I missed this earlier, but found a newsletter from the Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby (GLRL) on my facebook about the passage of the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008 through the Australian Senate. This happened on 24 November. The GLRL said:

Following on the heels of the superannuation and family law changes already passed, the General Law Reform Bill consolidates the omnibus same-sex reforms granting same-sex de facto couples and their children equality in all significant federal laws.

“Today is an historic day. The Australian Senate has finally and firmly given its nod to equality for our relationships and families. Our partners and our children can look forward to equality in almost all areas of federal law, from taxation to health and aged care, from immigration to family law”, said GLRL spokesperson, Peter Johnson.....

The Bill rewrites legal definitions of ‘couple’, ‘partner’, ‘parent’, ‘child’ and ‘family’ to include all couples and their children. The changes will grant equal access to entitlements and benefits in federal laws relating to taxation, superannuation, Medicare and health entitlements, social security, veterans’ and defence benefits, migration and workers’ compensation.

Medicare and PBS (subsidised medicine scheme) changes will commence on 1 January 2009. Some changes, including social security payments, some family tax benefits, Australian passport changes and veterans’ affairs entitlements will commence from 1 July 2009.

Same-sex couples will be able to contact Centrelink from March 2009 to find out what the changes will mean for their payments. The GLRL will continue its advocacy on the Centrelink same-sex community reference group to ensure Centrelink get the implementation of the reforms right .

"Whilst many people will benefit from the reforms, those on social security payments who will be adversely affected must be given the time and assistance to readjust their lives and finances”, added Johnson.

“It’s important for GLBT Australians to say thanks to those who have advocated for or spoken in favour of these reforms in Parliament. Change does not happen without dedicated parliamentarians who stand up for equality and human rights. By thanking them, the GLBT community opens a dialogue on further law reform, whether that be civil unions, marriage or federal anti-discrimination protection”, said Johnson.

The following parliamentarians spoke (spoke, not just voted) in favour of the reforms, including the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Bill 2008, Same Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – Superannuation) Bill and the Same Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008 (note: 'The Hon.' means they are in the House of Reps):

Government party
The Hon. Arch Bevis, Brisbane (ALP)
Senator Carol Brown, Tasmania (ALP)
The Hon. Mark Butler, Port Adelaide (ALP)
The Hon. Greg Combet, Charlton (ALP)
Senator Trish Crossin, Northern Territory (ALP)
The Hon. Annette Ellis, Canberra (ALP)
Senator David Feeney, Victoria (ALP)
Senator Joe Ludwig, Queensland (ALP)
Attorney-General, The Hon. Robert McClelland (ALP)
Senator Jan McLucas, Queensland (ALP)
The Hon. Shayne Neumann, Blair (ALP)
The Hon. Graham Perrett, Moreton (ALP)
Senator Louise Pratt, Western Australia (ALP)
The Hon. Jim Turnour, Leichhardt (ALP)
Senator Penny Wong, South Australia (ALP)
Senator Dana Wortley, South Australia (ALP)
Opposition parties
Senator Simon Birmingham, South Australia (Liberal)
Senator Sue Boyce, Queensland (Liberal)
Senator George Brandis, Queensland (Liberal)
The Hon. Petro Georgiou, Kooyong (Liberal)
Senator Gary Humphries, Australian Capital Territory (Liberal)
The Hon. Sussan Ley, Farrer (Liberal)
The Hon. Dr Brendan Nelson, Bradfield (Liberal)
The Hon. Christopher Pyne, Sturt (Liberal)
Leader of the Opposition, The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, Wentworth (Liberal)
The Hon. Danna Vale, Hughes (Liberal)
Non-aligned parties
Senator Bob Brown, Tasmania (Greens)
Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, South Australia (Greens)
Senator Christine Milne, Tasmania (Greens)
Senator Nick Xenophon, South Australia (Ind).

The Prime Minister isn't in the list, but then he's a christian who thinks that marriage is between men and women. But it doesn't really matter. The religious can keep their idea of marriage provided they keep their religion out of our state. What this bill does is provide equal rights in the eyes of the state.

There are a couple of unexpected names in the list: Sussan Ley who comes from far west NSW - the outback - which is otherwise very conservative (Tim Fischer used to be the member) and Danna Vale who is a climate change denialist and thinks that Australia is about to become a muslim nation on account of non-muslim women having too many abortions. Also Nick Xenophon who is a bit of a surprise package - a puritan in some respects, but obviously not in others.

