Accepted wisdom about the politics of abortion and miscalculating the strength of civil rights

This paper examines the politics of abortion in light of the proposed enactment of Zoe's Law in NSW. Although the amendments were justified by proponents on the basis of perceived deficiency in the law with regard to protections extended towards women and the unborn during pregnancy, they actually threatened rights that were previously, but erroneously, regarded as unretractable. In light of this and other challenges to reproductive freedoms, our paper therefore revisits feminist conceptualisations around abortion. Specifically, it revisits the 'rights won, rights secured' position and argues that it cannot be sustained in light of recent threats to access to abortion. The notion that abortion rights are stable and secure is optimistic at best and dangerously naïve at worst. In a context which increasingly privileges the notion of the rights of a foetus as a future child, and re-frames and recasts notions of motherhood, feminists are finding themselves engaged anew in battles seemingly won a generation ago. However, the way in which notions of legal personhood and motherhood now inform these debates means that accounting for women's lived experiences and their voices is further problematized. Given that some of the adversaries and battlefields of abortion have shifted, this prompts analysis of the ways in which feminists can best and most effectively respond to the volatility of women's rights.