https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/baby-killers-graffiti-bomb-found-at-medical-centre-20090107-7bji.html |archive-date=2 January 2021 |url-status=live}}

Since at least the 1990s, tactics used by anti-abortion campaigners outside abortion clinics included "verbal abuse, threats, impeding entry to clinics, displaying violent imagery, and acts of 'disturbing theater' such as pushing a blood-splattered doll in a pram". In response, states and territories began creating "safe access zones", which prevent protesting about abortion within a proscribed area surrounding a clinic.{{cite web |last=Penovic |first=Tania |url=https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-abortion-clinic-safe-access-zones-and-where-do-they-exist-in-australia-98175|title=Explainer: what are abortion clinic safe-access zones and where do they exist in Australia?|work=The Conversation|date=15 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201003053548/http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-abortion-clinic-safe-access-zones-and-where-do-they-exist-in-australia-98175 |archive-date=3 October 2020 |url-status=live}} Tasmania was the first state to do so in 2013.{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/10/anti-abortion-activists-lose-bid-to-overturn-clinic-safe-access-zones-in-two-states |title=Anti-abortion activists lose bid to overturn clinic safe access zones in two states |last=Davey |first=Melissa |date=10 April 2019 |work=The Guardian |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201108003115/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/10/anti-abortion-activists-lose-bid-to-overturn-clinic-safe-access-zones-in-two-states |archive-date=8 November 2020 |url-status=live}} In April 2019, the High Court of Australia upheld these laws after they were challenged by two people arrested for violating them. The petitioners claimed their right to freedom of political communication had been denied as a result of the laws, though the court dismissed the appeals, saying the laws served a legitimate purpose.{{cite web |last=Byrne |first=Elizabeth |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-10/anti-abortion-protestors-lose-high-court-bid/10987714 |title=Anti-abortion activists lose High Court challenge to laws banning protests outside clinics |work=ABC News |date=10 April 2019 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20190413015414/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-10/anti-abortion-protestors-lose-high-court-bid/10987714 |archive-date=13 April 2019 |url-status=live |access-date=10 April 2019 }} In August 2021, Western Australia became the last state to introduce safe access zones. In the months prior, patients at abortion clinics in that state were continuing to be approached and intimidated by protesters; footage was also obtained of anti-abortion protesters outside a Western Australian clinic at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite social distancing guidelines at the time. All jurisdictions have their exclusion zone at 150m around abortion clinics at all times, except for the Australian Capital Territory which may set a zone of 50m with approval from a health minister.

Abortions are partially funded under Medicare, the federal government-funded public health scheme. As of 2015, Medicare effectively halved the cost of surgical abortion, and those provided by private healthcare insurers, which are also regulated by the federal government. The federal government also provides funding to public hospitals, and can thereby influence abortion policy and practice. Abortions and abortion advice are regarded as health services, and are exempt from the Goods and Services Tax (GST).

{{notelist}}

In the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), references to abortion as a criminal offence were repealed by the Crimes (Abolition of Offence of Abortion) Act 2002. Before then, abortion law was for many years governed by case law under sections 82–84 of the Crimes Act 1900 of New South Wales. Abortion care is now regulated under the framework of health law, standards, policies, and professional ethics that apply to all healthcare. There is no gestational limit preventing an abortion in the ACT.{{cite web |url=https://theconversation.com/heres-why-there-should-be-no-gestational-limits-for-abortion-121500 |title=Here's why there should be no gestational limits for abortion |last=Millar |first=Erica |date=12 August 2019 |work=The Conversation |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220706173412/https://theconversation.com/heres-why-there-should-be-no-gestational-limits-for-abortion-121500 |archive-date=6 July 2022 |url-status=live}}

Since March 2016, it has been an offence to protest within 50 m of an abortion clinic within the Australian Capital Territory (otherwise called "protest free zones").{{cite web|url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-29/canberra-abortion-clinics-to-get-protest-free-zones/6897330|title=Canberra abortion clinics to get protest-free "privacy zones"|first=Ruby|last=Cornish|date=29 October 2015|website=ABC News}}

Since April 2023, abortion is free or at no cost for official Australian Capital Territory residents, a legal first for an Australian jurisdiction.{{cite web |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-20/canberrans-can-now-access-free-abortions-in-national-first/102244974 |title=ACT becomes first jurisdiction to offer free abortions as Canberra patients shed light on troubling experiences |last=Roy |first=Thalia |date=20 April 2023 |work=ABC News |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240221004311/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-20/canberrans-can-now-access-free-abortions-in-national-first/102244974 |archive-date=21 February 2024 |url-status=live}}

In June 2024, a bill passed in the ACT Assembly increasing abortion services by allowing nurses and midwives to prescribe abortion medication for the first time, in addition to doctors. The bill also introduced a requirement for health practitioners who refuse to provide abortion services to either refer patients to a practitioner that provides those services, or information on how to find one, bringing the ACT "into line with other states and territories" which had already required this.{{cite web |url=https://www.act.gov.au/our-canberra/latest-news/2024/june/increased-access-to-abortion-services |title=Increased access to abortion services |date= 26 June 2024|work=ACT Government |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240627043138/https://www.act.gov.au/our-canberra/latest-news/2024/june/increased-access-to-abortion-services |archive-date=27 June 2024 |url-status=live}}

