We can't say anything concrete about how Rod Sawford voted on increasing availability of abortion drugs
How Rod Sawford voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should increase the availability of RU486 and other medications that can induce an abortion
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing availability of abortion drugs” which Rod Sawford could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Rod Sawford on this policy.
Division | Rod Sawford | 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 |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing availability of abortion drugs” which Rod Sawford could have attended.
Division | Rod Sawford | Supporters vote |
---|---|---|
16th Feb 2006, 1:41 PM – Representatives Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of Ru486) Bill 2005 - Consideration in Detail - Amend the current process |
absent | No |
16th Feb 2006, 12:39 PM – Representatives Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of Ru486) Bill 2005 - Second Reading - Bill unacceptable |
absent | No |
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 Rod Sawford was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.