Independent MP Sarah Game is introducing a new amendment bill into Parliament. This bill, if passed, would replace South Australia’s restrictive late-term abortion legislation. This comes after the extremely narrow defeat of Ben Hood’s bill in that upper house last October. The proposed legislation would require an increased level of supervision and control over how abortions are performed after 23 weeks of gestation.
The debate around Hood’s bill, which lasted three hours, illustrates the sensitivities and complexities surrounding discussion of abortion legislation. The current law permits abortions after 23 weeks only with the approval of two doctors, provided there is a “significant risk to the physical or mental health” of the pregnant individual. The new amendment would further shrink these exceptions.
Details of the Proposed Amendment
The key changes that would be made by Sarah Game’s amendment bill are important. Under the new legislation, abortions after 23 weeks would only be permissible if they are necessary to save the life of the expectant mother or another fetus. In addition, abortions would be permitted when there is a serious risk of fetal malformations. No longer will the mental health of a pregnant person be considered an acceptable justification for a late-term abortion. This new provision is a radical departure from policy.
Game emphasized the need for these changes, stating, “It is time our laws protect the most vulnerable — healthy, viable babies — without compromising the care mothers need.” She further expressed optimism about the bill’s prospects, saying, “I am optimistic this bill will pass swiftly through the parliament.”
Joanna Howe was actively involved in drafting Hood’s and Game’s bills. She has been a strong advocate for the new replacement amendment. She said the changes being proposed would establish a clearer overall framework for abortions performed later in pregnancy. At the same time, they importantly protect both mothers and fetuses.
Political Landscape and Reactions
Game’s amendment comes in extremely toxic political climate. Both of the big parties are abandoning a conscience vote on these critical issues. Liberal leader Vincent Tarzia is said to have been appalled that debates on abortion issue should even be considered matters of personal conscience for MPs. He noted, “We’ve released our key priorities for the 2026 election and this is not one of them.”
The previous arrangement concerning Hood’s bill faced hurdles when Liberal MP Michelle Lensink’s agreement with Jing Lee fell through. Lee subsequently issued an apology for her conduct surrounding the deal. This government apology was influenced by, and went on to complicate, the political landscape around abortion legislation in South Australia.
Government advocates have chimed in agreeing that these debates should grant the flexibility for individual discretion to each of their lawmakers. One spokesperson stated that “such debates are traditionally a matter of conscience for individual MPs.”
Implications for Mental Health Care
We particularly applaud the proposed changes to focus all levels of care on treating people in acute mental distress. Rather than the late-term abortion procedures, they will be accepted help under the Mental Health Act. This change is intended to ensure people with mental health conditions get the help they require. While doing so, it rolls back stricter regulations that govern abortion practices.
Tammy Franks, a member of Parliament, has argued that decisions regarding abortion should remain primarily within the purview of medical professionals and those directly involved. She stated, “decisions should be left to the medical team and the person involved,” emphasizing a more individualized approach to healthcare.
