As mentioned in Friday's What We Missed, 19 year-old Tegan Simone Leach could go to jail for up to seven years for having a home abortion. Leach's 21 year-old boyfriend is also going to stand trial for "supplying drugs to procure an abortion."
Police allege a family member obtained the abortion pill misoprostol from a doctor in the Ukraine and smuggled it into Australia on a flight to Cairns on December 25.The pill was then allegedly successfully used by Ms Leach to terminate her pregnancy and induce a miscarriage at 60 days.
In their first court appearance on Thursday, it was alleged the pair did not ask about the lawful process to have an abortion.
Medical abortions are legal in Queensland but are often expensive with 90 per cent or more terminations performed in private clinics for a minimum out-of-pocket cost of about $370. But it remains an offence under the 100-year-old criminal code to access or procure an abortion.
Kate Marsh, of Children By Choice, said, "It comes as such a shock that someone can be charged with this offence in this day and age...We'd like to see abortion removed from the criminal code and be regulated like any other health procedure."
Leach is believed to be the first woman charged in Queensland in nearly 50 years for having a home abortion.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Australian teen could get seven years in prison for home abortion.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15987
Jeez. Would a jury really push this through? Would they really put a 17-yr-old in jail for seven years because of this?
How can you prosecute someone under a law that was created when those drugs/techniques didn't even exist?
Woops, 19, not 17. That's irrelevant anyway.
so frustrating...
what problem does this solve? I don't understand?
it makes no sense, i'm sad.
-S
This reminds me a bit of how the laws were written in the UK that prosecuted homosexuality in men. The same standard of illegality did not apply to women because Queen Victoria didn't believe that lesbianism was real. It's just as illogical as this law.
Actually (and I know this is a tangent, but I'm a queer history geek), it's an urban legend that Queen Victoria proclaimed that women wouldn't do such things. The amendment criminalizing male homosexuality was put forth by Parliament, and even if there had been a clause for lesbianism that Queen Victoria hadn't agreed with, she did not have the power to overrule Parliament to take it out, plain and simple.
The story probably came about from being mixed up with an incident in the 1920s when an attempt by Parliament to criminalize lesbianism was met by the Lord Chancellor arguing that 999 out of a 1000 women had never heard of such acts.
This reminds me a bit of how the laws were written in the UK that prosecuted homosexuality in men. The same standard of illegality did not apply to women because Queen Victoria didn't believe that lesbianism was real. It's just as illogical as this law.
This could be seen as a modern true civil disobedience.
Break an unjust law, accept penalty, but in doing so point out the utter absurdity in the law and get it changed.
I think that there is some potential in this case and story.
Let's hope this 19 yo woman doesn't pay the price for the legislature's oversight...if indeed it is. Can anyone explain how something generally legal is now considered technically illegal in this case?
Now, I'm no lawyer, but I am Australian. There are some funky, really crappy laws that are still on some states books but for the most part no one applies them. Abortion has fallen under that umbrella for a long time.
I don't know all the details of this case, but I hope that the woman is not convicted and that mentally and physically she is ok.
I think it has to do with the fact that it was technically a DIY abortion.
I don't believe the drug she (allegedly) took is approved for use in Australia and I've heard a few times that the charge has something to do with her taking a "noxious substance" to terminate her pregnancy. So I think the laws that are being used to prosecute her (and her boyfriend) are ones that exist to prohibit the chemical equivelant of coat hanger abortions.
Obviously the laws relating to abortion need to be updated (it needs to be formally legalised).
However when it is I would imagine that doing it in this way would still be problematic. Law makers aren't going to want to encourage women to undergo what could be a dangerous procedure with unapproved drugs without medical supervision.
You could reasonably argue that if abortion was more accessible in Australia then this couple wouldn't have sought to procure an abortion in this way. Still, it was suggested above that they didn't seek any information about how to go about the procedure properly. Given that it appears legal action is only being taken because of the way the couple went about procuring an abortion, perhaps this case isn't so black and white.
Excuse me if I'm posting this twice. Computer glitch:
Quick, sisters, vote in the Brisbane Courier-Mail's online poll on decriminalising abortion in Queensland.
Vote here
If that link doesn't work, visit the story and vote,
here
Well, more glitches, full links:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/poll/1,,5003440-5041451-0,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26072582-3102,00.html
The results of that poll make me sad.
Firstly, thanks for posting this. Any attention brought to this issue is very much appreciated from the perspective of an Australian woman and health care worker.
Cattrack2, RU486 has been approved for use in Australia by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Current Queensland legislation, however, states that surgical abortion by a medical practitioner is lawful where it is to preserve the life of the mother but does not extend to cover medical abortion by either health care workers or women not under medical supervision. It's a tricky situation which has resulted in health care providers, including remote sexual health clinics and major Queensland hospitals being forced to indefinitely retract this service in fear of legal ramifications for practitioners and their clients. The issue in this case is not necessarily procuring one's own abortion but the conduction of a medical abortion as opposed to surgical intervention.
Regardless, this is a horrific situation for a young woman and her partner to be in. Synna, I doubt that she and her partner are okay given that they have been publicly named and driven out of their home due to molotov cocktails being thrown at her house (!).
And Tara K, there have been a number of hearings now, and yes, the charges are unfortunately still being pursued.