NSW Parliament Passes Bill to Allow Nurses, Midwives to Prescribe Abortion Drugs
After extensive debate and review, the Abortion Law Reform Amendment (Health Care Access) Bill 2025 passed the NSW Parliament on May 14, with 65 votes in favour and 20 against.
The bill marks a significant step in expanding access to abortion services in regional and rural NSW.
Introduced by Greens MP Dr Amanda Cohn, the bill allows nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives to prescribe and provide medical abortion drugs for pregnancies up to nine weeks—a role previously limited to doctors.
Cohn, who led the reform, said the bill would help address gaps in reproductive care for women outside metropolitan areas.
'This bill is about access,' she said. 'It's about ensuring women outside our cities can get safe, legal, timely reproductive healthcare.'
Currently, only doctors can prescribe MS-2 Step—the medication used for medical abortions—making access in regional areas difficult. Cohn argued the bill was necessary to 'end abortion deserts' in rural NSW.
Related Stories
5/14/2025
5/13/2025
The legislation also gives the health minister authority to direct public hospitals to provide abortion services.
However, a clause that would have required 'conscientious objectors' to refer patients elsewhere was removed during negotiations.
This clause was heavily criticised by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott who said it would be 'cancelling faith in public life,' and force those with religious beliefs to act
Abbott spoke at a protest outside NSW Parliament House on May 7 attended by hundreds of individuals.
Final Debate Sees Push For Stricter Conditions
Despite the bill's broad support from parliamentarians, its final debate saw several MPs attempt to introduce stricter conditions.
Some MPs proposed that only nurse practitioners and midwives with further years of experience should be permitted to prescribe abortion medication. Others argued for mandatory counselling alongside any termination procedure.
Alister Henskens, the member for Wahroonga, and Joe McGirr, member for Wagga Wagga, were among those calling for these changes.
However, Independent MP Alex Greenwich opposed the stricter conditions, saying they had not been consulted with the nursing profession, and risked undermining the bill's intent.
'It essentially seeks to add two years' experience, in addition to the extensive training nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives have already undertaken,' Greenwich said.
He noted that nurses in Australia must already complete 5,000 hours of practice in their specialty before they can apply to become a nurse practitioner.
Once endorsed, they are required to undertake additional professional development, and be governed by legal and clinical standards.
Health Minister Opposes Training Requirement
Health Minister Ryan Park also opposed the proposed training requirement, saying it would create barriers to access.
'Stipulating specific training requirements is not appropriate to do via legislation,' he said.
He added that no other health service sets clinical training standards in legislation, and warned that such a move could set an unworkable precedent, putting NSW out of line with national practices.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
Starmer Faces Brewing Rebellion Over £5 Billion Benefit Cut
(Bloomberg) -- UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is less than 10 days away from the biggest parliamentary challenge to his authority in his not-yet year-long tenure. Security Concerns Hit Some of the World's 'Most Livable Cities' One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Taser-Maker Axon Triggers a NIMBY Backlash in its Hometown Unpopular cuts to disability benefits unveiled earlier this year as part of Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves' efforts to balance the country's books are due before the House of Commons for their first vote on July 1, with a large-scale rebellion brewing on the Labour back benches. So far, at least 150 of the governing party's Members of Parliament have indicated concerns about the cuts in two letters to the government. Other non-signatories have told Bloomberg they also intend to vote against the bill. While Starmer's attention this week was centered on the escalating tensions in the Middle East, the domestic threat was laid bare on Thursday when Vicky Foxcroft, a government whip who would have been tasked with helping quell the revolt, quit, citing her own objections. The rebellion threatens to bruise Starmer's and Reeves' credibility and further damage their stock with the left of their party. In order to avoid falling to what would be an unprecedented defeat for a government enjoying such a large majority so early in its tenure, ministers could at worst be forced into major concessions that reduce the bill's expected cost savings, forcing the Treasury to conjure up money from other cuts or tax rises at the budget in the fall. 'It's a test of Starmer's authority and the way he and Rachel Reeves are running the economy,' Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University London, said in a phone interview. 'If the rebellion is too big, you start to run into questions about the loyalty of your backbenchers and even perhaps the future of your leadership.' The welfare reforms allowed Reeves to save about £5 billion ($6.5 billion) a year by 2030 by making it harder for disabled people to claim a benefit called the personal independence payment, or PIP. The chancellor factored them into a spring statement as part of spending cuts designed to help meet her self-imposed fiscal rules. Reeves says the changes are necessary because an extra thousand people a day have been signing on for PIP, creating an 'unsustainable' impact on the public finances. PIP payments had been projected to almost double to £41 billion by the end of the decade, within overall spending on disability and incapacity benefits that the Office for Budget Responsibility — the government's fiscal watchdog — sees rising to £100 billion from £65 billion last year. The government has also says there is a moral case for supporting people back into work. But Labour lawmakers are concerned the government announced changes in a rush to deliver savings, without thinking through the impact on vulnerable people. 