June 17, 2025 • 15 mins
Abortion was fully decriminalised across Australia in 2023, meaning people can end a pregnancy without fear of prosecution.
But that hasn’t stopped abortion being weaponised against women in the courtroom.
Writer and producer Madison Griffiths, who has spent a decade covering reproductive rights, was shocked to learn that abortion records were surfacing in custody battles in the family court, and even sexual abuse trials.
Today, contributor to The Saturday Paper, Madison Griffiths, on the right to choose – and how the law is struggling to keep up with this new form of domestic abuse.
If you enjoy 7am, the best way you can support us is by making a contribution at 7ampodcast.com.au/support.
Socials: Stay in touch with us on Instagram
Guest: Writer, artist and producer Madison Griffiths.
Photo: April Fonti/AAP
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
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
(00:21):
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
(00:43):
law is fighting to keep up with this new frontier
of domestic abuse.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
It's Wednesday, June eighteenth.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
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?
Speaker 4 (01:09):
Absolutely? So. I came across Louisa incidentally.
Speaker 5 (01:13):
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
(01:36):
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.
Speaker 4 (01:52):
But what struck me uniquely about.
Speaker 5 (01:55):
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.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
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.
Speaker 5 (02:19):
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
(02:40):
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
(03:04):
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.
Speaker 4 (03:24):
On her honesty. So I did find that really strange.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
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.
Speaker 5 (03:41):
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,
(04:02):
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
(04:23):
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
(04:48):
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,
(05:11):
and I quote he had said to her that some
women find themselves wishing to have.
Speaker 4 (05:16):
Kept one of the babies they didn't keep.
Speaker 5 (05:19):
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.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
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.
Speaker 4 (05:50):
Absolutely, that is the implication.
Speaker 5 (05:52):
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
(06:13):
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.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
After the break using their abortion history to portray someone
as reckless, hypersexual and crazy.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
Madison. How common is it for abortion records to turn
up as evidence in court?
Speaker 5 (06:50):
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,
(07:14):
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
(07:35):
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
(07:58):
proof of having terminated pregnancy at seventeen years old. This
was introduced during a sexual assault trial.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
The prosecution encouraged this.
Speaker 5 (08:08):
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.
Speaker 4 (08:31):
Health history or sexual history per se, she.
Speaker 5 (08:34):
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
(08:59):
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.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
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.
Speaker 5 (09:29):
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
(09:53):
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
(10:14):
and medical endeavors to destigmatize and make more accessible a
procedure that is legal and is incredibly common.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
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.
Speaker 5 (10:33):
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
(10:55):
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
(11:18):
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
(11:43):
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.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
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?
Speaker 5 (12:15):
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
(12:38):
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.
Speaker 4 (12:51):
I think when people look at abortion more broadly.
Speaker 5 (12:55):
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.
(13:18):
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
(13:41):
afforded the right to choose in the first place. I
did find it a deeply upsetting irony that this resurfaced
in this.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Way, Madison, Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 4 (13:55):
Thank you so much. Ruby.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
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,
(14:31):
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.
(14:51):
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.
Speaker 4 (15:03):
Thanks Blistening
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
(00:21):
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
(00:43):
law is fighting to keep up with this new frontier
of domestic abuse.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
It's Wednesday, June eighteenth.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
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?
Speaker 4 (01:09):
Absolutely? So. I came across Louisa incidentally.
Speaker 5 (01:13):
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
(01:36):
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.
Speaker 4 (01:52):
But what struck me uniquely about.
Speaker 5 (01:55):
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.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
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.
Speaker 5 (02:19):
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
(02:40):
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
(03:04):
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.
Speaker 4 (03:24):
On her honesty. So I did find that really strange.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
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.
Speaker 5 (03:41):
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,
(04:02):
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
(04:23):
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
(04:48):
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,
(05:11):
and I quote he had said to her that some
women find themselves wishing to have.
Speaker 4 (05:16):
Kept one of the babies they didn't keep.
Speaker 5 (05:19):
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.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
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.
Speaker 4 (05:50):
Absolutely, that is the implication.
Speaker 5 (05:52):
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
(06:13):
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.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
After the break using their abortion history to portray someone
as reckless, hypersexual and crazy.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
Madison. How common is it for abortion records to turn
up as evidence in court?
Speaker 5 (06:50):
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,
(07:14):
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
(07:35):
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
(07:58):
proof of having terminated pregnancy at seventeen years old. This
was introduced during a sexual assault trial.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
The prosecution encouraged this.
Speaker 5 (08:08):
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.
Speaker 4 (08:31):
Health history or sexual history per se, she.
Speaker 5 (08:34):
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
(08:59):
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.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
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.
Speaker 5 (09:29):
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
(09:53):
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
(10:14):
and medical endeavors to destigmatize and make more accessible a
procedure that is legal and is incredibly common.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
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.
Speaker 5 (10:33):
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
(10:55):
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
(11:18):
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
(11:43):
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.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
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?
Speaker 5 (12:15):
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
(12:38):
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.
Speaker 4 (12:51):
I think when people look at abortion more broadly.
Speaker 5 (12:55):
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.
(13:18):
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
(13:41):
afforded the right to choose in the first place. I
did find it a deeply upsetting irony that this resurfaced
in this.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Way, Madison, Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 4 (13:55):
Thank you so much. Ruby.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
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,
(14:31):
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.
(14:51):
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.
Speaker 4 (15:03):
Thanks Blistening
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.