The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG; The College) strongly opposes the private member’s bill introduced by Sarah Game MLC in the South Australian Legislative Council, which seeks to further restrict access to abortion services after 22 weeks and six days of pregnancy.
Abortion is healthcare
RANZCOG’s position is unequivocal: abortion is healthcare. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is deeply personal and complex, requiring careful consideration of individual circumstances. These decisions must remain between a woman and her healthcare provider, not be dictated by political intervention. Medical professionals, not parliamentarians, are best equipped to assess the unique factors that inform these each individual decisions about abortion.
The reality of later abortions
Ms Game’s bill is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the reality of pregnancy terminations after 22 weeks and 6 days. These procedures are extraordinarily rare, representing a tiny fraction of all abortions performed (48, or 1.0% of all abortions performed in South Australia in 20241). When they do occur, they almost always invariably involve circumstances of severe fetal abnormalities incompatible with life, or serious threats to the pregnant woman’s health and life.
Of these 48 abortions performed in South Australia in 2024, 34 were to protect the physical or mental health of the pregnant person, 15 due to fetal anomaly, and one to save the life of a pregnant person or another fetus.1 The College is deeply concerned that Ms Game’s bill is premised either on an ignorance of this reality, or a wilful misrepresentation of the facts as they exist in data.
One of the many troubling aspects of how this bill has been presented is that the mental health of the pregnant person will no longer be considered relevant rationale for a decision to terminate.
– Dr Nisha Khot, RANZCOG President-Elect
“This is enormously problematic. Mental health is health, and it is no less important to the overall well-being and ability to safely carry a pregnancy to term, than is physical health. The College categorically rejects this assumption and reiterates its unreserved support for accessible sexual and reproductive healthcare services that meet the needs of our patients and their families,” said Dr Khot.
Women and their families facing these tragic circumstances are already experiencing profound distress. They do not make these decisions lightly, and the suggestion that additional legislative restrictions are needed demonstrates a concerning lack of understanding of the medical realities involved.
Under current South Australian law, terminations after 22 weeks and 6 days already require approval from two medical practitioners who must agree that the procedure is appropriate given the clinical circumstances.
Previous parliamentary rejection
The South Australian Parliament has recently considered and rejected similar restrictive legislation. In October 2024, the Legislative Council voted down Ben Hood MLC’s bill by a margin of 10 votes to nine, following extensive debate. That bill sought to amend abortion laws to require live delivery rather than termination for pregnancies after 28 weeks.
Ms Game’s current bill represents another attempt to curtail medical expertise and evidence-based practice, despite the parliamentary rejection of similar measures less than a year ago.
The College’s South Australia and Northern Territory Committee Chair Dr Heather Waterfall reiterates that her comments made in response to last year’s bill are just as relevant to this bill as well. “Abortion is an essential healthcare service, with the decision to proceed with termination best left to women and their doctors. This has always been true. It was true in 2024, and it remains true now,” said Dr Waterfall.
This bill is simply another attempt to roll back abortion protections and the freedom of women in South Australia to have autonomy over their own bodies and their health care decisions.
– Dr Heather Waterfall, RANZCOG South Australia/Northern Territory Committee Chair
Conclusion
RANZCOG calls on the South Australian Parliament to reject this ill-conceived legislation. The current regulatory framework already provides appropriate safeguards while preserving the fundamental principle that healthcare decisions should remain between patients and their doctors.
The College urges parliamentarians to trust medical professionals to provide appropriate care within existing ethical and legal frameworks, rather than impose additional barriers that serve no medical purpose and may cause significant harm to vulnerable women and families.
Abortion access is a fundamental component of comprehensive reproductive healthcare. Any attempt to further restrict this access represents a backwards step that prioritises ideology over evidence, politics over patient welfare, and rhetoric over medical reality.
1. Government of South Australia: Preventative Health SA. Annual Report for the Year 2024, South Australian Abortion Reporting Committee, April 2025. Accessed 18 September 2025.
Media enquiries
Bec McPhee
Head of Advocacy & Communications
bmcphee@ranzcog.edu.au
+61 413 258 166