{{more|Abortion Law Reform Act 2019 (New South Wales)}}

Abortion was decriminalised in New South Wales on 2 October 2019 with the royal assent of the Abortion Law Reform Act 2019, passed a week earlier by both houses of the New South Wales parliament.{{cite news|last1=Raper|first1=Ashleigh|title=Abortion decriminalised in NSW after controversial bill passes final vote|url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-26/abortion-decriminalised-in-nsw-as-bill-passes-lower-house/11549436|access-date=26 September 2019|work=ABC News|publisher=ABC|date=26 September 2019|language=en}} The legislation took abortion out of the 119-year-old criminal code, and regulates it as a medical procedure. Under the new law, abortions are made available on request during the first 22 weeks of gestation. After that time, two doctors must agree that it is appropriate, based on the woman's current and future physical, psychological, and social circumstances. This is similar to laws in other states and territories. The medical practitioner performing the abortion has an obligation to give appropriate medical care if the abortion results in a live baby being born.

Prior to the new law, abortion had been explicitly listed in New South Wales as a crime under sections 82–84 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) since 1900,{{cite Legislation AU|NSW|act|ca190082|Crimes Act 1900}}. but the interpretation of the law is subject to the Levine ruling, from R v Wald of 1971,{{refn|name=R v Wald|R v Wald (1971) 3 {{abbr|NSW DCR|New South Wales District Court Reports}} 25. Confirmed in CES v Superclinics Australia Pty Ltd.}} itself derived from the Victorian Menhennitt ruling, which held an abortion to be legal if a doctor had an honest and reasonable belief that, due to "any economic, social, or medical ground or reason", the abortion was necessary to "preserve the woman involved from serious danger to her life or physical or mental health which the continuance of the pregnancy would entail". This was expanded by CES v Superclinics Australia Pty Ltd (1995),{{cite AustLII|NSWSC|103|1995|litigants=CES v Superclinics (Australia) Pty Ltd |parallelcite=(1995) 38 NSWLR 47 |courtname=Court of Appeal (NSW, Australia)}}. which extended the period during which health concerns might be considered from the duration of pregnancy to include the woman's future health and well-being. In 2006, Dr. Suman Sood was convicted of two counts of performing an illegal abortion where she failed to enquire as to whether a lawful reason for performing the abortion did exist.{{cite AustLII|NSWSC|762|2006|litigants=R v Sood (No 3) |courtname=auto |date=15 September 2006}}.{{cite news |url=http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2006/1724391.htm

|title=The Sood Abortion Trial |date=29 August 2006 |work=Radio National Law Report|publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation }}

In June 2016, Greens upper house MP Mehreen Faruqi was to introduce a bill decriminalising abortion in NSW. However, on the eve of the introduction of the bill on 23 June 2016, it was removed from the order of business for the following day, despite being first in the order of precedence for months, scheduled and publicly announced.{{Cite web|url=http://www.mehreenfaruqi.org.au/major-parties-combine-to-derail-introduction-of-nsw-abortion-bill/|title=Major parties combine to derail introduction of NSW abortion bill Posted on 23/06/2016|access-date=13 September 2019}}{{cite news |last1=Aubusson |first1=Kate |title='My body was a political stalemate': NSW has the abortion law debate it has been avoiding for 100 years |url=https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/my-body-was-a-political-stalemate-nsw-has-the-abortion-law-debate-it-has-been-avoiding-for-100-years-20160622-gpp2ns.html |access-date=30 May 2019 |work=The Sydney Morning Herald |publisher=Fairfax Media |date=23 June 2016 |language=en}}

In August 2016, Mehreen Faruqi released an exposure draft of the Abortion Law Reform (Miscellaneous Acts Amendment) Bill 2016 to "Repeal sections 82–84 of the Crimes Act, relating to abortion offences; Provide for a 150 metre safe access zone around abortion clinics and service providers to ensure a patient's right to medical privacy; and Require doctors to disclose conscientious objection at the start of the consultation and refer patients to another doctor who does not have such an objection or to the local Women's Health NSW centre".{{cite web|url=http://www.end12.org.au/thegreensbill/|title=Abortion Law Reform Bill – Exposure draft|access-date=6 August 2016|archive-date=7 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190307150509/http://www.end12.org.au/thegreensbill|url-status=dead}} The bill was introduced to the upper house on 11 August 2016.{{Cite web|url=http://www.mehreenfaruqi.org.au/historic-first-abortion-law-reform-bill-introduced-in-nsw-parliament/|title=Historic First Abortion Law Reform Bill Introduced in NSW Parliament, Posted on 11 August 2016|access-date=13 September 2019}}{{Dead link|date=June 2020 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} It was defeated in the second reading 25–14 on 11 May 2017.{{cite web|url=https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/Abortion%20law%20and%20the%20Reproductive%20Health%20Care%20Reform%20Bill%202019.pdf|title=Issues Backgrounder Number 3 - Abortion law and the Reproductive Health Care Reform Bill 2019|publisher=NSW Parliamentary Research Service|date=August 2019|access-date=26 September 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190926070102/https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/Abortion%20law%20and%20the%20Reproductive%20Health%20Care%20Reform%20Bill%202019.pdf|archive-date=26 September 2019|url-status=live}}

Since 1 July 2018, it has been illegal to protest within 150 metres of an abortion clinic.

