WEBVTT - How abortion is weaponised in the courts

0:00:01.320 --> 0:00:10.080
<v Speaker 1>From Schwarz Media. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am.

0:00:10.400 --> 0:00:14.120
<v Speaker 1>In Australia. Abortion has been decriminalized since twenty twenty three,

0:00:14.680 --> 0:00:17.080
<v Speaker 1>meaning that women around the country can get an abortion

0:00:17.239 --> 0:00:21.680
<v Speaker 1>without facing legal consequences, but that hasn't stopped abortion being

0:00:21.720 --> 0:00:25.840
<v Speaker 1>weaponized against women in the courtroom. Writer and producer Madison

0:00:25.840 --> 0:00:29.319
<v Speaker 1>Griffiths has been covering reproductive rights for years, so it

0:00:29.320 --> 0:00:31.240
<v Speaker 1>came as a shock to her to learn that, in

0:00:31.240 --> 0:00:35.879
<v Speaker 1>spite of Australia's relative reproductive freedoms, women's abortion records were

0:00:35.880 --> 0:00:40.519
<v Speaker 1>turning up in custody disputes and even sexual abuse trials. Today,

0:00:40.760 --> 0:00:43.560
<v Speaker 1>Madison Griffiths on women's right to choose and how the

0:00:43.640 --> 0:00:45.880
<v Speaker 1>law is fighting to keep up with this new frontier

0:00:45.920 --> 0:00:46.920
<v Speaker 1>of domestic abuse.

0:00:51.159 --> 0:00:57.880
<v Speaker 2>It's Wednesday, June eighteenth.

0:00:58.160 --> 0:01:01.840
<v Speaker 3>So, Madison, you've been reporting on reproductive rights for a

0:01:01.880 --> 0:01:04.679
<v Speaker 3>while now, could you maybe start by telling me a

0:01:04.720 --> 0:01:08.640
<v Speaker 3>bit about Louisa and how you came across her story?

0:01:09.040 --> 0:01:12.479
<v Speaker 4>Absolutely? So. I came across Louisa incidentally.

0:01:13.000 --> 0:01:17.080
<v Speaker 5>I was conducting research on another story pertaining to women's experiences,

0:01:17.600 --> 0:01:20.759
<v Speaker 5>and a woman I interviewed for that line of inquiry

0:01:20.840 --> 0:01:23.760
<v Speaker 5>sent me a separate email and she was outlining that

0:01:23.800 --> 0:01:27.240
<v Speaker 5>a friend of hers, who I would later discover with Louisa,

0:01:27.400 --> 0:01:31.920
<v Speaker 5>had been treated incredibly poorly in the family courts. So

0:01:32.120 --> 0:01:36.760
<v Speaker 5>in twenty twenty one, Louisa was required to enter the

0:01:36.760 --> 0:01:40.080
<v Speaker 5>family law court in Brisbane in a bid to fight

0:01:40.120 --> 0:01:44.760
<v Speaker 5>for custody of her then seven year old daughter against

0:01:44.840 --> 0:01:50.000
<v Speaker 5>her ex husband. Women and no strangers to unfair ministrations

0:01:50.000 --> 0:01:52.080
<v Speaker 5>in family court processions.

0:01:52.120 --> 0:01:55.320
<v Speaker 4>But what struck me uniquely about.

0:01:55.080 --> 0:02:00.840
<v Speaker 5>Louise's particular story was that her past abortions were admitted

0:02:01.120 --> 0:02:04.760
<v Speaker 5>as evidence as part of her subpoena medical records, and

0:02:04.800 --> 0:02:10.360
<v Speaker 5>they were explicitly mentioned in the court processions as well.

0:02:10.720 --> 0:02:13.840
<v Speaker 1>So I was very intrigued, So tell me more about

0:02:13.880 --> 0:02:16.400
<v Speaker 1>what was said about those past abortions, the way in

0:02:16.440 --> 0:02:18.800
<v Speaker 1>which they were being used as evidence in this case.

