We can't say anything concrete about how Peter Andren voted on reproductive bodily autonomy
How Peter Andren voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should ensure that Australian laws protect the reproductive bodily autonomy of women and other people capable of childbearing by, for example, protecting them from pregnancy-related discrimination and ensuring they have access to pregnancy-related healthcare services, which include affordable contraception, maternity care and abortion services
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for reproductive bodily autonomy” which Peter Andren could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Peter Andren on this policy.
| Division | Peter Andren | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for reproductive bodily autonomy” which Peter Andren could have attended.
| Division | Peter Andren | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
16th Feb 2006, 12:54 PM – Representatives Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of Ru486) Bill 2005 - Second Reading - Read a second time |
absent | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case Peter Andren was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.