In the Northern Territory, abortion requires the approval of two doctors after 24 weeks' gestation. Surgical and medical abortion are available in the public health system.{{Cite web|last=Government|first=Northern Territory|date=2017-09-18|title=Abortion: termination of pregnancy in the NT|url=https://nt.gov.au/wellbeing/hospitals-health-services/abortion-termination-of-pregnancy-in-the-nt|access-date=2020-11-24|website=nt.gov.au|language=en}} This is unusual in Australia where abortion services are frequently outsourced to private providers.{{Cite web |last=McInerney |first=Marie |title=Privatising abortion is not good for women's health (or finances)|url=https://www.croakey.org/privatising-abortion-is-not-good-for-womens-health-or-finances/|access-date=24 November 2020|website=Croakey|date=19 April 2018 |language=en-CA}}

The Termination of Pregnancy Law Reform Act{{Cite web|title=Legislation Database|url=https://legislation.nt.gov.au/en/Bills/Termination-of-Pregnancy-Law-Reform-Bill-2017?format=assented|access-date=2020-11-24|website=legislation.nt.gov.au}}{{Dead link|date=April 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} was enacted on 1 July 2017 and removed the need for two doctors to examine a woman before 14 weeks gestation, implemented a 150-metre "safe access zone" around clinics, removed the requirement of parental approval for the procedure and provided the ability for the prescription of medical abortion tablets.{{cite web|url=http://theconversation.com/decriminalisation-in-the-nt-signals-abortion-is-part-of-normal-health-care-74992|title=Decriminalisation in the NT signals abortion is part of normal health care|first=Suzanne|last=Belton|website=The Conversation|date=24 March 2017 }} The Interpretive Report 2018 recorded 742 abortions in the previous 12 months with 73% being medical abortion with tablets before 9 weeks gestation, the remaining 27% were conducted in hospital. Since the legislative change, 99.33% of terminations of pregnancy were conducted under 14 weeks of gestation.{{Cite web|publisher=Women's Health-Chronic Conditions and Prevention|date=18 January 2019 |title=Termination of Pregnancy Law Reform|url=https://digitallibrary.health.nt.gov.au/prodjspui/handle/10137/7327|language=en}} This has also meant that the waiting time in a public hospital for a surgical termination has reduced which has policy and public health economic implications.{{Cite journal|last1=Belton|first1=Suzanne|last2=McQueen|first2=Georgia|last3=Ali|first3=Edwina|date=2020|title=Impact of legislative change on waiting time for women accessing surgical abortion services in a rural hospital in the Northern Territory|url=https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajo.13117|journal=Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology|language=en|volume=60|issue=3|pages=459–464|doi=10.1111/ajo.13117|pmid=31916255|s2cid=210120421|issn=1479-828X|url-access=subscription}}

In December 2021, the Northern Territory eased restrictions on abortions, allowing access between 14 and 24 weeks with the approval of one doctor instead of the previous two required. They also legalised terminations after 24 weeks with the approval of two doctors, removing the previous provision which stated abortions were only legal after 24 weeks to save a woman's life.

{{main|Abortion in Queensland}}

Since 3 December 2018, abortion in Queensland has been available on request during the first 22 weeks of gestation. After that period, two doctors must sign off on the procedure before a woman can access an abortion unless there is a danger to the life of the woman or, in a multiple pregnancy, another foetus.{{cite web |url=https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/lnp-frontbencher-steve-minnikin-breaks-ranks-over-abortion/news-story/6870e16aea0123202336d7189e403bfd|title=Queensland parliament votes to decriminalise abortion|last=Owens|first=Jared|date=17 October 2018|website=The Australian|access-date=17 October 2018}}{{cite web |title=Termination of Pregnancy Bill 2018 Explanatory Notes |url=http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Documents/TableOffice/TabledPapers/2018/5618T1161.pdf |website=Parliament of Queensland |publisher=State of Queensland |access-date=25 October 2018}} Changes in the law followed campaigning by groups such as Fair Agenda who helped coordinate the lobbying of politicians, including via a rally and the use of a ‘vote pro choice’ web tool which showed politician's positions on the issue and enabled messages to be sent to them. Following the success of the campaign Fair Agenda and others used similar tactics to gain reform in New South Wales and South Australia.{{Cite web |last=Carr |first=Renee |date=2021-12-03 |title=Five Lessons from Fair Agenda's Campaigns for Access to Abortion Care in Australia |url=https://commonslibrary.org/five-lessons-from-fair-agendas-campaigns-for-abortion-care-in-australia/ |access-date=2025-02-05 |website=The Commons Social Change Library |language=en-AU}}

Prior to December 2018, abortion access in Queensland was determined by the 1986 McGuire ruling, which declared abortion to be legal if necessary to preserve the woman from a serious danger to her life or health—beyond the normal dangers of pregnancy and childbirth—that would result if the pregnancy continued, and is not disproportionate to the danger being averted. Until 2008, abortion law in Queensland closely mirrored the law in Victoria. The McGuire ruling was affirmed in the 1994 case Veivers v. Connolly, by a single judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland.

