Abortion: time to clarify Australia's confusing laws

Lachlan J de Crespigny and Julian Savulescu
Med J Aust 2004; 181 (4): 201-203.


  • Australian criminal law is a matter for states and territories. In relation to abortion, many laws are unclear and outdated, and are inconsistent between states and territories.

  • Doctors practise under time constraints and on a case-by-case basis. Most current laws have grey areas that leave doctors vulnerable to accusations, negative publicity and career damage, especially in the case of late abortions.

  • All jurisdictions should follow the Australian Capital Territory’s lead in allowing women to access abortion without fear of criminal prosecution.

  • Federal, state and territory governments should introduce a single clear national law on abortion, both in early and late pregnancy.

Please login with your free MJA account to view this article in full

  • Lachlan J de Crespigny1
  • Julian Savulescu2

  • 1 Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville, VIC.
  • 2 University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.


Competing interests:

None identified.

  • 1. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. A consideration of the law and ethics in relation to late termination of pregnancy for fetal abnormality. Report of the RCOG Ethics Committee. London: RCOG Press, 1998.
  • 2. Parliament of Australia. Abortion law in Australia. Research Paper 1 1998-99. Available at: (accessed May 2004).
  • 3. Zirngast N. Abortion laws need repealing. Green Left Weekly [online edition]. Aug 28, 2002. Available at: (accessed May 2004).
  • 4. Yusuf F, Siedlecky S. Legal abortion in South Australia: a review of the first 30 years. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2002; 42: 15-21.
  • 5. Kelley J, Evans MDR. Trends in Australian attitudes to abortion 1984–2002. Australian Social Monitor 2003; 6: 45-53.
  • 6. Bean C, Gow D, McAllister I. Australian Election Study, 2001. User’s guide for the machine-readable data file. SSDA Study No. 1048. Available at:, page 72 (accessed May 2004).
  • 7. Savulescu J. Is current practice around late termination of pregnancy eugenic and discriminatory? Maternal interests and abortion. J Med Ethics 2001; 27: 165-171.
  • 8. de Crespigny L, Savulescu J. Is paternalism alive and well in obstetrical ultrasound? Helping couples choose their children. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 20: 213-216.
  • 9. Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria. Report on late term terminations of pregnancy. April 1998. Available at: (accessed Jun 2004).
  • 10. CES and another v Superclinics (Australia) Pty Ltd and others (1995) 38 NSWLR 47. Supreme Court of New South Wales. Available at: (accessed May 2004).
  • 11. British Pregnancy Advisory Service. Abortion law. Available at: (accessed May 2004).
  • 12. 4 Nations Child Policy Network. Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, 21/1/04. Available at: (accessed May 2004).
  • 13. Skene L, Nisselle P. Late termination of pregnancy: when is it lawful? Medicine Today 2000; Sep: 103-106.
  • 14. United Kingdom Parliament. Hansard – House of Lords debates, 1928/29. Preservation of Infant Life Bill.
  • 15. Woodrow N. Termination review committees: are they necessary? Med J Aust 2003; 179: 92-94. <MJA full text>
  • 16. Council of Australian Governments. Arrangements for nationally consistent bans on human cloning and other unacceptable practices, and use of excess assisted reproductive technology (ART) embryos. Available at: (accessed May 2004).


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Responses are now closed for this article.