Background to South Australia's Abortion Laws
South Australia has seen significant evolution in its approach to termination of pregnancy over recent decades. The Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021 decriminalised abortion, shifting it firmly into the realm of healthcare regulation rather than criminal law. Under this framework, terminations are available on request up to 22 weeks and six days of gestation. Beyond this threshold, two medical practitioners must agree that the procedure is appropriate, typically based on significant risk to the physical or mental health of the pregnant person or the presence of serious foetal anomalies.
Late-term procedures remain rare and are usually associated with complex medical circumstances, such as late discovery of severe abnormalities or barriers to earlier access. Decisions rest with clinicians and patients, guided by evidence and individual situations.
The 2026 Bill and Its Provisions
In May 2026, Family First MLC Sarah Game introduced the Termination of Pregnancy (Restrictions on Terminations After 24 Weeks and 6 Days) Amendment Bill. The legislation sought to tighten access after approximately 25 weeks, limiting approvals primarily to cases where the termination is necessary to save the life of the pregnant person. An amendment later incorporated provisions for serious foetal abnormalities.
Proponents argued the changes would provide greater protection for viable foetuses while respecting extreme medical necessities. Critics maintained that the existing safeguards already ensure rigorous medical oversight and that further restrictions could endanger patient care by overriding clinical judgement.
Parliamentary Journey on 17 June 2026
The bill advanced rapidly through the Legislative Council, passing by a narrow 10 votes to 9. Support came notably from newly elected One Nation members alongside other backers. This marked the furthest any restrictive abortion measure had progressed in recent years, following defeats in 2024 and 2025.
Following the upper house success, the legislation moved immediately to the House of Assembly for debate and vote the same evening. After a relatively brief discussion involving fewer than a dozen speakers, it was defeated decisively by 36 votes to 9. Both major parties treated the matter as a conscience vote, allowing members to follow personal convictions.
Key Voices in the Debate
Sarah Game, who announced her affiliation with Family First ahead of the votes, emphasised protecting vulnerable life and responding to shifts in parliamentary composition after recent elections. Premier Peter Malinauskas and Opposition Leader Ashton Hurn both supported the bill in the lower house but formed part of the minority.
Opponents, including Greens representatives and health advocacy groups, highlighted the bill as an unnecessary intrusion into healthcare decisions best left to patients and doctors. They pointed to the rarity of late procedures and the potential for increased suffering if options were curtailed.
Photo by Henrique Felix on Unsplash
Medical and Community Perspectives
Peak bodies such as the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have consistently opposed additional gestational limits, stressing that current requirements for dual medical approval already incorporate robust clinical assessment. Similar positions were voiced by the Australian Medical Association (South Australia) and other professional organisations.
Advocacy coalitions underscored the importance of maintaining access aligned with individual circumstances, noting that delays in diagnosis or service availability can push procedures later in pregnancy. Rallies outside Parliament House reflected the polarised community sentiment, with participants on both sides expressing deeply held views on reproductive rights and foetal protection.
Broader Context and Previous Attempts
This 2026 effort represented the third attempt to introduce restrictions since 2024. Earlier proposals faced similar upper house scrutiny and were ultimately unsuccessful. The pattern illustrates ongoing tension between those seeking to refine gestational limits and those defending the 2021 reforms that prioritised healthcare access.
Across Australia, states maintain varying frameworks, with South Australia’s post-2021 model aligning closely with principles of patient-centred care while retaining medical gatekeeping for later gestations.
Implications of the Outcome
The lower house rejection means South Australia’s existing Termination of Pregnancy Act remains unchanged. Clinicians continue to operate under the dual-approval system for procedures after 22 weeks and six days, with decisions informed by health risks and anomalies rather than stricter statutory cut-offs.
For patients and providers, the result preserves flexibility in complex cases. Proponents of reform may consider future legislative avenues, while opponents view the outcome as affirmation of established safeguards.
Looking Ahead
With parliament entering its winter recess shortly after the June 17 votes, immediate further action appears unlikely. The episode has, however, renewed public and political attention to reproductive healthcare policy in the state.
Stakeholders across the spectrum anticipate continued dialogue, potentially informed by data on procedure volumes, health outcomes, and service accessibility. Any future proposals would likely undergo similar rigorous scrutiny given the conscience nature of such debates and the strength of opposing arguments presented.
Photo by Daniel Pelaez Duque on Unsplash
Understanding the Legislative Process
In South Australia’s bicameral parliament, private members’ bills like this one require passage through both the Legislative Council and House of Assembly. Conscience votes allow cross-party alignment based on personal ethics rather than party lines, often leading to closely contested outcomes in the upper house where numbers are tighter.
The swift movement between chambers on a single day underscored the political momentum and the government’s intent to resolve the matter promptly.
