From Schwarz Media. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am. In Australia. Abortion has been decriminalized since twenty twenty three, meaning that women around the country can get an abortion without facing legal consequences, but that hasn't stopped abortion being
weaponized against women in the courtroom. Writer and producer Madison Griffiths has been covering reproductive rights for years, so it came as a shock to her to learn that, in spite of Australia's relative reproductive freedoms, women's abortion records were turning up in custody disputes and even sexual abuse trials. Today, Madison Griffiths on women's right to choose and how the law is fighting to keep up with this new frontier of domestic abuse.
It's Wednesday, June eighteenth.
So, Madison, you've been reporting on reproductive rights for a while now, could you maybe start by telling me a bit about Louisa and how you came across her story?
Absolutely? So. I came across Louisa incidentally.
I was conducting research on another story pertaining to women's experiences, and a woman I interviewed for that line of inquiry sent me a separate email and she was outlining that a friend of hers, who I would later discover with Louisa, had been treated incredibly poorly in the family courts. So in twenty twenty one, Louisa was required to enter the family law court in Brisbane in a bid to fight for custody of her then seven year old daughter against
her ex husband. Women and no strangers to unfair ministrations in family court processions.
But what struck me uniquely about.
Louise's particular story was that her past abortions were admitted as evidence as part of her subpoena medical records, and they were explicitly mentioned in the court processions as well.
So I was very intrigued, So tell me more about what was said about those past abortions, the way in which they were being used as evidence in this case.
So they were introduced in the court processions by the independent children's lawyer, so not necessarily by her ex husband's
defense counsel, which I thought was particularly interesting. They were mentioned while her ex husband was being cross examined in a very elusive way, I guess to check or to query her ex husband as to whether or not he was aware that once upon a time in the past, she had made these choices, and there is a particular vein of paranoia when it comes to the family court and who exactly has power, and women, particularly those who
raised concerns or allegations of sexual abuse, are scrutinized profusely for doing so, seen often as vindictive or as if they are concocting fictitious harms to gain exclusive custody of their child or children. And given such allegations were introduced in Louis's case, I believe, you know, this is my opinion, that they were mentioned to cast doubt.
On her honesty. So I did find that really strange.
HM, that's interesting. Do we know any more about I suppose the process that allows something like a termination to be used in this context.
So that's where I went to abortion providers and legal experts to find out if the accessing of this information had I guess, a routine choreography, if that makes sense, if there was a way to access this and how. It is difficult to pinpoint exactly how this information was first access It is possible that documentation eluding or you know,
directly referencing her abortion was incidentally submitted. So sometimes when medical records are subpoened more broadly, they aren't necessarily seeved through. I did speak to various doctors who made a concerted effort to omit parts of individuals medical records that they did not themselves seem relevant. But this is not necessarily
common practice. However, with this particular case, with Louise's case, the court did sanction as psychiatrists to provide an affidavit, which is not uncommon at all, which is often very very common in family court cases. And I received the transcript of that medical legal report from Louisa. He he addressed Louise's terminations directly with her, and in my opinion,
this was riddled with judgment. They were unfounded assumptions in his affidavit about how a lot of women apparently experience guilt and depression pertaining to past abortions later in life regret, and I quote he had said to her that some women find themselves wishing to have.
Kept one of the babies they didn't keep.
I found this incredibly prejudicial, that you know, a psychiatrist was spouting this stuff, which is you know, completely wrong, especially in twenty twenty one when this took place.
But I suppose the subtext is that if you've had an abortion, there is some judgment being cast on whether or not if you're going through a custody battle, you are now a fit mother.
Absolutely, that is the implication.
Whether or not that was intentional, it's too dangerous an implication to play with so recklessly. I believe it is deeply prejudicial, but it is also factually incorrect. The vast majority of people who terminate pregnancies are also in fact already mothers, and abortion advocates resist the differentiation of abortion havers and child havers. There is nothing incompatible with motherhood
and parenthood and terminating a pregnancy. So I did find this particularly frustrating, given there have been so many junctures in which this has been challenged and proven incorrected.
After the break using their abortion history to portray someone as reckless, hypersexual and crazy.
Madison. How common is it for abortion records to turn up as evidence in court?
There are no official statistics that I was able to access regarding this. I did speak to a few abortion providers. The impression that I received was it is fairly uncommon for abortion records to turn up in court generally across the board. You know, not necessarily in family court cases. There are certainly instances in which abortion records are relevant, for sure, particularly in sexual assault cases, where they work
as proof of a sexual contact having been made. So it's not necessarily that abortion should not be ever mentioned in court, or that it's too sensitive or too prejudicial in and of itself. However, after I became aware of Louisa's incident, I did start asking around to see if an individual's abortion had ever been used against them in broader court processions, and that is when I received a
message from Olivia. And Olivia had been encouraged by her legal counsel to introduce her singular abortion as evidence, so proof of having terminated pregnancy at seventeen years old. This was introduced during a sexual assault trial.