0:02:19.360 --> 0:02:23.800
<v Speaker 5>So they were introduced in the court processions by the

0:02:23.840 --> 0:02:28.560
<v Speaker 5>independent children's lawyer, so not necessarily by her ex husband's

0:02:28.600 --> 0:02:33.960
<v Speaker 5>defense counsel, which I thought was particularly interesting. They were

0:02:34.560 --> 0:02:40.120
<v Speaker 5>mentioned while her ex husband was being cross examined in

0:02:40.240 --> 0:02:44.240
<v Speaker 5>a very elusive way, I guess to check or to

0:02:44.520 --> 0:02:47.200
<v Speaker 5>query her ex husband as to whether or not he

0:02:47.240 --> 0:02:50.080
<v Speaker 5>was aware that once upon a time in the past,

0:02:50.160 --> 0:02:53.440
<v Speaker 5>she had made these choices, and there is a particular

0:02:53.560 --> 0:02:56.440
<v Speaker 5>vein of paranoia when it comes to the family court

0:02:56.600 --> 0:02:59.600
<v Speaker 5>and who exactly has power, and women, particularly those who

0:02:59.680 --> 0:03:04.440
<v Speaker 5>raised concerns or allegations of sexual abuse, are scrutinized profusely

0:03:04.480 --> 0:03:07.480
<v Speaker 5>for doing so, seen often as vindictive or as if

0:03:07.520 --> 0:03:11.600
<v Speaker 5>they are concocting fictitious harms to gain exclusive custody of

0:03:11.639 --> 0:03:15.600
<v Speaker 5>their child or children. And given such allegations were introduced

0:03:15.800 --> 0:03:20.160
<v Speaker 5>in Louis's case, I believe, you know, this is my opinion,

0:03:20.320 --> 0:03:24.800
<v Speaker 5>that they were mentioned to cast doubt.

0:03:24.639 --> 0:03:28.120
<v Speaker 4>On her honesty. So I did find that really strange.

0:03:28.600 --> 0:03:32.200
<v Speaker 1>HM, that's interesting. Do we know any more about I

0:03:32.240 --> 0:03:37.640
<v Speaker 1>suppose the process that allows something like a termination to

0:03:37.680 --> 0:03:40.200
<v Speaker 1>be used in this context.

0:03:41.080 --> 0:03:45.000
<v Speaker 5>So that's where I went to abortion providers and legal

0:03:45.040 --> 0:03:48.160
<v Speaker 5>experts to find out if the accessing of this information

0:03:48.280 --> 0:03:52.360
<v Speaker 5>had I guess, a routine choreography, if that makes sense,

0:03:52.400 --> 0:03:54.480
<v Speaker 5>if there was a way to access this and how.

0:03:54.920 --> 0:03:57.880
<v Speaker 5>It is difficult to pinpoint exactly how this information was

0:03:57.920 --> 0:04:02.800
<v Speaker 5>first access It is possible that documentation eluding or you know,

0:04:02.840 --> 0:04:07.280
<v Speaker 5>directly referencing her abortion was incidentally submitted. So sometimes when

0:04:07.320 --> 0:04:11.960
<v Speaker 5>medical records are subpoened more broadly, they aren't necessarily seeved through.

0:04:12.560 --> 0:04:15.119
<v Speaker 5>I did speak to various doctors who made a concerted

0:04:15.160 --> 0:04:19.040
<v Speaker 5>effort to omit parts of individuals medical records that they

0:04:19.080 --> 0:04:22.599
<v Speaker 5>did not themselves seem relevant. But this is not necessarily

0:04:23.080 --> 0:04:28.520
<v Speaker 5>common practice. However, with this particular case, with Louise's case,

0:04:29.000 --> 0:04:32.960
<v Speaker 5>the court did sanction as psychiatrists to provide an affidavit,

0:04:33.320 --> 0:04:36.160
<v Speaker 5>which is not uncommon at all, which is often very

0:04:36.240 --> 0:04:40.440
<v Speaker 5>very common in family court cases. And I received the

0:04:40.520 --> 0:04:48.039
<v Speaker 5>transcript of that medical legal report from Louisa. He he

0:04:48.080 --> 0:04:53.240
<v Speaker 5>addressed Louise's terminations directly with her, and in my opinion,

0:04:53.640 --> 0:05:00.560
<v Speaker 5>this was riddled with judgment. They were unfounded assumptions in

0:05:00.640 --> 0:05:05.080
<v Speaker 5>his affidavit about how a lot of women apparently experience

0:05:05.520 --> 0:05:10.440
<v Speaker 5>guilt and depression pertaining to past abortions later in life regret,

0:05:11.279 --> 0:05:13.920
<v Speaker 5>and I quote he had said to her that some

0:05:14.000 --> 0:05:16.080
<v Speaker 5>women find themselves wishing to have.

