When the NSW Parliament legalised abortion up to 22 weeks of pregnancy on request, and for broad reasons up to birth, in 2019, it nonetheless stated that “This Parliament opposes the performance of terminations for the purpose of sex selection” and empowered the Secretary of the Ministry of Health to make guidelines “that prevent terminations being performed for the purpose of sex selection”.
The Act also required the Secretary to “conduct a review of the issue of whether or not terminations are being performed for the purpose of sex selection”, and “prepare, and give to the Minister, a report about the review.” The report was to “include recommendations about how to prevent terminations being performed for the purpose of sex selection” and the Minister was required “to provide the report to the Presiding Officer of each House of Parliament”.
This Report, having been completed in December 2020, was finally tabled on 6 September 2021 – nearly two years after the Act commenced on 2 October 2019.
Alex Greenwich MP claimed during debate on these provisions in the Bill that “We have no evidence that terminations are occurring for the purpose of sex selection.”
The Report found that between 1 October 2019 and 30 September 2020 there were 13 notifications of termination of pregnancy performed for the sole purpose of sex selection.
The report attempts to make out that 10 of these notifications must have been made in error as they indicated the gestation of the unborn child was less than 9 weeks – a stage at which there is no reliable method of determining the sex of the unborn child.
However, it seems at least as likely that the gestational age was wrongly reported as that a medical practitioner inadvertently ticked “YES” rather than “NO” to this very clear question on the notification form “Was the termination carried out for the sole purpose of sex selection?”
Additionally, the Report found that 18 out of 183 abortion providers who responded to a survey conducted in November 2020 had received requests for abortions for the sole purpose of sex selection. Seventeen of these providers state that they inform the woman that the practice is not supported – including in some cases explaining to “the woman that the practice is not supported by citing the legislation”. However, one provider reported that those requesting an abortion for the sole purpose of sex selection are referred “elsewhere” – presumably to a provider willing to perform an abortion for this reason.
Alex Greenwich MP claimed during debate on the sex selection provisions in the Bill that “We have no evidence that terminations are occurring for the purpose of sex selection.” Well, we do now.
The Report fails to give due consideration to the available demographic evidence.
It states that “The practice of sex-selective termination of pregnancy could reasonably affect the human sex ratio, however the rare occurrence of termination of pregnancy for the sole purpose of sex selection in NSW is unlikely to change the sex ratio. … In NSW, there has been no significant change in the pattern of sex of the baby since 1990.”
This ignores the extensive international evidence that abortions for the sole purpose of sex selection are prevalent in certain ethnic communities, predominantly Indian and East Asian, including evidence that this is occurring in Australia.
The most recent international study found that “The sex ratio at birth (SRB; ratio of male to female live births) imbalance in parts of the world over the past few decades is a direct consequence of sex-selective abortion, driven by the coexistence of son preference, readily available technology of prenatal sex determination, and fertility decline”. The study identified “12 countries with strong statistical evidence of SRB imbalance during 1970–2017, resulting in 23.1 million missing female births globally. The majority of those missing female births are in China, with 11.9 million, and in India, with 10.6 million.”1
A more recent study found between 13 million and 22 million missing female births in India between 1987 and 2016 due to sex selective abortion.2
A series of studies of SRB among immigrant groups from countries known to have distorted SRB in Western countries including Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain and Australia, has confirmed that sex selection for cultural son preference is a sufficiently widespread practice in some immigrant communities to be decisively reflected in the demographic data.
Kristina Edvardsson et al report that in Victoria, Australia, compared with the naturally occurring Male/Female (M/F) ratio as well as to the M/F ratio among births to mothers born in Australia, there was an increased ratio of male births to mothers born in India, China and South-East Asia, particularly at higher parities and in more recent times. The most male-biased sex ratios were found among multiple births to Indian-born mothers, and parity of two or more births to Indian and Chinese-born mothers in 2011–15.3
NEW SOUTH WALES: DEMOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE FOR SEX SELECTION ABORTIONS
An SBS radio investigation reported in May 2015 on research conducted by demographers Nick Parr, Christophe Guilmoto and Gour Dasvarma et al using customised data obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
The data showed that for children born in New South Wales between 2003 and 2013 where both parents were born in China there was a male to female sex ratio at birth that clearly exceeded the natural range.
