Abstract
The reproductive choices available to women, and the consequences of those choices, exist within the broader policy context whereby policy is influenced by pervasive ideologies of women’s roles in society and the family. Women’s reproductive rights and their resulting consequences are governed by policy at the federal and state/territory levels within Australia yet little is known about the number or scope of these policies. This study aimed to systematically search and map Australian policy to identify the number and scope of policies governing women’s reproductive choices and their consequences, including how policy interprets the role of women in society through their reproductive choices. The systematic search identified 147 Australian policies in 2013. The mapping of the policies identified common themes that drive policy agenda impacting women’s reproductive choices, including those where the focus is promoting motherhood and/or children, providing economic incentives, regulating reproduction, or a broader health focus. These policy agendas simultaneously construct and are shaped by the context in which women’s reproductive choices and impacts occur. Women’s reproductive choices are highly politicised and regulated, impacting women’s position within society.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Medicare is Australia’s publicly funded universal health care scheme.
References
Althaus, C., Bridgman, P., & Davis, G. (2013). The Australian policy handbook (5th ed.). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Ananat, E. O., Gruber, J., & Levine, P. (2007). Abortion legalization and life-cycle fertility. Journal of Human Resources, XLII(2), 375–397. doi:10.3368/jhr.XLII.2.375.
Australiang Government Department of Health and Ageing. (2010). National Women’s Health Policy 2010. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing.
Australianh Human Rights Commission. (2006). How are human rights protected in Australian law? http://www.humanrights.gov.au/how-are-human-rights-protected-australian-law. Accessed January 19, 2015.
Averett, S. L., Rees, D. I., & Argys, L. M. (2002). The impact of government policies and neighborhood characteristics on teenage sexual activity and contraceptive use. American Journal of Public Health, 92(11), 1773–1778. doi:10.2105/Ajph.92.11.1773.
Bacchi, C. (2009). Rethinking policy analysis: Theory and politics. In Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Frenchs Forest NSW: Pearson Australia.
Balbo, N., Billari, F., & Mills, M. (2013). Fertility in advanced societies: A review of research. European Journal of Population, 29(1), 1–38. doi:10.1007/s10680-012-9277-y.
Bessett, D., Prager, J., Havard, J., Murphy, D. J., Agénor, M., & Foster, A. M. (2014). Policy matters: Barriers to contraceptive access after health care reform: Experiences of young adults in Massachusetts. Women’s Health Issues, 25(2), 91–96. doi:10.1016/j.whi.2014.11.002.
Brindis, C. D. (2006). A public health success: Understanding policy changes related to teen sexual activity and pregnancy. Annual Reviews of Public Health, 27, 277–295. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102244.
Campbell, R., & Wasco, S. (2000). Feminist approaches to social science: Epistemological and methodological tenets. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(6), 773–791. doi:10.1023/A:1005159716099.
Charles, N. (2000). Feminism, the state and social policy. Great Britain: Macmillan Press LTD.
Chavkin, W., & Chesler, E. (2005). Where human rights begin: Health, sexuality, and women in the new millennium. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Colebatch, H. K. (2009). Policy. Concepts in the social sciences (3rd ed.). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
Connell, R. W. (2002). Gender. Short introductions. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Cowell-Meyers, K., & Langbein, L. (2013). Measuring women-friendly policy in the American states. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 34(2), 159–185. doi:10.1080/1554477x.2013.776392.
Dever, M. (2005). Baby talk: The Howard government, families, and the politics of difference. Hecate, 31(2), 45–61.
Engeli, I. (2012). Policy struggle on reproduction: Doctors, women, and Christians. Political Research Quarterly, 65(2), 330–345. doi:10.1177/1065912910395323.
Gray, G. (2006). Women, federalism and women friendly policies. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 65(1), 25–45. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.2006.00470a.x.
Gray Jamieson, G. (2012). Reaching for health [electronic resource]: the Australian women’s health movement and public policy. Canberra, ACT: ANU E Press.
Gray, M., Qu, L., & Weston, R. (2008). Fertility and family policy in Australia. Australian Institute of Family Studies: Australian Government.
Graycar, R., & Morgan, J. (2002). The hidden gender of law (2nd ed.). Sydney: The Federation Press.
Hood, C. (1983). Using bureaucracy sparingly. Public Administration, 61(2), 197–208.
Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: Reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance, 20(1), 127–144. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2007.00347.x.
Hughes, C. (2002). Key concepts in feminist theory and research. London: Sage.
Jackson, N., & Casey, A. (2009). Procreate and cherish: A note on Australia’s abrupt shift to pro-natalism. New Zealand Population Review, 35(1), 129–148.
Keleher, H. (2013). Policy scorecard for gender mainstreaming: Gender equity in health policy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 37(2), 111–117. doi:10.1111/1753-6405.12027.
Levine, P. B. A. (2002). The impact of social policy and economic activity throughout the fertility decision tree. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper series (no. 9021).
Nelson, E. (2013). Law, policy and reproductive autonomy. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Redshaw, M., & Martin, C. R. (2011). Reproductive decision-making, prenatal attachment and early parenting. Journal of Reproductive & Infant Psychology, 29(3), 195–196. doi:10.1080/02646838.2011.614106.
Rønsen, M, (2004). Fertility and public policies—Evidence from Norway and Finland. Demographic Research, 10(6):143–170. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2004.10.6.
Shaw, D. (2006). Sexual and reproductive health: rights and responsibilities. The Lancet, 368(9551), 1941–1943. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69487-7.
Smith, D. (1978). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Theodoulou, S. (Ed.). (2013). The contemporary language of public policy: Starting to understand. Public policy: The essential readings (2nd ed.). USA: Pearson Education.
UN General Assembly. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III). http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3712c.html. Accessed January 19, 2015.
UN General Assembly. (1979). Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, 18 December 1979, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1249, p. 13. http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw.htm. Accessed January 19, 2015.
UN General Assembly. (1999). Optional protocol to the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, 6 October 1999, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2131, p. 83. http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/protocol/. Accessed January 19, 2015.
United Nations. (1995). Report of the international conference on population and development. Cairo, 5–13 September 1994, New York: United Nations (Sales No. 95.XIII.18).
Watson, S. (1995). Reclaiming social policy. In B. Caine & R. Pringle (Eds.), Transitions: New Australian feminisms. Allen & Unwin: NSW.
Wilkinson, P., French, R., Kane, R., Lachowycz, K., Stephenson, J., Grundy, C., et al. (2006). Teenage conceptions, abortions, and births in England, 1994–2003, and the national teenage pregnancy strategy. Lancet, 368(9550), 1879–1886. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)69777-8.
Yang, Z., & Gaydos, L. M. (2010). Reasons for and challenges of recent increases in teen birth rates: A study of family planning service policies and demographic changes at the state level. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46(6), 517–524. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.03.021.
Acknowledgments
Funding was provided by the School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Graham, M., McKenzie, H., Lamaro, G. et al. Women’s Reproductive Choices in Australia: Mapping Federal and State/Territory Policy Instruments Governing Choice. Gend. Issues 33, 335–349 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-016-9159-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-016-9159-4