- Thinking About It by Zee Feed
- Posts
- This is a stunt. Will it work?
We need to be very clear-eyed about one man’s cynical attempt to change abortion laws in South Australia. The bill will not pass, for a few reasons, but imo that means we should be more worried about it, not less.
Quick recap: The man in question is 44-year-old Liberal councillor Ben Hood, who has introduced a cruel and medically-sketchy abortion bill amendment to the SA upper house. As it currently stands, abortions after 22 weeks and six days can only be performed if the pregnancy or birth will kill or cause serious physical/mental health risks to the mother, and must have the approval of two doctors. Hood wants to add an amendment that will force these women to give birth after 27 weeks and 6 days, even if there is a high risk they will die. He wants to give these women and their doctors only two options: continue with the pregnancy, or have an early caesarean to deliver the foetus alive and give it neonatal care.
How many people have medically necessary, 28-week abortions? According to the South Australian Abortion Reporting Committee, in approximately 20 years of data there has only ever been one case. In 2023, there were 47 pregnancies terminated after the 22 weeks and six day mark.
To be very, very clear: these are not people who changed their mind about becoming a parent. That is already banned in SA for this stage of pregnancy (almost the end of the second trimester). Many of these women will have wanted to be mothers and give birth to their child very much. Hood is, for now, exclusively trying to force births upon women who are at medical risk.
Look, the bill won’t pass. Although Hood is a Liberal councillor, he has introduced this as a Private Member’s Bill. SA Liberal leader South Australian Abortion Reporting Committee Vincent Tarzia has clarified that this is not party policy, and therefore will allow party members a conscience vote. Without the formal support of his own party (other Liberal councillors are already speaking out against it), or the support of the Labor government, there is no chance of passing even if it progresses to the lower house.
Not to mention that the current laws were passed in 2021, only a few years ago, and abortion access is widely supported by the public. The ‘debate’ in Australia on the topic is well and truly settled, even if we can still improve the logistics of access.
But this is all irrelevant because, in my opinion, Hood does not really intend for the amendment to pass.
This is a political stunt. An attempt to accelerate a political career. In 2022, Hood ran for a seat in the SA lower house but lost (the independent member who already held the seat was re-elected). In 2023 when Liberal minister Stephen Wade retired from the upper house, Hood was chosen as the replacement. As there are no by-elections for upper house vacancies, Hood is in parliament having never won election.
But if you aspire to have more influence and a bigger career, you need name recognition. In local and state politics, being widely known goes a long way. It makes you more valuable to your own party, and is essential if you think you may want to make the jump to federal politics in the future. Hood knows the value of media coverage; he helped set up regional news publication The SE Voice, which has mentioned him in over 100 articles.
So how can a first-term, technically unelected councillor from Mount Gambier get his name further out there? By pushing a highly controversial, conveniently doomed bill that taps into the U.S. culture wars that the Australian news media loves to cover.
Lucky for Hood, the ABC decided to cover his bill as if it is addressing a legitimate issue. Women’s health and reproductive rights advocates have pointed out several failings in the ABC’s initial coverage of the bill. The first line of the article reads: “People who want to terminate their pregnancy after 28 weeks…” No one wants to have medical risks in their third trimester so serious that doctors advise termination, so framing it as a choice is misleading.
ABC’s journalists also interviewed a law professor, Joanna Howe, about how the proposed changes will impact women’s rights. The piece did not disclose that Howe is a vocal anti-abortion campaigner who helped Hood draft the bill, until it was updated with an editor’s note the next day. There was no medical comment included. The national body for obstetricians and gynaecologists have since said they oppose the bill, and stressed the medical risks of forced, premature birth.
As a profile boosting strategy, is it working? Possibly. He’s been covered in the ABC, Guardian Australia, Pedestrian, The Australian, The Daily Aus, Women’s Agenda, this newsletter. The SA Liberal leader told ABC Radio that Hood is a “rising star”. It’s not a foolproof tactic (it didn’t quite work out for failed Liberal candidate Katherine Deves), but long after people forget the specifics of this wildly unpopular bill they might still remember his name.
Name recognition is sometimes all right-wing conservatives like this guy need to manoeuvre themselves into bigger and bigger positions of power, shifting the Overton window of the party & political system as they go.
Smart stuff on the Internet 💭
All the stuff I found on the web that made me think, smile, or have an ‘aha!’ moment. Spend your Sunday reading them – you'll be better off for it:
Why Do Men Even Comment on Porn Sites? on The Cut
Now this is journalism! “The subreddit r/PornhubComments compiles the most amusing and compelling comments from the site. They run the gamut from self-deprecating confessionals (“God, I hate myself. I’m so lonely”) to tongue-in-cheek one-liners (“I want to see a part 2 where she teaches him to read”) to solicitations of pragmatic advice (“does anyone have a recipe for beef jerky? It’s too expensive in the supermarkets”).”
My Life is Totally Unimpressive. Is it Worth Celebrating? on Salty World
“And then I joined a Zoom meeting. I was at work (hello successful career woman!) in a meeting talking strategy and lost in an endless spitball of ideas with no clear end goal. “Come on people, OUTCOMES NOT TACTICS” someone wrote in the Zoom chat. “Let’s put that on a hat” I responded, because haha good one. But then I was like whoa, outcomes not tactics. Does this apply to…my entire life?”
The Substance review – as shallow as the very thing it’s critiquing on Little White Lies
“But replicating images doesn’t make them implicitly subversive, and The Substance’s presentation is as shallow as the very thing it’s critiquing. There’s no compassion, and certainly no catharsis – just more hagsploitation and a sense of déjà vu.”
And these three pieces of analysis from Middle East Eye helped me cut through bullshit coverage of Israel’s attacks on Lebanon:
Israel's war on Lebanon: Lethal tactics, no endgame
The Israeli war on Lebanon's hidden goal: Gaza's full erasure
The BBC is weaponising its Lebanon reporting to help disguise Israel's crimes