After the constitutional right to an abortion was overturned in the United States, Australians are discussing how reproductive health is approached at home.
Speaking with Flow listeners on Tuesday, Australian Christian Lobby national director of politics Wendy Francis said the decision merely put American states where Australian states and territories are - enabled to determine their own laws on how abortion is handled.
Hear the full interview with Wendy Francis on the Flow podcast player:
A multinational provider of abortions claimed Australia had a "postcode lottery" of reproductive health access after the US Supreme Court overturned American federal abortion rights.
A widely anticipated decision after the controversial leaking of a draft ruling earlier this year has triggered protests, civil unrest and celebrity social media posts and outbursts at public events about the ruling.
While abortion has been partly decriminalised in Australia, laws differ between states and territories which can limit accessibility.
Marie Stopes International said it wants more done to secure reproductive health access for people no matter where they live.
MSI Australia managing director Jamal Hakim said:
"Abortion access is still a postcode lottery in Australia,"
"To end the postcode lottery we need to harmonise state and territory legislation alongside investing in universal abortion access and embed abortion care in the healthcare system."
Federal minister Tanya Plibersek said all levels of government should work together to provide a full suite of reproductive health for women, and Australia should take a holistic approach to women's reproductive health, telling national radio on Tuesday:
"It starts with better sex education, with young people knowing that they can say no to sex.
"It goes on to much better advice and availability of contraceptives, including long-acting reversible contraceptives."
Federal Liberal senator for South Australia, Alex Antic, took issue with Liberal deputy leader Sussan Ley's categorisation of the US Supreme Court outcome as a 'backward step', acknowledging it would be more democratic for states to decide women's rights than unelected judges.