'There are alternative and more compassionate ways to balance the books, rather than on the backs of disabled people,' one Labour backbencher, Debbie Abrahams, told the House of Commons. There are particular concerns about a new requirement for claimants to score four or above in one of the daily living components of the PIP assessment, meaning people who can't wash half their body or cook a meal will be denied the payments if they have no other impairments. One Labour MP describing the process as letting the OBR tail wag the government dog. Some 45 Labour MPs signed a public letter objecting to the measures, while another letter — arranged in secrecy so that even signatories couldn't see who they were joining — garnered 105 signatures and was sent to the chief whip. While some of the would-be rebels have indicated they could be swayed by the government whips, one of them told Bloomberg they are confident that more than 80 MPs will commit to voting against the government. Given Starmer's working majority is 165, if all opposition parties vote against the bill, it would take 83 Labour rebels to defeat the government. The main opposition Conservative Party is planning to vote against the changes, Danny Kruger, one of the party's work and pensions spokespeople, told parliament in May. Its reasons are different: the Tories argue the measures don't go far enough. One Labour MP told Bloomberg that concerned lawmakers plan to put forward a procedural challenge to the bill. While they don't expect the speaker to select that amendment for debate, the aim is to force further changes from the government, and organize would-be Labour rebels into a coherent group which could eventually vote down the bill. Many in Labour had been waiting to see the bill before making up their minds. When the text was published on Wednesday, the concessions to their concerns were minimal, largely amounting to a 13-week transition period for those losing their PIP. Foxcroft — the whip who had previously served for four years as Starmer's shadow disability minister in opposition — quit within hours of the publication, saying she didn't believe cutting the disability benefits should be part of the solution to tackling ballooning welfare costs. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said Friday that Foxcroft's resignation wasn't a sign of a major rebellion, while conceding that 'of course' there are dissenting voices on such a big reform. 'Vicky is the only front-bencher that I've had a conversation with about resigning,' she said. Nevertheless, many so-called 'red wall' Labour MPs in northern and central England face a tough decision. Health Equity North, a public health institute, found that all the places most affected financially by the PIP reforms are Labour constituencies in northern England. In several areas, the number of people affected by the welfare changes exceeds the Labour majority, meaning those MPs could see a crucial drop in support. The government is gearing up for a fight, indicating it will make no further concessions. On Wednesday, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner failed to rule out stripping the whip from Labour rebels, while government enforcers are warning MPs that their political career prospects will be ruined if they oppose the bill. Whips and wannabe rebels alike expect the potential revolt to be whittled down as July 1 approaches. Some opponents are weighing whether to abstain at the second reading and wait until the third reading to take a more decisive vote, as whips are encouraging them to do. 'I'd be amazed if he were defeated here,' Anand Menon, director of the UK in a Changing Europe think-tank, said. 'If the whips got a whiff they were going to get defeated, they'd give some concessions. The worst of all outcomes is to lose this.' Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Bloomberg
a day ago
- Bloomberg
Starmer Faces Brewing Rebellion Over £5 Billion Benefit Cut
By , Lucy White, and Joe Mayes Save UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is less than 10 days away from the biggest parliamentary challenge to his authority in his not-yet year-long tenure. Unpopular cuts to disability benefits unveiled earlier this year as part of Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves' efforts to balance the country's books are due before the House of Commons for their first vote on July 1, with a large-scale rebellion brewing on the Labour back benches.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
The assisted dying debate has been politics – but not as we know it
The House of Commons is a place defined by confrontation where political battles play out and engage more actively with their constituents. But the atmosphere could not have been more different on Friday, as those on both sides of the assisted dying debate listened respectfully, almost solemnly, to one another in the final hours before . As MPs headed for the division lobbies, the bill's supporters seemed confident but nervous. Read more: When the voting was completed and the result imminent, a long and profound silence fell over the House. From the press gallery, it seemed that the entire Commons was holding its breath together, collectively aware of the historic moment we were all about to witness, whatever the outcome. The woman at the centre of this seismic moment, the bill's sponsor Kim Leadbeater, braced herself as the result came in. Many months of pressure and responsibility appeared to be lifted from her shoulders as the win was announced and colleagues gathered to commend her efforts. Throughout the process this been politics but not as we know it, with party divisions put aside and MPs asked to search their own consciences and come to their own conclusions. It has created a more collaborative atmosphere in parliament and encouraged MPs to engage more actively with their constituents. In the end there was still anger, frustration and disappointment among those who were against the law change, either on principle or because they believed the legislation was flawed. And of course, politics will go back to being combative and voices in the Commons will be raised once again. But for a brief period, historic change was calmly ushered in. The challenge for the proponents now is to take the legislation through the next phases and deliver it with the same smoothness and determination.