The prosecution encouraged this.
Olivia felt relatively comfortable with this, if not comforted by this, as it was a tangible material proof of a sexual occurrence that had happened. But given the nature of how the abortion was introduced alongside her sexual.
Health history or sexual history per se, she.
Believes used against her to suggest a hyper sexualization that was in her or embedded in her. She feels as if the abortion was registered in the mind's eye of the jury as mere proof that she is reckless and quote unquote crazy. There is no proof that is what was considered by the jury, But I believe Oliba has every reason to be dubious when it comes to how
this was postured in the court. So whilst it is relatively uncommon, I will be unsurprised to find if it happens a lot more than we anticipate it does.
And can you tell me any more about what doctors have told you about being placed in that position and the moral and ethical equations that they're having to make.
Absolutely, Doctor Sue Brumby, she was a abortion provider I spoke to for this, and she really stressed that she finds this form of emotional domestic abuse. I think any people that work in the sector are dubious about how these elements of a woman's private past sexual history can be used against them. I think particularly abortions conflicts as well, because it has a rich and patriarchal and it has
a really complex relationship with the law. So for it to reappear in this context feels like a terrible loophole and kind of goes against a lot of advocacy endeavors and medical endeavors to destigmatize and make more accessible a procedure that is legal and is incredibly common.
Right, But we have recently seen some of that advocacy payoff. This month there were amendments to the Family Law Act, So tell me about the changes that that will bring.
This is being introduced in a bid to just ensure that sensitive information such as a woman's past termination history and counseling records, but primarily her counseling records, is safeguarded from entering custody battles. So it does state that the protections relate to communications occurring when a person seeks treatment or support from health services. And the definition here of health is particularly and deliberately broad, so that is psychological
and physical and sexual health. If the court believes it's such evidence being submitted will cause harm or the child involved in the proceedings will find this harmful, the documents will then not be admitted in proceedings. If this amendment Act had been introduced prior to Louisa's custody battle, I personally believe the outcome would have been significantly different. Louisa lost custody of her child. Louisa is unable to see
her child. So for a woman to raise allegations such as the ones Louisa raised of sexual abuse, commonly the family court will and does, in my opinion, punish this woman for doing so. And in this instance Louisa has been doggedly punished, I believe.
And to come back to the issue of her terminations, and I suppose, more broadly, the issue of terminations being used in court proceedings, I mean, no matter what they are, I mean, what does the fact that that is happening in twenty twenty five, what does that say to you about the stigma that is still attached to having a termination at all?
I believe it reintroduces a brand new element of weaponization that I think Australia has felt relatively politically immune to. I know in my reporting that Roe v. Wade, the overturning of Roe v. Wade in the States did have a philosophical and political flow on effect. It certainly did raise the question of abortion on home soil in a way that felt more urgent and pressing. But we haven't necessarily been met with the underside of abortion being weaponized in this way.
I think when people look at abortion more broadly.
The issues and the very real issues have to do entirely with access. What is so terrifying about this instance is there is a twenty year gap between these terminations occurring and then being reintroduced, both in Louisa's life but in Louisa's legal processions regarding the custody of her child.
So this raises a terrifying precedent when it comes to the choices we make about our bodies and how those choices can, in another context be used against us to completely corrode our ability to move forward with our lives, which is the great beauty and joy of women being afforded the right to choose in the first place. I did find it a deeply upsetting irony that this resurfaced in this.
Way, Madison, Thank you so much for your time.
Thank you so much. Ruby.
Also in the news today, Prime Minister Anthony Albanesi has welcomed remarks from his British counterpart that the UK is determined to proceed with the Orchesteele. Speaking to concerns of a US commitment to the Orchestile, British Prime Minister Kirstama says the UK Labor government held a review of the security arrangement last year and says there are clear benefits.
The comments come amid the G seven summit in Canada, where a planned meeting between Albanesi and US President Donald Trump was canceled, with the White House stating the President had to return to Washington amid the escalating war in the Middle East, and G seven leaders have delivered a statement saying Israel has the right to defend itself, calling Iran the quote principal source of regional instability and terror.
Israel launched a shock attack on Iran on Friday, as Washington and Tehran were in the midst of nuclear negotiations, and has so far killed more than two hundred people, mostly civilians. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am.
Thanks Blistening