Another day, another politician explaining to us how women's bodies work.

By AMY STOCKWELL

Another day, another politician explaining to us how women’s bodies work.

Today, Liberal Senator Chris Back made an extraordinary speech to the Australian Senate in which he suggested:

1. Miscarriages occur because foetuses have the capacity to “understand…that they might not survive in post-foetal life”

2. “The records as kept by health authorities actually don’t provide a breakdown…whether a lady miscarries for whatever reason…or terminations as arranged by the lady herself.”

3. “From an endocrine point of view…maleness suppresses femaleness” when it comes to embryonic development. “We have a predominance of female hormones as foetuses and as the male develops the development of the male hormones take over and, of course, we end up with the characteristics of maleness.”

Senator Back thoughtfully prefaced this final point by saying that “some people in the [Senate] chamber… might be a little disturbed or distressed by the comment that I’m about to make”. It’s fair to say that if you need to make this kind of disclaimer, you probably should just stop right there. (In truth, the only distressing element of his view that hormonal “maleness suppresses femaleness” is trying to establish its relevance to the debate – perhaps he is concerned that a female foetus might be aborted before it has the chance to transform into a male? It’s not clear.)

Senator Back’s comments were made during the debate on DLP Senator John Madigan’s private members bill that seeks to ban Medicare payments for abortions based solely on gender. [To be clear, the Senate is not talking about abortions of foetuses of a particular gender for medical reasons, such as an inherited disease – only those solely to choose the gender of a child].

Senators are traditionally entitled to a conscience vote on issues relating to life and death.

But they are not entitled to their own facts (or gynaecological flights of fancy about self-sacrificing sentient foetuses).

Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi, a staunch opponent of abortion, acknowledged there was “very little, maybe no evidence” of termination for

sex selection purposes in Australia. But despite this lack of evidence illustrating a problem, he said: “It is unacceptable for taxpayer money to be used to allow one, even one, abortion on gender selection [grounds]”. The Senator also pointed out there was a broader philosophical debate to be had on whether abortion available for any reason was the right thing for Australia.

What Senator Bernardi knows, and what Senator Back may not be back from the moon in time to realise, is that abortion for sex selection is not something there is evidence of in this country. There have been a few reported cases, but mostly that has come to light because the doctor involved refused the parents’ request to terminate a female foetus on gender selection grounds.

Given the lack of evidence that pregnancies are actually being terminated in order to choose a gender (usually to terminate a female foetus), the question has to be asked: what is this debate actually about?

It’s not about foetuses having some kind of fore-knowledge about the future and spontaneously aborting themselves. It’s not about “maleness” somehow trumping “femaleness” in the womb. It’s not about evidence, data or an acknowledged social trend. Nobody wants female foetuses to be terminated because of their gender, but that’s not what this debate is about.

Without any evidence that this is happening in this country, what Senators Back, Bernardi and Madigan are doing is simple scaremongering, designed to distress and demonise women seeking abortions and the doctors who perform them legally, responsibly and safely.

This debate is about chipping away at women’s hard won right to have control over their own bodies and to access safe and legal abortion.

The facts about abortion in the country are irrefutable: Australia’s abortion rate is actually low by international standards. Abortion is one of the safest and most highly regulated medical procedures performed in this country. Access to safe and legal abortion is essential to women’s health and well-being. Undeniably, involuntary continuation of unplanned pregnancies causes harm.

If we take these Senators at their word and believe that they are really serious about ending gender selection abortion (rather than just limiting women’s fertility choices) then they should do the one thing that will actually help: they should throw their weight and high profile behind achieving gender equality, perhaps by ensuring that women are equally represented highly visible spaces like the Australian Parliament.

By supporting gender equality and demonstrating that women and men are equally valued in public life, these Senators can help ensure that potential parents are not concerned with the gender of their children because they know that equal opportunities will exist, regardless of the outcome.

If Senators Back, Bernardi and Madigan are serious about ensuring women’s equality: Welcome to the cause, friends!