In South Australia, South Australian residents up to 23 weeks pregnant can have an early medication or surgical abortion. Safe access zones of 150 metres are provided around abortion clinics, effective since 1 January 2021.{{cite web|url=https://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/public+content/sa+health+internet/health+topics/health+conditions+prevention+and+treatment/abortions|title=Abortions|website=SA Health|access-date=26 September 2019}}

Legislation in 1969 legalised abortion when necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the woman — taking into account the current and reasonably foreseeable future — or in cases when the child was likely to be born with serious handicaps.{{Cite web|url=https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/assets.yoursay.sa.gov.au/production/2019/04/15/18/21/06/f1a23150-4fe5-49f2-aa81-a8d58ae5ffdc/Fact%20Sheet%205%20-%20Termination%20and%20the%20criminal%20justice%20system%20020419-1.pdf|title=Fact Sheet 5: Termination and the Criminal Justice System}} Abortions must be performed before a time limit of 28 weeks of pregnancy. Abortions must be performed in a hospital, and be approved by two physicians, and are also subject to a residency requirement (patient must be a resident of South Australia for at least two months). The hospital, dual approval, and residency requirement may be waived in an emergency. Abortions in South Australia are available for free or low cost at some of the public health facilities, including The Pregnancy Advisory Centre.{{cite web|url=http://www.pregnancyadvisorycentre.com.au/|title=IIS7|website=www.pregnancyadvisorycentre.com.au}} This Pregnancy Advisory Centre is a registered hospital, with doctors available for approval. Both medical and surgical abortions are performed.

A bill decriminalising abortion was introduced into the state parliament in October 2020.{{cite web |url=https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/B/CURRENT/TERMINATION%20OF%20PREGNANCY%20BILL%202020_HON%20MICHELLE%20LENSINK%20MLC.aspx|title=South Australia Termination of Pregnancy Bill 2020|date=22 November 2021 }} Under the legislation, abortion can be performed upon request up to 22 weeks and six days gestation. After that period, a medical practitioner can only perform an abortion if they consult with another practitioner, and if both are of the view that the procedure is medically appropriate. The reform removed abortion entirely from the criminal code. The Legislative Council passed the bill on 3 December 2020,{{cite web|url=https://www.youngwitness.com.au/story/7039153/abortion-reform-passes-sa-upper-house/|title=Abortion reform passes SA upper house|date=3 December 2020|access-date=31 December 2020}} as did the House of Assembly on 19 February 2021, by 29 votes to 15.{{cite web|url=https://indaily.com.au/news/2021/02/19/abortion-law-reform-passes-lower-house/|title=Contentious abortion law reform passes Lower House|work=In Daily|date=19 February 2021}} As an amendment banning so-called "gender-selective abortion" was passed by the Assembly, the amendments were agreed to by the Legislative Council on 2 March 2021, and received royal assent on 11 March 2021. The legislation required further regulations to be issued by the government, in order to come into effect. The government published the regulations on 23 June 2022; they came into effect on 7 July 2022.{{cite web|url=https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/v/r/2022/termination%20of%20pregnancy%20regulations%202022_47/2022.47.un.pdf|title=Termination of Pregnancy Regulations 2022|work=legislation.sa.gov.au}}{{cite web|url=https://7news.com.au/news/crime/new-sa-abortion-laws-to-start-in-july-c-7274080|title=New SA abortion laws to start in July|work=7news.com.au|date=23 June 2022|author=Tim Dormin}}{{cite web|url=https://indaily.com.au/news/2022/06/24/abortion-to-finally-be-decriminalised-in-sa-from-july/|title=Abortion to finally be decriminalised in SA|author=Stephanie Richards|date=24 June 2022|work=In Daily}} Health Minister Chris Picton criticised the former Liberal government, which was defeated by Labor at the March 2022 state election, for "delay[ing] and bury[ing] these regulations, and failed to explain to the community why they did not progress them".

In Tasmania, since 21 November 2013, abortions are allowed on request up to 16 weeks of pregnancy. After 16 weeks abortion requires the consent of two doctors on medical or psychological grounds. The law also prohibits filming, the holding of protests, harassment, or intimidation of patients or staff within 150 metres of abortion clinics.Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Act 2013 - Sect. 9{{cite web|url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-22/tasmania-removes-abortion-criminal-code/5109554|title=Tasmania decriminalises abortion amid protests|first=Stephen|last=Smiley|date=22 November 2013|website=ABC News}}{{cite web|url=https://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/tasmanian-abortion-law-reformed/news-story/3b2e1391d7bb5731978d4c3915994452|title=Tas abortion reform removes stigma: govt|date=21 November 2013|website=NewsComAu}}

From 1925 until 2001, Tasmania's Criminal Code prohibited "unlawful abortion", without actually stating what was lawful or not. While it had never actually been prosecuted, it had been held that Victoria's Menhennitt ruling of 1969 and New South Wales' Levine ruling applied in Tasmanian law. In late 2001, the Criminal Code was clarified to state that an abortion must be carried out under a set of criteria resembling those of the South Australian requirements.

