20 November 2024

Confusion or conspiracy: Why are so many NSW public hospitals refusing to do surgical abortions?

| Oliver Jacques
Join the conversation
17
Queanbeyan Hospital entrance

Queanbeyan District Hospital has reportedly banned surgical abortions. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

NSW Health Minister Ryan Park is under growing pressure to ensure public hospitals across the state provide better access to pregnancy termination services. It follows revelations some regional hospitals are refusing to do certain procedures.

Abortion was decriminalised in NSW in 2019, but very few public hospitals in the state provide surgical abortions for unwanted pregnancies.

The ABC recently reported Queanbeyan and Orange public hospitals had effectively implemented bans on surgical pregnancy terminations.

Mr Park intervened to reinstate the practice in Orange this week, but declined to answer a question from Region on which NSW public hospitals provided the service.

Moruya-based general practitioner Dr Lisa Hyde said the policy across local health districts was inconsistent.

“Some hospitals are doing abortions, some won’t, some do them only for medical reasons, but none of them will write down [their policy]… It shouldn’t be up to the local health districts to decide whether or not they want to do abortions, that’s ridiculous,” Dr Hyde said.

“If the minister can overturn the ban in Orange in a heartbeat, why can’t he make it uniform?”

READ ALSO 5 things I don’t understand about Canberrans

A few months ago, one of Dr Hyde’s patients was referred to Queanbeyan District Hospital for a surgical termination. But after making the two-hour drive from the south coast, the obstetrician told her the procedure had been cancelled, causing the woman immense distress.

“I wrote to my local director of services [for Moruya and Bega] wanting to know why this happened and I didn’t even get boo back, not even a ‘thanks for your email’,” Dr Hyde said.

“But we’re not alone in this confusion, it’s statewide.”

Dr Hyde said she was concerned about the lack of access to abortions in regional areas.

“You hear lots of stories of people who have gone to a doctor and they’ve said no, or haven’t referred them on or given guidance, though I’ve not come across this locally. Is this philosophical, is it workplace pressure, is it not wanting to upset people? I don’t know,” she said.

“I don’t think it’s a big conspiracy, but at the same time it’s hard to understand the reluctance.”

Vickie Burkinshaw, president of the not-for-profit Wagga Women’s Health Centre, said she felt the influence of conservative medical practitioners in her region had restricted access to abortion.

“That can be the only reason, that there’s some strange moral oversight… It’s absolutely outrageous, abortion is a legal right and women are still getting turned away,” she said.

No hospitals in the Riverina undertake surgical abortions for unwanted pregnancies and very few GPs are credentialled to prescribe medical abortions.

“Women in Wagga often have to travel outside their community and drive three to four hours to have an abortion,” she said.

Following a Region investigation last year into why this was the case, Mr Park said NSW Health was reviewing abortion services in all health districts across the state (in June 2023).

Region asked Mr Park whether that review was now complete and if he could provide the results.

We also asked if local health districts could refuse to provide surgical abortion and whether the NSW Government was aware of conscientious objectors blocking access to abortion services in NSW public hospitals.

Mr Park declined to answer. But a NSW Health spokesperson provided the following general information.

“Termination of pregnancy is provided in most local health districts in NSW. In most cases, medical or surgical abortions can be provided in the community or non-admitted settings,” the spokesperson said.

“NSW public hospitals primarily provide abortion care for women with complicated cases and later-term pregnancy gestations. This includes acceptance of referrals from other abortion providers for women experiencing complications.

“Local health districts determine the provision of abortion care based on local need and service capacity.”

The spokesperson said several local health districts had established dedicated medical abortion care services within the Women’s Health Service, Sexual Health Service or Community Health Service, or provided funding support to a local Community Women’s Health Centre (NGO) service.

“Where services are not available, referral pathways are in place to direct women to service providers who can provide safe and timely access to care. All local health districts’ referral information is in line with requirements of the Abortion Law Reform Act 2019.”

Health Minister Ryan Park at podium

Health Minister Ryan Park has declined to answer several questions on abortion access in NSW. Photo: Facebook.

Dr Amanda Cohn, a Greens MP who previously worked as a GP in Albury, said this wasn’t good enough.

“People who need abortion services are navigating an informal network of health workers who are willing to provide abortion services, information or referral,” she said.

“Across much of NSW, the pathway to access abortion services involves travelling hundreds of kilometres, spending hundreds of dollars to access a private provider, or depending on ad hoc provision by some clinicians in some public hospitals.