0:05:16.080 --> 0:05:18.480
<v Speaker 4>Kept one of the babies they didn't keep.

0:05:19.600 --> 0:05:25.000
<v Speaker 5>I found this incredibly prejudicial, that you know, a psychiatrist

0:05:25.560 --> 0:05:31.359
<v Speaker 5>was spouting this stuff, which is you know, completely wrong,

0:05:31.880 --> 0:05:34.599
<v Speaker 5>especially in twenty twenty one when this took place.

0:05:36.320 --> 0:05:39.680
<v Speaker 1>But I suppose the subtext is that if you've had

0:05:39.760 --> 0:05:44.679
<v Speaker 1>an abortion, there is some judgment being cast on whether

0:05:44.800 --> 0:05:48.039
<v Speaker 1>or not if you're going through a custody battle, you

0:05:48.080 --> 0:05:49.520
<v Speaker 1>are now a fit mother.

0:05:50.040 --> 0:05:51.960
<v Speaker 4>Absolutely, that is the implication.

0:05:52.720 --> 0:05:55.640
<v Speaker 5>Whether or not that was intentional, it's too dangerous an

0:05:55.680 --> 0:06:01.120
<v Speaker 5>implication to play with so recklessly. I believe it is

0:06:01.279 --> 0:06:04.599
<v Speaker 5>deeply prejudicial, but it is also factually incorrect. The vast

0:06:04.600 --> 0:06:07.479
<v Speaker 5>majority of people who terminate pregnancies are also in fact

0:06:07.560 --> 0:06:12.719
<v Speaker 5>already mothers, and abortion advocates resist the differentiation of abortion

0:06:13.000 --> 0:06:18.799
<v Speaker 5>havers and child havers. There is nothing incompatible with motherhood

0:06:18.839 --> 0:06:22.520
<v Speaker 5>and parenthood and terminating a pregnancy. So I did find

0:06:22.560 --> 0:06:27.160
<v Speaker 5>this particularly frustrating, given there have been so many junctures

0:06:27.200 --> 0:06:30.840
<v Speaker 5>in which this has been challenged and proven incorrected.

0:06:32.720 --> 0:06:36.000
<v Speaker 2>After the break using their abortion history to portray someone

0:06:36.080 --> 0:06:50.400
<v Speaker 2>as reckless, hypersexual and crazy.

0:06:46.120 --> 0:06:49.039
<v Speaker 1>Madison. How common is it for abortion records to turn

0:06:49.160 --> 0:06:50.320
<v Speaker 1>up as evidence in court?

0:06:50.800 --> 0:06:53.600
<v Speaker 5>There are no official statistics that I was able to

0:06:53.640 --> 0:06:58.440
<v Speaker 5>access regarding this. I did speak to a few abortion providers.

0:06:58.600 --> 0:07:02.200
<v Speaker 5>The impression that I received was it is fairly uncommon

0:07:02.720 --> 0:07:06.120
<v Speaker 5>for abortion records to turn up in court generally across

0:07:06.120 --> 0:07:09.359
<v Speaker 5>the board. You know, not necessarily in family court cases.

0:07:09.600 --> 0:07:13.960
<v Speaker 5>There are certainly instances in which abortion records are relevant,

0:07:14.400 --> 0:07:18.880
<v Speaker 5>for sure, particularly in sexual assault cases, where they work

0:07:19.000 --> 0:07:24.120
<v Speaker 5>as proof of a sexual contact having been made. So

0:07:24.160 --> 0:07:28.440
<v Speaker 5>it's not necessarily that abortion should not be ever mentioned

0:07:28.520 --> 0:07:31.000
<v Speaker 5>in court, or that it's too sensitive or too prejudicial

0:07:31.000 --> 0:07:35.760
<v Speaker 5>in and of itself. However, after I became aware of