The availability of abortion facilities in the state is limited. The state's public health system provides abortion services in only extraordinary circumstances (e. g., in cases of foetal abnormality); so, most women access pregnancy terminations through the private sector. In 2017, the state's only dedicated low-cost surgical abortion clinic closed. Some women chose to fly interstate for pregnancy terminations.{{cite news| url = https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2018-05-26/is-abortion-legal-in-australia/9795188| title = Is abortion legal in Australia? It's complicated - ABC News| website = Australian Broadcasting Corporation| date = 25 May 2018}}

{{further info|Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 (Victoria)}}

In Victoria, since 2008, abortions are allowed on request up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, with abortions after that time requiring two doctors to agree that it is appropriate, based on the woman's current and future physical, psychological, and social circumstances.(24 August 2008). "{{cite web| url = http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/new-law-will-not-end-abortion-controversy-20080823-40u4.html?page=-1| title = New law will not end abortion controversy| date = 23 August 2008}}." The Age. Retrieved 15 September 2008.Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 (Vic).

Before 2008, abortion law was based on the Victorian Crimes Act, as interpreted by the Menhennitt ruling in 1969, in the case of R v Davidson. Under the ruling, abortions were only legal if necessary to preserve the woman from a serious danger to her life or health — beyond the normal dangers of pregnancy and childbirth — that would result if the pregnancy continued, and is not disproportionate to the danger being averted. Menhennitt's ruling remained the basis for abortion law in Victoria until the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 (Vic) decriminalised abortions up to a gestational limit of 24 weeks.

In Western Australia, from May 1998, abortions became legal on request (with a referral from a doctor) up to 20 weeks of pregnancy, though subject to counselling by a medical practitioner other than the one performing the abortion. After 20 weeks of pregnancy, abortions were only able to be performed if the foetus was likely to be born with severe medical problems, which needed to be confirmed by two independently appointed doctors. For girls under 16 years of age, one parent needed to be notified, except where permission has been granted by the Children's Court or when the child did not live with her parents.

In September 2023, progressive abortion reforms were made, which included fully removing abortion from the criminal code, removing the need for parental notification for minors, and reducing the number of doctors needed to approve most abortions from two to one. The need for mandatory counselling was also removed, and the time at which additional requirements for abortion apply was increased from 20 weeks gestation to 23 weeks. The changes came into effect on 27 March 2024.{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/21/western-australia-decriminalises-abortion-as-landmark-reforms-pass-parliament |title=Western Australia decriminalises abortion as landmark reforms pass parliament |date=21 September 2023 |work=The Guardian |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230921120609/https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/21/western-australia-decriminalises-abortion-as-landmark-reforms-pass-parliament |archive-date=21 September 2023 |url-status=live}}{{cite web |title=Health Regulations Amendment (Abortion Legislation Reform) Regulations 2024 |url=https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/prod/filestore.nsf/FileURL/mrdoc_46857.pdf/$FILE/Health%20Regulations%20Amendment%20(Abortion%20Legislation%20Reform)%20Regulations%202024%20-%20%5B00-00-00%5D.pdf?OpenElement |website=WA Legislation |publisher=Government of Western Australia |access-date=23 March 2024}}

Western Australia was the last jurisdiction in Australia not to have safe access zones. A bill to create safe zones within 150 metres of abortion clinics was formally passed in August 2021, and went into legal effect from 1 September on assent.{{cite web |last=Shine |first= Rhiannon |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-12/wa-abortion-clinic-protests-banned-under-safe-access-zones-bill/100366664|title=Abortion clinic protests banned in WA as safe access zones bill approved to protect women |work=ABC News |date=12 August 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210812090258/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-12/wa-abortion-clinic-protests-banned-under-safe-access-zones-bill/100366664 |archive-date=12 August 2021 |url-status=live}} A 2020 report by the Western Australian Department of Health found that 70% of people approved of safe access zones.{{cite web |url=https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/women-harassed-outside-abortion-clinics-in-western-australia_1 |title=Women "Harassed" Outside Abortion Clinics in Western Australia |last=Gillespie |first=Eden |date=25 March 2021 |work=Special Broadcasting Service |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210325000453/https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/women-harassed-outside-abortion-clinics-in-western-australia_1 |archive-date=25 March 2021 |url-status=live}}

In November 2024, it was revealed that several hospitals within NSW rural communities were explicitly denying women access to abortion by way of a "self imposed regulation", forcing women to travel hours to either Sydney or Canberra to access abortion.{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/05/abortion-access-study-rural-new-south-wales-women |title='It’s kind of whispered in corridors': women being forced into underground abortion networks in rural NSW, study finds |last=Davey |first=Melissa |date=5 November 2024 |work=The Guardian |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241110212320/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/05/abortion-access-study-rural-new-south-wales-women |archive-date=10 November 2024 |url-status=live}}

With advancements in technology and the need for accessible healthcare services, telehealth has become a pivotal mode for providing abortion services across Australia. This approach allows women in remote, rural, and urban areas to access safe and legal abortion services, without the need for physical attendance in a healthcare facility.{{Cite journal |last1=Fix |first1=Laura |last2=Seymour |first2=Jane W. |last3=Sandhu |first3=Monisha Vaid |last4=Melville |first4=Catriona |last5=Mazza |first5=Danielle |last6=Thompson |first6=Terri-Ann |date=2020-07-01 |title=At-home telemedicine for medical abortion in Australia: a qualitative study of patient experiences and recommendations |url=https://srh.bmj.com/content/46/3/172 |journal=BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health |language=en |volume=46 |issue=3 |pages=172–176 |doi=10.1136/bmjsrh-2020-200612 |issn=2515-1991 |pmid=32665231|url-access=subscription }}