“The NSW Government must fund abortion services in our public hospitals through its service agreements with local health districts.”

READ ALSO 30-dwelling Yarralumla public housing proposal approved

Dr Hyde said sending women to private clinics for abortions was unfair on those who were less well off.

“If people can’t get a termination at their local hospital, they’ve got to get to a private clinic in Queanbeyan or Wollongong and pay $700,” she said.

“You might get some back on Medicare but you have to have the full amount in your account and it’s not bulk billed. If you’re in Canberra, you’re covered, but not if you live across the border.”

Dr Hyde previously worked in the United States where a Supreme Court protection of abortion rights nationwide (Roe v Wade) was overturned in 2022, paving the way for some states to ban the procedure. She said Australia wasn’t any better off.

“A lot of people are unaware of the barriers here. In the United States, you at least know where you stand, where it’s legal and where it isn’t. But here, we don’t know if [lack of abortion access] it’s philosophical or lack of will.”

If you know more about this issue, email ojacques@region.com.au

Join the conversation

17
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Genuine question for anyone who knows. The law is that abortion is legal. That’s clear enough. Does that mean that there is a legal requirement for hospitals to provide that service? I am curious what the law says.

Circumcisions are legal as well. Is there a legal requirement for hospitals to provide one to any newborn child if a parent asks?

I think abortion has been decriminalised in most states including the ACT. It is concerning that public hospitals in NSW are refusing to provide surgical abortions for unwanted pregnancies as claimed in this article. It is well known that young and pregnant women in country areas find it more difficult to access health services including abortions than those in the city. It was disappointing to see the state’s premier, Chris Minns in an interview last week appearing to lack interest in pursuing this matter fully.

I may be able to provide my insights into why some country hospitals have implemented bans on surgical abortions. It was highlighted to me a few months back when our recently departed Senator Zed Seselja and current Senator Dave Sharma took part in the official opening of a pregnancy support clinic in Queanbeyan. The clinic is closely aligned with the church and anti-abortion advocacy groups including Right to Life and receives funding from them as well as from one of our city’s most generous philanthropists. This financial support helps the clinic to remain functioning and is mentioned on the clinic’s website.

The clinic’s founding Medical Director works within the Queanbeyan district and its Hospital as a senior GP Obstetrician. She actively promotes herself as a Christian healthcare professional and anti-abortion advocate on her website.

These clinics which are run by doctors within the health and hospital system and backed by church and anti-abortion advocacy groups are popping up around the country!

@Jack D.
Thank you for that elightening information.

There’s no surprise in reading that if, former Senator now, Mr Seselja is involved then religious dogma is in the mix.

One thing I that isn’t clear to me from your post. Is the “pregnancy support clinic in Queanbeyan” part of the public health service or is it a private clinic?

The clinic is a registered charity operating within the NSW and ACT regions. It receives the same government funding and benefits as other charities.

The clinic is a front for the Right to Life and anti-abortion industries with its staff, including doctors and nurses also working within the state’s healthcare system and hospitals.

Zed Seselja has been spruiking the clinic and its doctors on his Facebook page!

Christina Richards2:13 pm 18 Nov 24

Abortion has always been a political football but I was hopeful that legalising it (it is in all jurisdictions now) might stop it being revisited time and time again. Seemingly anyone can have an opinion on whether women should be able to access such a service. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is rarely taken lightly and often involves intensely private conversations with partners, family and close friends and Doctors before going ahead. Other people have no idea about the circumstances involved nor should women have to share them in order to access a legal service. It is no-one else’s business. What right do you Vasily, have to impose your ‘morality’ on others. No-one is confused here except perhaps you. It is abhorrent to force women to have a child they do not want and suffer all the consequences of having no agency in deciding their own path. It is interesting that is largely men who comment on this issue and who seek to restrict women’s ability to manage their own life.

@Christina Richards
“The decision to terminate a pregnancy is rarely taken lightly …”
You have nailed it with that statement. The woman makes the decision with respect to her own body.

Those who seek to impose their personal views (religious or otherwise), without any consideration for the woman’s welfare or the circumstances she is facing, need to be told exactly where to stick their opinions.

I think a large part of the problem is that some people DO take it lightly. There are people that brag about having a dozen or more abortions. There are even weirdos I’ve seen that fetishise abortions.

As with everything, a couple of idiots ruin it for everybody else. Blame those people for it even becoming such a big issue.