0:07:35.840 --> 0:07:41.040
<v Speaker 5>Louisa's incident, I did start asking around to see if

0:07:41.520 --> 0:07:43.920
<v Speaker 5>an individual's abortion had ever been used against them in

0:07:44.400 --> 0:07:49.160
<v Speaker 5>broader court processions, and that is when I received a

0:07:49.680 --> 0:07:54.720
<v Speaker 5>message from Olivia. And Olivia had been encouraged by her

0:07:54.800 --> 0:07:58.000
<v Speaker 5>legal counsel to introduce her singular abortion as evidence, so

0:07:58.120 --> 0:08:02.200
<v Speaker 5>proof of having terminated pregnancy at seventeen years old. This

0:08:02.360 --> 0:08:05.080
<v Speaker 5>was introduced during a sexual assault trial.

0:08:05.880 --> 0:08:07.520
<v Speaker 4>The prosecution encouraged this.

0:08:08.120 --> 0:08:13.440
<v Speaker 5>Olivia felt relatively comfortable with this, if not comforted by this,

0:08:13.640 --> 0:08:18.160
<v Speaker 5>as it was a tangible material proof of a sexual

0:08:18.320 --> 0:08:24.040
<v Speaker 5>occurrence that had happened. But given the nature of how

0:08:24.760 --> 0:08:31.520
<v Speaker 5>the abortion was introduced alongside her sexual.

0:08:31.200 --> 0:08:34.920
<v Speaker 4>Health history or sexual history per se, she.

0:08:34.840 --> 0:08:40.280
<v Speaker 5>Believes used against her to suggest a hyper sexualization that

0:08:40.440 --> 0:08:45.080
<v Speaker 5>was in her or embedded in her. She feels as

0:08:45.120 --> 0:08:48.319
<v Speaker 5>if the abortion was registered in the mind's eye of

0:08:48.360 --> 0:08:52.760
<v Speaker 5>the jury as mere proof that she is reckless and

0:08:53.120 --> 0:08:59.480
<v Speaker 5>quote unquote crazy. There is no proof that is what

0:08:59.760 --> 0:09:03.880
<v Speaker 5>was considered by the jury, But I believe Oliba has

0:09:03.920 --> 0:09:08.960
<v Speaker 5>every reason to be dubious when it comes to how

0:09:09.040 --> 0:09:12.600
<v Speaker 5>this was postured in the court. So whilst it is

0:09:13.200 --> 0:09:17.520
<v Speaker 5>relatively uncommon, I will be unsurprised to find if it

0:09:17.559 --> 0:09:19.679
<v Speaker 5>happens a lot more than we anticipate it does.

0:09:20.200 --> 0:09:22.280
<v Speaker 1>And can you tell me any more about what doctors

0:09:22.320 --> 0:09:25.080
<v Speaker 1>have told you about being placed in that position and

0:09:25.600 --> 0:09:29.480
<v Speaker 1>the moral and ethical equations that they're having to make.

0:09:29.960 --> 0:09:34.440
<v Speaker 5>Absolutely, Doctor Sue Brumby, she was a abortion provider I

0:09:34.440 --> 0:09:38.800
<v Speaker 5>spoke to for this, and she really stressed that she

0:09:38.960 --> 0:09:44.720
<v Speaker 5>finds this form of emotional domestic abuse. I think any

0:09:44.720 --> 0:09:48.000
<v Speaker 5>people that work in the sector are dubious about how

0:09:48.480 --> 0:09:52.920
<v Speaker 5>these elements of a woman's private past sexual history can

0:09:53.120 --> 0:09:56.280
<v Speaker 5>be used against them. I think particularly abortions conflicts as well,

0:09:56.280 --> 0:10:01.040
<v Speaker 5>because it has a rich and patriarchal and it has

0:10:01.080 --> 0:10:05.880
<v Speaker 5>a really complex relationship with the law. So for it

0:10:05.920 --> 0:10:10.520
<v Speaker 5>to reappear in this context feels like a terrible loophole

0:10:11.120 --> 0:10:14.480
<v Speaker 5>and kind of goes against a lot of advocacy endeavors

0:10:14.559 --> 0:10:19.440
<v Speaker 5>and medical endeavors to destigmatize and make more accessible a

0:10:19.520 --> 0:10:24.000
<v Speaker 5>procedure that is legal and is incredibly common.