Each state and territory has its own criminal code relating to child destruction. The offence is called "killing unborn child", and can be committed only around the time of childbirth{{cite book |title=First do no harm: law, ethics, and healthcare |pages=360–2 |first=Sheila |last=McLean |publisher=Ashgate Publishing |year=2006 |isbn=0-7546-2614-8 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=am2iVvW6pwEC&q=%22child+destruction%22+queensland&pg=PA360 }}

in Queensland,{{cite web |url=http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/SUPERSED/C/CriminCode_007_081201.pdf |title=Criminal Code Act 1899: Reprint No. 7 |date=2008-12-01 |publisher=Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel |access-date=2009-03-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090919200245/http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/SUPERSED/C/CriminCode_007_081201.pdf |archive-date=19 September 2009 |url-status=dead }} Western Australia,{{citation |mode=cs1 |url=https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/prod/filestore.nsf/FileURL/mrdoc_15905.pdf/$FILE/Criminal%20Code%20Act%20Compilation%20Act%201913%20-%20%5B14-b0-05%5D.pdf?OpenElement |title=Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 |edition=v14-b0-05 |page=142 |section=§290: Killing unborn child |date=2009-06-27 |access-date=2009-03-31 }}

and the Northern Territory.

{{cite web |url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/consol_act/cca115/notes.html |title=Criminal Code Act – Notes |publisher=Australasian Legal Information Institute |access-date=2009-03-31 }}

It is called "causing death of child before birth" in Tasmania.

{{cite web |url=http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/population/abortion/TASMANIA.abo.htm |title=Tasmania. Criminal Code Act 1924 (No. 69 of 1924), as amended through 2003. |publisher=Harvard School of Public Health |access-date=2009-03-31 }} As of 2008, in South Australia, "child destruction" came under the heading of "abortion".{{cite web |url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/clca1935262/s82a.html |title=Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 Sect 82A–Medical termination of pregnancy |date=2008-11-27 |publisher=Australasian Legal Information Institute |access-date=2009-03-31 }}

The definition is somewhat broader in the Australian Capital Territory,{{cite web |url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/ca190082/s42.html |title=Crimes Act 1900 Section 42 |publisher=Australasian Legal Information Institute |access-date=2009-03-31 }}

and comparably broad to English law in Tasmania and South Australia. The offence was abolished in Victoria by the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 (Victoria).{{cite web |url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/num_act/alra200858o2008255/s9.html |title=Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 (No. 58 of 2008) – Sect 9 |publisher=Australasian Legal Information Institute |access-date=2009-03-31 }}

New South Wales does not have a "child destruction" enactment, but the Crimes Amendment (Grievous Bodily Harm) Act 2005 (NSW) amended the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), so that s 4(1)(a) now defines "grievous bodily harm" as including "the destruction (other than in the course of a medical procedure) of the foetus of a pregnant woman, whether or not the woman suffers any other harm".Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), {{cite web| url = http://portsea.austlii.edu.au/cgi-pit/renderFrag.py?frag=/home/www/pit/xml/nsw/act/438ea68fb75630a4.xml&date=20131120| title = s 4(1)(a)}} This was further amended by the Abortion Law Reform Act 2019 to "the destruction (other than in the course of a medical procedure or a termination of a pregnancy in accordance with the Abortion Law Reform Act 2019) of the foetus of a pregnant woman, whether or not the woman suffers any other harm". In March 2022, NSW enacted "Zoe's Law", which created a new criminal offence for people who cause the loss of a foetus through a criminal act such as assault. The law explicitly states the new crime does not apply to abortion, or anything a woman does that results in the loss of her own foetus.{{Cite web |title=Zoe's Law: New Offence for Causing Death of Unborn Child |url=https://couttslegal.com.au/blog/zoes-law-new-offence-for-causing-death-of-unborn-child/#:~:text=The%20law%20seeks%20to%20protect,12%2Dyear%2Dlong%20campaign. |access-date=2024-10-16 |website=Coutts Legal| date=27 May 2022 }}

There is a lack of consistent data collection standards across states due to differences in definitions, making it difficult or impossible to accurately quantify the number of abortions performed in Australia each year.{{citation|title=How many abortions are there in Australia? A discussion of abortion statistics, their limitations, and options for improved statistical collection |author1=Angela Pratt |author2=Amanda Biggs |author3=Luke Buckmaster |publisher=Parliamentary Library |date=14 February 2005 |url=http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22library%2Fprspub%2FCF7F6%22 |access-date=1 December 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141202035750/http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p%3Bquery%3DId%3A%22library/prspub/CF7F6%22 |archive-date=2 December 2014 }} There were an average of 75,700 Medicare-funded procedures that could result in an "abortive outcome" performed each year from 1995 to 2004, but this figure includes miscarriages as well as terminations. On the other hand, many women who have medical abortions performed at private hospitals may not claim the Medicare rebate.

