We can't say anything concrete about how Daniel Mulino voted on reproductive bodily autonomy
How Daniel Mulino 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 Daniel Mulino could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Daniel Mulino on this policy.
| Division | Daniel Mulino | 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 Daniel Mulino could have attended.
| Division | Daniel Mulino | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
7th Nov 2022, 4:05 PM – Representatives Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022 - Consideration in Detail - Extending protection |
Yes | No |
9th Feb 2022, 4:41 AM – Representatives Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 - Consideration in Detail - Agree with amended bill |
absent | Yes |
9th Feb 2022, 4:32 AM – Representatives Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 - Consideration in Detail - Students |
absent | Yes |
9th Feb 2022, 4:24 AM – Representatives Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 - Consideration in Detail - Students |
absent | No |
9th Feb 2022, 4:11 AM – Representatives Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 - Consideration in Detail - Teachers |
absent | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Daniel Mulino has only voted once on this policy and it wasn't on a "strong" vote. So it's not possible to draw a clear conclusion about their position.
This could be because there were simply not many relevant divisions (formal votes) during the time they've been in parliament (most votes happen on "the voices", so we simply have no decent record) or they were absent for votes that could have contributed to their voting record.