0:10:23.920 --> 0:10:26.960
<v Speaker 1>Right, But we have recently seen some of that advocacy payoff.

0:10:27.040 --> 0:10:30.000
<v Speaker 1>This month there were amendments to the Family Law Act,

0:10:30.120 --> 0:10:32.640
<v Speaker 1>So tell me about the changes that that will bring.

0:10:33.160 --> 0:10:37.640
<v Speaker 5>This is being introduced in a bid to just ensure

0:10:37.800 --> 0:10:42.120
<v Speaker 5>that sensitive information such as a woman's past termination history

0:10:42.160 --> 0:10:47.120
<v Speaker 5>and counseling records, but primarily her counseling records, is safeguarded

0:10:47.320 --> 0:10:50.840
<v Speaker 5>from entering custody battles. So it does state that the

0:10:50.880 --> 0:10:55.360
<v Speaker 5>protections relate to communications occurring when a person seeks treatment

0:10:55.480 --> 0:10:58.560
<v Speaker 5>or support from health services. And the definition here of

0:10:58.600 --> 0:11:03.160
<v Speaker 5>health is particularly and deliberately broad, so that is psychological

0:11:03.200 --> 0:11:07.240
<v Speaker 5>and physical and sexual health. If the court believes it's

0:11:07.280 --> 0:11:12.080
<v Speaker 5>such evidence being submitted will cause harm or the child

0:11:12.160 --> 0:11:15.280
<v Speaker 5>involved in the proceedings will find this harmful, the documents

0:11:15.280 --> 0:11:18.720
<v Speaker 5>will then not be admitted in proceedings. If this amendment

0:11:18.800 --> 0:11:24.800
<v Speaker 5>Act had been introduced prior to Louisa's custody battle, I

0:11:24.840 --> 0:11:29.600
<v Speaker 5>personally believe the outcome would have been significantly different. Louisa

0:11:29.600 --> 0:11:33.320
<v Speaker 5>lost custody of her child. Louisa is unable to see

0:11:33.360 --> 0:11:38.280
<v Speaker 5>her child. So for a woman to raise allegations such

0:11:38.280 --> 0:11:43.160
<v Speaker 5>as the ones Louisa raised of sexual abuse, commonly the

0:11:43.240 --> 0:11:47.559
<v Speaker 5>family court will and does, in my opinion, punish this

0:11:47.600 --> 0:11:51.560
<v Speaker 5>woman for doing so. And in this instance Louisa has

0:11:51.679 --> 0:11:54.400
<v Speaker 5>been doggedly punished, I believe.

0:11:54.880 --> 0:11:59.880
<v Speaker 3>And to come back to the issue of her terminations,

0:12:00.000 --> 0:12:02.360
<v Speaker 3>and I suppose, more broadly, the issue of terminations being

0:12:02.440 --> 0:12:04.880
<v Speaker 3>used in court proceedings, I mean, no matter what they are,

0:12:05.440 --> 0:12:08.439
<v Speaker 3>I mean, what does the fact that that is happening

0:12:08.440 --> 0:12:10.160
<v Speaker 3>in twenty twenty five, what does that say to you

0:12:10.240 --> 0:12:13.920
<v Speaker 3>about the stigma that is still attached to having a

0:12:14.000 --> 0:12:14.880
<v Speaker 3>termination at all?

0:12:15.520 --> 0:12:22.199
<v Speaker 5>I believe it reintroduces a brand new element of weaponization

0:12:22.679 --> 0:12:27.840
<v Speaker 5>that I think Australia has felt relatively politically immune to.

0:12:28.559 --> 0:12:30.800
<v Speaker 5>I know in my reporting that Roe v. Wade, the

0:12:30.840 --> 0:12:32.960
<v Speaker 5>overturning of Roe v. Wade in the States did have

0:12:33.120 --> 0:12:38.320
<v Speaker 5>a philosophical and political flow on effect. It certainly did

0:12:38.480 --> 0:12:41.199
<v Speaker 5>raise the question of abortion on home soil in a

0:12:41.240 --> 0:12:44.960
<v Speaker 5>way that felt more urgent and pressing. But we haven't

0:12:45.800 --> 0:12:50.439
<v Speaker 5>necessarily been met with the underside of abortion being weaponized

0:12:50.480 --> 0:12:51.000
<v Speaker 5>in this way.