South Australia is the only state which collects and publishes data on abortions. In 2002 there were 5147 medical abortions performed in South Australia, or 17.2 per 1000 women aged 15–44. Projected nationally, this would suggest that about 73,300 abortions were performed nationwide. This does not take into account differences between states. For example, unpublished data from Western Australia estimates a rate of 19.4 terminations per 1000 women in the same age bracket, which would indicate about 82,700 abortions projected nationally. The South Australian data also indicates that the vast majority of abortions performed between 1994 and 2002 occurred before 14 weeks gestation. Less than 2% took place at or after 20 weeks.

{{Main|Societal attitudes towards abortion}}

{{Update section|date=October 2024}}

Traditional Christian beliefs played a large factor influencing Australia's initial policies opposing abortion. Changing attitudes to abortion and reproductive rights have correlated with fewer Australians perceiving their country to be a "Christian nation", which, in turn, has decreased the influence of right-wing Christian politicians.{{Cite journal|last=Smith|first=David T.|date=2021-05-27|title=No longer a "Christian nation": why Australia's Christian Right loses policy battles even when it wins elections|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09637494.2021.1946344|journal=Religion, State and Society|volume=49|issue=3|pages=231–247|doi=10.1080/09637494.2021.1946344|s2cid=236520365|issn=0963-7494|url-access=subscription}} Stigma surrounding the issue of abortion, however, still remains, and can severely impact women's sense of identity and mental health, and also influence whether an abortion is obtained. Women may choose to state they suffered a miscarriage, rather than telling people they had an abortion, to avoid negative reactions.{{Cite journal|date=2011-03-01|title=Abortion is a difficult solution to a problem: A discursive analysis of interviews with women considering or undergoing abortion in Australia|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277539510001524|journal=Women's Studies International Forum|language=en|volume=34|issue=2|pages=121–129|doi=10.1016/j.wsif.2010.11.002|issn=0277-5395|last1=Kirkman|first1=Maggie|last2=Rowe|first2=Heather|last3=Hardiman|first3=Annarella|last4=Rosenthal|first4=Doreen|url-access=subscription}}

Since at least the 1980s, opinion polls have shown a majority of Australians support abortion rights,{{cite web |url=http://www.emilyslist.org.au/news/editorial.asp?id=191 |title=It's time to come clean on abortion debate |date=1 February 2005 |work=Emily's List Australia |archive-url=https://archive.today/20050205094852/http://www.emilyslist.org.au/news/editorial.asp?id=191 |archive-date=5 February 2005 |url-status=dead |access-date=5 April 2009 |df=dmy-all }} and that support for abortion rights is increasing.{{cite journal |last1=Katherine |first1=Betts |date=2004 |title=Attitudes to Abortion in Australia: 1972 to 2003 |url=http://tapri.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/v12n4_3betts.pdf |journal=People and Place |volume=12 |issue=4}}