First things first. You do not outlaw, or refuse to do, legally authorised abortions you just outlaw or refuse to do safe abortions. Abortions continue. Second things second. One instance like this is of interest, two are curious, and if a third arises you have a trend. That trend is either because you have too few trained practitioners to undertake the procedures – hence restricting them to locations where you can safely under take them; alternatively you have members of the workforce or administrative bodies (or both) imposing their personal beliefs onto the professional system they elect to work in. Either ( or both) need to be fixed, or we will start reading about ‘back room’ or ‘off the books’ terminations that have also cost a woman her life.

performing abortion is to doctors what being a criminal is to a policeman – but if you have enough confused people in the population, you can get them to believe pretty much anything.

And this is what has happened here, where people are convinced that the measure of a society’s morality is whether it provides easy access to abortion.

And the reasons? 1. Some women might otherwise die during childbirth. 2. The foetus isn’t a person. 3. The woman might have been raped.

To the first, on that logic, cars, holidays, surgery, etc., should be banned because woman can die here, too, to say nothing of the male-dominated dangerous vocations where men often die on the job. Either you accept life has risks, or you shut everything down completely and forever on the basis of not tolerating any risk.

To the second, the “foetus isn’t a person” argument stems from atheist materialism. From this viewpoint, even a fully overgrown left-wing lunatic is also only a clump of cells and, on that basis, should be able to be exterminated willy-nilly, as well. Case closed.

To the third, get really tough on rapists instead of on innocent children; tighten up society’s morals, so that men and women aren’t unnecessarily in overly tempting situations; give the child up for adoption, if necessary, and be given access to all the emotional support needed; consider the point above about having to accept some risk in life; the number of women who get raped is thankfully small, and the number of women who get pregnant from being raped is thankfully even smaller. Making very contentious (and far reaching) decisions based on such exceptions lacks intelligence, especially when all things are considered.

There is a legal right to abortion. It is not for hospital administrators to disallow abortions to be performed in the hospitals they oversee. Case closed.

pink little birdie2:36 pm 18 Nov 24

I don’t really think any of the morality arguments actually come in to it – if you personally don’t agree with abortion by choice then don’t get one.

Do people seek abortions regardless of their legal status? The answer is yes.
So then choice is do we want safe abortions or unsafe abortions? I choose safe abortions.

Interesting to note both infant and maternal mortality has increased in areas where abortion is heavily restricted in the USA since the overturning of Roe vs Wade.

What a load of hot fetid garbage.

1. There are many medically necessary reasons for an abortion. Following the garbage “logic” that “life has risks” then we shouldn’t be operating on men with testicular cancer or children with heart defects. Grow up.

2. “Case closed” my ar**…. Cells aren’t a person. Most abortions are early, late-term abortions are rare and typically medically necessary and entirely none of your (or my) business.

3. Tough-on-crime has never stopped rape or abuse. A woman’s body is her choice, not yours champ.

I won’t bother with a much more detailed response. I think there’s an old saying about not arguing with idiots because they will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience…

Bad luck for you that I’m in the mood to argue.

1. Testicular or heart operations don’t involve killing someone else. Therefore not comparable.

2. The atheist materialist paradigm posits that a foetus is just a lump of cells and can therefore be aborted guilt free. However, under such thinking, even adults are just a clump of cells, too, and can equally be done away with. This is because atheist materialism can only admit to what can be affirmed by the senses and measured, which immediately precludes meaning and values, which immediately precludes morality and anything in your sick world view which imagines you draw a valid line between a foetus and an adult.

3. If a woman’s body is her choice, then a man’s is his, yet women get to vote and that vote has led to men being conscripted and killed. Stop women voting? Moreover, if women’s bodily autonomy was so absolute and infallible then they’d be able to stop getting pregnant at will, and yet nothing could be further from the truth, indicating there’s more to consider than what Seano’s bob-tailed intellect can handle.

Now, everyone apart from Seano, watch how he doesn’t address anything of what I said – because he can’t; because he’s not very bright – and yet will put down something anyway, in hopes he hasn’t been found out. Learn from Seano’s mistakes. Don’t be anything like Seano, but rather, be as much like Vasily as you can

@vasily m. If that’s your belief, then don’t get an abortion. But don’t limit other people’s free choice just because you think something is “wrong”

1. No it’s not.
2. No it isn’t.
3. I thought the arguments could not get more idiotic, shows I’m not right about everything.

Yeah, I barely skimmed it, but no one sensible is reading that hot garbage champion, let alone addressing it.

Vasily clearly doesn’t understand what atheism means. Actually, from this vomit on a page and previous posts, I am not sure that Vasily wants to understand much.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.