There were 11,963 boys born compared to just 11,038 girls, a ratio of 108.3 boys to 100 girls compared to the overall male to female sex ratio at birth in Australia of 105.7 boys to 100 girls. Based on this ABS data there were 279 missing girls at birth in New South Wales in this eleven-year period – an average of 25 girls per year from this immigrant community alone.
Similarly for children born in New South Wales between 2003 and 2013 where both parents were born in India there was a male to female sex ratio at birth that clearly exceeded the natural range.
There were 10,106 boys born compared to just 9,405 girls, a ratio of 107.4 boys to 100 girls compared to the overall male to female sex ratio at birth in Australia of 105.7 boys to 100 girls. Based on this ABS data there were 156 missing girls at birth in New South Wales in this eleven-year period – an average of 14 girls per year from this immigrant community alone.
This means nearly 40 girls per year may be missing each year in New South Wales due to sex selection.
Commenting on the data Australian demographer Professor Nick Parr said that "There has to be some form of pre-natal sex selection taking place. In my opinion the most plausible explanation is that there is sex-selective abortion occurring.”4
French demographer Dr Christophe Guilmoto agreed: “There are very few ways to influence the sex of your child so the most common is to resort to sex selective abortion”.5
The Report confirms this evidence by establishing that there were at least 18 requests for sex selection abortion and 13 notifications.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CHANGED GUIDELINES
The Report made the following Recommendation to prevent the practice of termination of pregnancy for the sole purpose of sex selection in NSW:
That NSW Health strengthen NSW termination of pregnancy providers’ preparedness to respond to requests [for abortions based solely on sex selection] by ensuring they have:
- a clear understanding of their responsibilities under the NSW Abortion Law Reform Act 2019
- access to evidence-based information on all pregnancy options available
- access to communication tools to support discussions with women
- clear pathways to refer women who request a termination of pregnancy for the sole purpose of sex selection to counsellors, social workers, other health professionals.
The Framework for Termination of Pregnancy in New South Wales was subsequently updated on 23 June 2021 and now includes the following provision:
Before performing a termination of pregnancy, it may be disclosed to the medical practitioner that the reason for the request is for the sole purpose of sex selection. If this is the reason for the request, the practitioner must not perform the termination, unless not performing the termination will cause significant risk to the woman’s health or safety.
When a termination for the sole purpose of sex selection is refused, the medical practitioner must offer additional support and referral to counselling or other relevant services.
If performing the abortion is genuinely required to avoid a “significant risk to the woman’s health” it would clearly not be performed for the sole purpose of sex selection. So this provision is unnecessary, but could be used as an excuse to avoid the prohibition.
The provision allowing such abortions to be performed to avoid “a significant risk to the woman’s safety” is very disturbing. This suggests that such an abortion may be performed on a woman who is threatened by domestic violence if she does not have the abortion.
Women in this situation need to help and support from domestic violence – not for this domestic violence to be given effect to by the abortion of their girl children.
R Egan, Prolife Researcher
1Fengqing Chao et al, “Systematic assessment of the sex ratio at birth for all countries and estimation of national imbalances and regional reference levels” PNAS May 7, 2019 116 (19) 9303-9311; first published April 15, 2019 read more
2 Nandita Saikia et al., “Trends in missing females at birth in India from 1981 to 2016: analyses of 2·1 million birth histories in nationally representative surveys”, Lancet Global Health, 2021: 9: e813-821, read more
3Kristina Edvardsson et al “Male-biased sex ratios in Australian migrant populations: a population-based study of 1 191 250 births 1999–2015”, International Journal of Epidemiology 2018 Dec 1;47(6):2025-2037, read more
4SBS.com.au - Could gender-selective abortions be happening in Australia? read more
5SBS.com.au - Could gender-selective abortions be happening in Australia? read more
The Right to Life Australia Inc. defends the right to life of all human beings from conception until natural death. We lobby government for legal protection of the most vulnerable in society – the unborn baby, elderly, sick and those with disabilities.