• In 1973, the Women's Electoral Lobby polled 5,267 men and women in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, and Canberra. The survey found 80% of people believed a woman should have a right to have an abortion.{{Cite news |date=8 May 1973 |title=Survey on abortion - 80% in favour |work=Sydney Morning Herald}}
• In 1987, a Saulwick poll found only about 7% of Australians would not approve of abortions under any circumstances.{{cite web |url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/kirbyj/kirbyj_inaugural.htm |title=Sex, Science & Society |date=30 March 1988 |work=High Court of Australia |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181211150816/http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/kirbyj/kirbyj_inaugural.htm |archive-date=December 11, 2018 |url-status=live}}
• In 2003, a poll by The Australian Survey of Social Attitudes (AuSSA) found that 81% of Australians believe a woman should have the right to choose an abortion, and only 9% believe they should not; 7% were "neutral", and 2% could not decide.
• In 2005, a Nielsen Corporation poll found that 56% of Australians thought the abortion laws in place, which generally allow abortion for the sake of life, health, or economic factors, were "about right", 16% want changes in law, to make abortion "more accessible", and 17% want changes to make it "less accessible".{{cite web |url=https://www.theage.com.au/national/poll-backs-abortion-laws-20050216-gdzkn2.html |title=Poll backs abortion laws |last=Grattan |first=Michelle |date=16 February 2005 |work=The Age |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181211145930/https://www.theage.com.au/national/poll-backs-abortion-laws-20050216-gdzkn2.html |archive-date=11 December 2018 |url-status=live}}
• In 2006, a poll by Roy Morgan Research found that 65% of Australians approved of surgical abortion, and 22% disapproved; and that 62% believed RU-486 should be available to women, while 31% believed it should not.{{cite web |url=http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/3978/ |title=Majority Of Australians Think Abortion Pill (RU486) Should Be Made Available To Australian Women |date=February 11, 2006 |work=Roy Morgan Research |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070904073953/http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/3978/ |archive-date=4 September 2007 |url-status=dead}}
• In 2006, interviews found that 80% of Australians disapproved the use of sex-selective abortion.{{cite journal |last1=Kippen |first1=Rebecca |last2=Evans |first2=Ann |last3=Gray |first3=Edith |date=2011 |title=Australian attitudes toward sex selection technology |url=https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(10)02852-9/pdf |journal=Fertility and Sterility |volume=95 |issue=5|pages=1824–1826 |doi=10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.11.050 |pmid=21163475 |doi-access=free }}
• In 2007, a poll by AuSSA found that 4% of Australians are opposed to abortion in all circumstances, 33% believe abortion should be allowed in certain circumstances, and 57% believed it should be readily available whenever a woman wants one; 7% were undecided, or did not respond.{{cite journal |last1=Katehrine |first1=Betts |date=2009 |title=Betts, Katharine. Attitudes to abortion: Australia and Queensland in the twenty-first century. |url=http://tapri.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/v17n3_3betts.pdf |journal=People and Place |volume=17 |issue=3}}
• In 2009, a study of polls conducted during Australia's 2007 federal elections found that a clear majority of both Labor Party and Liberal Party voters support abortion rights. The study also showed that 77 per cent of winning candidates in the 2007 election favoured an unrestricted approach to abortion.{{cite web |url=http://www.smh.com.au/national/right-to-choose-abortion-wins-strong-support-20091004-ghxd.html |title=Right to choose abortion wins strong support |date=5 October 2009 |first=Adele |last=Horin |author-link=Adele Horin |work=The Sydney Morning Herald |archive-url=https://archive.today/20140501034648/http://www.smh.com.au/national/right-to-choose-abortion-wins-strong-support-20091004-ghxd.html |archive-date=1 May 2014 |url-status=live |access-date=1 May 2014 |df=dmy-all }}
• In 2010, a study published in The Medical Journal of Australia found that 61% of Australians said abortion should be lawful without question in the first trimester of pregnancy, while 26% said it should be lawful depending on the reason.{{cite journal|url=https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2010/193/1/australian-attitudes-early-and-late-abortion |title=Australian attitudes to early and late abortion |author=Lachlan J de Crespigny|journal=Medical Journal of Australia|publisher=Australian Medical Association|pmid=20618106|volume=193|issue=1|date=5 July 2010|pages=9–12 |doi=10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb03732.x |s2cid=39714985 |url-access=subscription}} In the second trimester and third trimesters, support for outright lawful abortion was 12% and 6%, respectively, while 57% and 42%, respectively, said it depended on the circumstances.{{cite web | url=http://www.theage.com.au/national/call-for-early-abortion-to-be-lawful-poll-20100704-zvtt.html | work=The Age | title=Call for early abortion to be lawful: poll | date=5 July 2010 | archive-url=https://archive.today/20121231004241/http://www.theage.com.au/national/call-for-early-abortion-to-be-lawful-poll-20100704-zvtt.html | archive-date=31 December 2012 | access-date=5 July 2010 | url-status=live | df=dmy-all }}

When abortion began to be legislated in 1969, some Indigenous Australians were among those opposing it, on the belief it would lead to "coerced abortion and sterilization".{{Cite book|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/10163221|title=Women who do and women who don't join the women's movement|date=1984|publisher=Routledge & Kegan Paul|author=Robyn Rowland|isbn=0-7102-0296-2|location=London|oclc=10163221}} This attitude is believed to have been influenced by previous government interference in Indigenous autonomy, including the Stolen Generations.{{Cite book|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/26581498|title=Gender relations in Australia : domination and negotiation|date=1992|publisher=Harcourt Brace Jovanovich|author1=Kay Saunders |author2=Raymond Evans|isbn=0-7295-1218-5|location=Sydney|oclc=26581498}} As of the mid-2010s, more Indigenous women were choosing to have abortions,{{Cite journal|last1=Shankar|first1=Mridula|last2=Black|first2=Kirsten I. |last3=Goldstone |first3=Philip|last4=Hussainy|first4=Safeera|last5=Mazza|first5=Danielle |last6=Petersen|first6=Kerry|last7=Lucke|first7=Jayne|last8=Taft|first8=Angela|date=2017|title=Access, equity, and costs of induced abortion services in Australia: a cross-sectional study|journal=Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health|language=en|volume=41|issue=3|pages=309–314|doi=10.1111/1753-6405.12641|pmid=28110510|issn=1753-6405|doi-access=free}} though stigmatisation around the issue is still prominent within many Indigenous communities.{{Cite journal|last1=Doran|first1=Frances|last2=Hornibrook|first2=Julie|date=2016-03-18|title=Barriers around access to abortion experienced by rural women in New South Wales, Australia|url=https://www.rrh.org.au/journal/article/3538/|access-date=2021-08-24|journal=Rural and Remote Health|volume=16|issue=1|page=3538|language=en|doi=10.22605/rrh3538|pmid=26987999|doi-access=free}}

• Abortion in New Zealand

{{reflist}}

• [https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/Abortion%20Law.pdf Abortion law: a national perspective] – briefing paper prepared for the New South Wales Parliament concerning laws regarding abortion in Australia (2017)
• [https://www.mariestopes.org.au/abortion/ Marie Stopes Australia | Leading national abortion provider]
• [https://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/factsandfigures/australianabortionlawandpractice Children by choice | Abortion by state] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210331135527/https://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/factsandfigures/australianabortionlawandpractice |date=31 March 2021 }}

{{Abortion in Oceania}}

{{Abortion}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Abortion in Australia}}

Category:Health law in Australia