0:12:51.080 --> 0:12:55.360
<v Speaker 4>I think when people look at abortion more broadly.

0:12:55.040 --> 0:12:57.600
<v Speaker 5>The issues and the very real issues have to do

0:12:57.880 --> 0:13:02.560
<v Speaker 5>entirely with access. What is so terrifying about this instance

0:13:03.200 --> 0:13:07.520
<v Speaker 5>is there is a twenty year gap between these terminations

0:13:07.800 --> 0:13:13.560
<v Speaker 5>occurring and then being reintroduced, both in Louisa's life but

0:13:13.679 --> 0:13:17.720
<v Speaker 5>in Louisa's legal processions regarding the custody of her child.

0:13:18.240 --> 0:13:23.160
<v Speaker 5>So this raises a terrifying precedent when it comes to

0:13:23.200 --> 0:13:26.120
<v Speaker 5>the choices we make about our bodies and how those

0:13:26.240 --> 0:13:33.280
<v Speaker 5>choices can, in another context be used against us to

0:13:33.400 --> 0:13:37.760
<v Speaker 5>completely corrode our ability to move forward with our lives,

0:13:37.800 --> 0:13:41.200
<v Speaker 5>which is the great beauty and joy of women being

0:13:41.240 --> 0:13:44.320
<v Speaker 5>afforded the right to choose in the first place. I

0:13:44.360 --> 0:13:50.160
<v Speaker 5>did find it a deeply upsetting irony that this resurfaced

0:13:50.200 --> 0:13:50.640
<v Speaker 5>in this.

0:13:50.600 --> 0:13:54.920
<v Speaker 1>Way, Madison, Thank you so much for your time.

0:13:55.320 --> 0:14:00.480
<v Speaker 4>Thank you so much. Ruby.

0:14:09.200 --> 0:14:12.280
<v Speaker 2>Also in the news today, Prime Minister Anthony Albanesi has

0:14:12.320 --> 0:14:15.680
<v Speaker 2>welcomed remarks from his British counterpart that the UK is

0:14:15.760 --> 0:14:19.520
<v Speaker 2>determined to proceed with the Orchesteele. Speaking to concerns of

0:14:19.520 --> 0:14:22.520
<v Speaker 2>a US commitment to the Orchestile, British Prime Minister Kirstama

0:14:22.600 --> 0:14:24.920
<v Speaker 2>says the UK Labor government held a review of the

0:14:24.960 --> 0:14:28.440
<v Speaker 2>security arrangement last year and says there are clear benefits.

0:14:29.000 --> 0:14:31.600
<v Speaker 2>The comments come amid the G seven summit in Canada,

0:14:31.640 --> 0:14:34.720
<v Speaker 2>where a planned meeting between Albanesi and US President Donald

0:14:34.760 --> 0:14:37.640
<v Speaker 2>Trump was canceled, with the White House stating the President

0:14:37.680 --> 0:14:40.440
<v Speaker 2>had to return to Washington amid the escalating war in

0:14:40.480 --> 0:14:44.000
<v Speaker 2>the Middle East, and G seven leaders have delivered a

0:14:44.040 --> 0:14:47.280
<v Speaker 2>statement saying Israel has the right to defend itself, calling

0:14:47.360 --> 0:14:50.960
<v Speaker 2>Iran the quote principal source of regional instability and terror.

0:14:51.720 --> 0:14:54.280
<v Speaker 2>Israel launched a shock attack on Iran on Friday, as

0:14:54.360 --> 0:14:57.320
<v Speaker 2>Washington and Tehran were in the midst of nuclear negotiations,

0:14:57.720 --> 0:14:59.920
<v Speaker 2>and has so far killed more than two hundred people,

0:15:00.120 --> 0:15:03.560
<v Speaker 2>mostly civilians. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am.

0:15:03.560 --> 0:15:04.240
<v Speaker 4>Thanks Blistening