In a stunning turn of events, prominent anti-abortion advocate Joanna Howe has been barred from South Australia’s upper house following a series of alleged intimidation tactics directed at politicians. The decision, announced by Legislative Council President Terry Stephens, comes in the wake of a heated debate surrounding the state’s controversial “forced birth” legislation.
Complaints of Intimidation and Improper Influence
According to sources close to the matter, several members of the Legislative Council (MLCs) lodged complaints against Howe, accusing her of employing “insults and threatening and intimidating tactics” in an attempt to sway their vote on the contentious bill. The proposed legislation, which was narrowly defeated by a margin of 10 to 9, would have required individuals seeking an abortion after 27 weeks and six days to instead be induced, give birth, and then either keep or adopt out the child.
President Stephens expressed grave concern over the allegations, emphasizing that the suggestion of a visitor attempting to “improperly influence the free performance by members of their duties” was of the highest concern. He further revealed that the complaints identified Howe as the individual in question.
Pressure Tactics and Voting Deals
In a startling admission, Howe herself acknowledged that she had pressured one MP to renege on a voting deal during the dinner break of the bill’s debate. Liberal MLC Jing Lee, who had initially agreed to sit out the vote to offset the absence of her colleague Michelle Lensink, withdrew her pairing offer after an “unexpected encounter with a very persistent visitor.”
I did.
Joanna Howe, when asked if she pressured Jing Lee to pull out of the pairing deal
Howe reportedly told Lee that if she paired out, “some of those babies that could be saved if this bill passes, won’t be saved,” and threatened to hold her accountable using her substantial social media presence. She also allegedly mentioned speaking to preselectors, suggesting that Lee’s stance on the issue could affect her future preselection prospects.
A Chaotic Scramble and Traumatized MLCs
The withdrawal of Lee’s pairing offer led to a chaotic scramble as MPs sought to find a replacement pair. Despite being a firm supporter of the bill, Liberal MLC Dennis Hood ultimately agreed to absent himself from the vote. However, it has been claimed that Howe was observed yelling at Hood in an attempt to discourage him from vacating the chamber.
The incidents left some MLCs feeling traumatized and anxious. Lee, in particular, expressed that she felt “vulnerable” after her encounter with the “very persistent visitor.” President Stephens emphasized that it was entirely unacceptable for any member to feel intimidated or threatened by visitors while carrying out their parliamentary duties.
A Rare and Controversial Legislation
The defeated bill, which focused on late-stage abortions, was highly unusual and controversial. Abortions after 27 weeks and six days are exceedingly rare and are only performed when there is a significant risk to the woman or the fetus. The introduction of such legislation has been seen by many as part of a broader strategy by anti-abortion activists to chip away at reproductive rights.
Consequences and Reactions
As a result of her actions, Joanna Howe has been banned from attending the public or president’s galleries of the Legislative Council chamber. She has also been barred from accessing adjacent areas, such as the corridors and other shared spaces within the Council.
The incident has sparked outrage among those who believe in the sanctity of the democratic process and the right of elected officials to carry out their duties without fear of intimidation or undue influence. Many have praised President Stephens for taking decisive action to protect the integrity of the Legislative Council and the well-being of its members.
As the dust settles on this extraordinary chapter in South Australian politics, questions remain about the tactics employed by some activists in their pursuit of their agenda. The events serve as a stark reminder of the need for respectful and constructive dialogue, even in the face of deeply held convictions and passionate disagreements.
