We can't say anything concrete about how Joe Hockey voted on reproductive bodily autonomy
How Joe Hockey 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 Joe Hockey could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Joe Hockey on this policy.
| Division | Joe Hockey | 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 Joe Hockey could have attended.
| Division | Joe Hockey | 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 |
Yes | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Joe Hockey 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.