Edit: I should mention also, that back in October, the Victorian state parliament legalized abortion up to 24 weeks. It has been decriminalized for years, but now women have really gained control over their own bodies for the first time. A doctor who conscientiously objects is required to provide the woman with a referral to another doctor.

The Public Health Association of Australia says that "Access to safe abortion services is an important public health issue for women and their families and should be considered in the framework of women's health and human rights".

Before 1971 [when it became technically legal] abortion was the second largest cause of pregnancy-related deaths. Since then deaths usually only occur when there are multiple pre-existing health problems. (source: NH&MRC)

In Australia in 1965 there were 45 maternal deaths due to abortion. 
There were 34 maternal deaths in Australia between 1997-99 and there were no deaths due to abortion.  (This is the most recent data publicly available.)

A 2003 survey (of nearly 10,000 people) found that 81% of Australians believe that a woman should have the right to choose whether or not she has an abortion. 72% of Catholics support that position. Even among the evangelical protestants 53% supported the woman's right (and only 36% of them actually disagreed with it).

36% is about the same percentage of the House of Reps members who voted for the (anti-abortion) Minister to have control over the release of RU 486. Tells a lot about their influence in marginal seats.

85% of general practitioners support women's right to have legal access to abortion services (2004 survey of nearly 3000 GPs).

Interestingly, in every state abortion remains a criminal offence unless the physical or mental health of the woman is endangered. In NSW and Tasmania 'economic, social or medical grounds or reasons' can be applied. The WA law requires only 'informed consent' of the woman (up to 20 weeks). Women under 16 are not able to give 'informed consent'. Only the ACT has no criminal law applying, but after 12 weeks the case has to be decided by a panel of doctors. Most states also allow abortion up to 22 or 23 weeks in case the child will be severely handicapped. (Australian Reproductive Health Association)

Most of the sites I found on this issue are not Christian. This surprised me, but I'm glad. The Atheist Foundation of Australia, however, had some nice stuff:

"St. Augustine (d.430) and St. Thomas Aquinas (d.1270), following Aristotle, decreed that the foetus acquired a soul after 40 days for males and after 90 days for females."

"Aquinas believed in "humuncleos" i.e. it was the male sperm which provided 100% of the basic material for the future foetus. The mother's womb was just the soil in which the seed grew. The microscope and science refuted this idea of male egocentricity and is one reason why the religious do not like science."

Exodus 21: 22-25: "When men strive together and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined according to as the woman's husband shall lay upon him, and he shall pay as the judges determine."

Hosea 9: 11-14: "Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts"

Jeremiah 20: 14-18 curses the day he was born and wishes he had been killed while still in his mother's womb.

(there are several other citations of the Bible's exhortations to kill children.)

I got this from a Victorian government website. It was the first one that came up on Google. Thank you Google.

In 1990, 23 per cent of all known pregnancies in Australia were terminated. This makes abortion one of the most common surgical procedures in the country, with around 80,000 women undergoing abortion every year. Our current ratio of one abortion in every four pregnancies is an improvement over the estimated one in three recorded in Australia in the 1930s.... [when abortion was illegal]

International research shows that women will still seek abortion, even if the procedure is illegal. Numerous studies have shown that the majority of Australians support the idea of safe and legal abortions. However, Australian abortion laws are typically vague and open to interpretation. Laws differ between States and Territories. Generally, all legislations aim to restrict access to the procedure, and give the decision on whether or not a pregnancy can be terminated to the doctor, instead of the woman. Ambiguous laws mean that public sector services are limited, particularly in rural areas, and doctors are less inclined to train in abortion techniques for fear of legal action.

Around one in three Australian women will undergo an abortion. The typical profile of a woman seeking abortion includes:

• Aged in her 20s
• Single
• Childless
• Well educated
• Employed.

It's often believed that only irresponsible women fall pregnant by accident. This is not true. Studies show that between half and two thirds of all women presenting for abortion were using contraception at the time. Women who are not in permanent relationships are more likely to fall pregnant by accident, because a woman having irregular sex is less inclined to use regular contraception, like birth control pills.

Another common fallacy is that a woman is in control of her body at all times, and should therefore be able to prevent an accidental pregnancy. However, a woman's decision to have sexual intercourse is not always voluntary. Circumstances such as coercion, manipulation, rape and alcohol use can deny a woman the opportunity to exercise her free will and take contraceptive precautions.

A safely performed abortion with no complications doesn't reduce a woman's future fertility. This belief may be a hangover from days when abortion was illegal, and 'backyard' procedures carried considerable risks, including infection. Currently, abortion is one of the safest medical procedures in Australia. It is 10 times safer than childbirth, and around 200 times safer than an appendicectomy.

