South Australia is once again at the center of a heated debate over abortion access, with a new bill set to reignite political and medical controversy less than a year after a similar proposal was narrowly defeated. On September 5, 2025, independent upper house MP Sarah Game—formerly of One Nation—announced her intention to introduce legislation that would ban abortions after 23 weeks’ gestation. This move has drawn swift and vocal opposition from the state’s general practitioner (GP) community, who argue that abortion care is essential healthcare and should not be subject to political interference.
The announcement comes on the heels of a closely contested vote in October 2024, when South Australia’s upper house rejected a bill from Liberal MP Ben Hood. That earlier proposal would have forced women seeking termination after 28 weeks to undergo an induced birth, resulting in the delivery of a live baby. The bill was defeated by the slimmest of margins: nine votes in favor and ten against.
Under current South Australian law, abortions after 23 weeks are only permitted if two doctors agree that continuing the pregnancy would pose a significant risk to the physical or mental health of the pregnant person, or if there are fetal anomalies. Despite these existing safeguards, Game’s proposed bill aims to further restrict access, raising alarm among health professionals and advocacy groups.
“Abortion care is healthcare,” said Dr Clare Keogh, RACGP SA deputy chair and medical lead at SHINE SA, the state’s sexual and reproductive health service, in an interview with The Medical Republic. “The decision needs to be made between patient and doctor in what is normally a very complex personal consultation.” Dr Keogh warned that imposing further restrictions would not eliminate the need for abortion care, but would instead drive people to seek unsafe alternatives. “People will continue to seek abortion care regardless of the legal parameters around it. By minimising restrictions, you really are just helping people access safe care.”
Backing Dr Keogh’s stance, RACGP South Australia Chair Dr Siân Goodson stated, “Abortion services are essential healthcare, and we strongly oppose these plans. It’s critical we keep working towards affordable and accessible abortion care across Australia, and these proposed changes are a step in the wrong direction.” Dr Goodson also expressed deep concern over the possibility that mental health might not be considered a valid reason for abortion after a certain stage of pregnancy under the new bill. “The fact that Sarah Game is saying that the mental health of a pregnant person would not be an accepted reason for an abortion after a certain stage of pregnancy is deeply concerning.”
Data from the 2024 annual report of the South Australian Abortion Reporting Committee provides important context for the debate. According to the report, approximately 90% of terminations in South Australia occurred before 14 weeks’ gestation. Only 1%—representing 48 cases—were performed after 22 weeks and six days. Of these, 70% were due to the physical or mental health of the pregnant person, 30% were due to fetal anomalies, and just one case was recorded where a termination after 22 weeks and six days was performed to save the life of a pregnant person or another fetus.
Despite these statistics, Sarah Game has publicly claimed that 75% of late-term abortions involve healthy babies where the mother’s life is not at risk. However, she has not cited a source for this figure, and it stands in stark contrast to the official data. The lack of supporting evidence for such claims has only intensified the criticism from the medical community, who argue that policy decisions must be grounded in accurate information and evidence-based practice.
Game’s bill has also drawn attention for its association with Professor Joanna Howe, a legal researcher at the University of Adelaide law school. Professor Howe, who does not have formal medical training according to her professional profile, has been credited by Game as a key contributor to the bill. Howe was also heavily involved in the 2024 bill that sought to mandate live births for women seeking termination after 28 weeks. This connection has fueled concerns among healthcare providers about the increasing politicization of reproductive healthcare.
“Decisions about termination after 23 weeks are complex, rare, and deeply personal. They must be made by patients and their doctors, not by politicians,” Dr Keogh emphasized. She further warned, “Once again, we’re seeing attempts to limit access to termination, and this undermines safe, evidence-based healthcare.” Dr Keogh also referenced comments from Attorney-General Kyam Maher, who last year stated that “it’s dangerous to play politics with the health and wellbeing of women.”
For many in the medical community, the proposed restrictions are not just a matter of policy, but one of principle. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) has been at the forefront of efforts to secure affordable and accessible abortion care across Australia. Earlier this year, the RACGP joined 40 other health and medical organizations in a call for national leadership to affirm abortion as essential healthcare. Their recommendations included ensuring the Medicare Benefits Schedule appropriately remunerates providers, supporting workforce capacity through training, and making sure public hospitals offer abortion care as part of comprehensive reproductive health services.
The RACGP has also advocated for harmonizing state and territory legislation to ensure consistent access to both medical and surgical termination options. In its 2022 submission to the Senate Inquiry into universal access to reproductive healthcare, the College called for the implementation of all 36 recommendations from the inquiry. The following year, the RACGP supported changes to improve access to medical abortion, with a particular focus on women living in rural and remote communities, where services are often hardest to obtain.
“Unfortunately, abortion continues to be stigmatised and politicised. Patients deserve safe, affordable, accessible abortion care, provided in consultation with healthcare professionals. Politicians should not be the ones making these decisions. Girls, women, and people who can become pregnant can make their own decisions on their own healthcare, including termination of pregnancy,” Dr Keogh stated. This sentiment echoes across the broader healthcare sector, where there is widespread agreement that reproductive health decisions should be left to patients and their doctors, guided by medical evidence rather than political agendas.
As South Australia prepares for another round of parliamentary debate on abortion access, the stakes could not be higher. The outcome will not only affect those seeking care in the state, but may also set a precedent for reproductive rights debates across Australia. With both sides holding firm to their convictions, the coming months are likely to see intense discussion, public demonstrations, and continued scrutiny of the facts and figures at the heart of the issue.
For now, the message from South Australia’s medical community is clear: abortion is essential healthcare, and any move to restrict access risks both the safety and autonomy of those who need it most.