Studies show that most women who have an abortion don't suffer any subsequent psychological or emotional problems. Women who do experience guilt, depression and grief tend to be those who were coerced into the operation by partners or family. Australian research indicates that a woman is more likely to suffer emotionally if she feels the decision to terminate was, in some way, not fully hers to make. The current legislation that requires a woman to 'convince' the doctor of her eligibility for the procedure can cause distress, since the final decision rests with the medical profession, and not the woman herself.

The site also mentions that the current rate of terminations in the US is about one in three, the same rate as Australia in the 1930s. Does this mean that when anti-abortion pressure is higher, the rate goes up? Or at least when abstinence is preached and contraception condemned, the rate goes up?

Is there any difference between having Shariah law and having the anti-abortion law just passed by the legislature of South Dakota?

In 1996 retired Senator Brian Harradine, a person whose politics were largely driven by his Catholic faith, managed to initiate and get passed a bill requiring doctors wanting to prescribe RU486 to get the personal permission of the Minister of Health. So for the last decade the drug has been effectively banned - particularly so in the last few years while we've had a Catholic Minister of Health who is prone to making fairly inflammatory speeches about abortion. Late last year, however, a group of Senators proposed a new bill to reverse the 1996 legislation and give the decision about availability of RU486 to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. In other words, its availability would be based, not on the personal preferences of the Minister, but on scientific evidence as to the safety of the drug for the women who take it.

This time, the women politicians on both sides got organized, effectively forcing the Prime Minister to allow a 'conscience vote'. The bill passed the Senate on the 10th and the House today. I heard the vote on a last ditch amendment put forward by the anti-abortion crowd: 96 to 49 against the amendment. As far as I could ascertain, only 2 women voted for it. I missed the rest of the voting, but I assume the numbers were roughly the same for the final passage of the bill.

This is a significant day. There have been serious attempts in recent years to put abortion back on the political agenda. The debate over this bill was essentially a debate between those who think the abortion issue should be decided by politicians and those who think it's an issue between a woman and her medical adviser, between those who place the importance of potential life before an actually existing life and those who support women's right to their own bodies. The anti-women side have had a massive defeat.

As Anne Summers pointed out, it's also the first time that having more women in parliament has actually made a difference.

Here's an article on the 'abortion debate' in Australia that probably relates to what's going on in the US as well.

I've had nothing I wanted to write in the last few days. I've been working on a grant application and it has been driving me nuts. I bought myself an MP3 player in Bangkok airport and I haven't even had time to put any music on it. I've been using it to listen to the radio! Anyway the draft application is finished and awaiting comments from people with more understanding of these procedures than I have. The Australian Research Council is excessively competitive and if they fund 30% of applications it's a record year.

I crossed it off my task list with some satisfaction. Now I only have 10 things left on the list - some of which are a year or two overdue! I had planned to get on to the next one - revising a book manuscript for the publisher. This is only a year late. But instead I spent the afternoon with my administrative hat on, putting out spot fires that always crop up when I go to the office. One reason I try not to go there too often.

We've had a bunch of thunderstorms. There was a doozy this afternoon. I don't know what happened other than it poured lakes full of rain (the Sydney water people are very pleased that the dams are filling up - having been at record low levels), but I was in a traffic jam all the way home. That's 14 km. And I passed 6 broken down cars on the way. We had a power outage in our building for a couple of seconds - of course it happened just as I was about to press 'send' on a long email. And at one stage the rain was so heavy I could barely see the other side of the courtyard.

Some a...hole male politicians are still trying to revive the so-called 'abortion debate'. Promoting myths about how many late term abortions there are, and generally pandering to the religious right. Luckily the Prime Minister and some others are trying to put that fire out. It has been encouraging to see some of the women politicians on the government side come out in support of women's right to control their own bodies. Women I didn't know existed until now. You don't usually hear them speaking about anything at all, let alone women's issues.

The PM himself is in Aceh doing politics. Hugging the Indonesian Foreign Minister and being aghast at the ruination. Having offered a few million in aid at the start, they have upped it to a billion because the population were being far more generous than they were. He seems, however, genuinely shocked by what he has seen. We have army teams over there clearing the rubble of Banda Aceh at the rate of a couple of square metres a day. They keep finding more bodies, so they go slowly. It'll take years, just to clear the city at this rate.

I need to think of a way to include some of this in my Southeast Asian Economies course this year (starting next month). It might be challenging and interesting for the students to try to come up with some ideas about how to promote recovery. If any of you out there can think of useful ideas or references I'd be grateful.