Mr Abbott's time as health minister – when he tried to retain the right to approve whether or not Australians should have access to the so-called abortion pill, RU486 – is regularly used by the government and others as evidence that he would seek to wind back abortion access should he become prime minister. Mr Abbott has repeatedly said that the Coalition has no plans to alter access to abortion. On Thursday morning he went further by ruling out any deals with balance of power senators on abortion. Mr Abbott then went on to try and play down the significance of the Commonwealth's role when it comes to women's access to abortion. ''It's fundamentally an issue for the states,'' he said.

It's a common line trotted out by federal MPs who must think they can make it appear as if abortion is not their responsibility and so therefore their views aren't really relevant. Except that it is not true. The legality of abortion is a matter for the states. But the issue of access to abortion in terms of its costs sits fairly and squarely within the Commonwealth's reach. There is a theory that after the election, senators such as the Democratic Labor Party's John Madigan would try to restrict abortion access in exchange for their support on other legislation. It is not an unreasonable theory given that this is exactly what happened under the previous Coalition government.

Except in that instance it wasn't Australian women's access to abortion that was bargained away, it was some of the poorest women in the world who rely on Australia's aid program. Their access to contraceptives and family planning services provided via Ausaid funded programs was axed in exchange for Tasmanian senator Brian Harradine's support for the partial privatisation of Telstra. Foreign aid organisations are already anxious that such a situation might happen again. They have grounds for concern. Senator Madigan and National Party Senator Ron Boswell have been pursing Ausaid in budget estimates committees over what family planning services the department funds.

In February Senator Boswell asked Ausaid to say ''approximately how many abortions in 2012-13 are expected to be paid for by Australian aid''. Does anyone think they are seeking this information just because they would like to know? The RU486 debate as well as the foreign aid situation demonstrate abortion is most certainly a Commonwealth issue. Within the next fortnight the Senate's Finance and Public Administration Committee will decide whether or not there should be a vote on Senator Madigan's private member's bill, which seeks to restrict Medicare funding for gender selective abortion. If a vote goes ahead all senators will have to make their views known.

But the area where the Commonwealth plays a huge role in relation to abortion is Medicare funding. The Commonwealth could decide to no longer provide public funds for pregnancy terminations. It could reduce the level of funding or change the circumstances under which women receive rebates. Like any other health service cost is a factor for people when deciding whether or not to go ahead with a procedure. Indeed this has been part of the government's argument as it considers whether or not to list RU486 and other similar drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Again, another issue for the Commonwealth.

Although many politicians shudder at the idea of a United States style scenario where abortion becomes front and centre of the political debate, it seems that that is where we are heading. To suggest the Commonwealth has no role is misleading. As Health Minister Tanya Plibersek put it on Wednesday: ''Governing for all Australians means that issues like abortion, where a woman is making one of the most difficult decisions of her life, need to be addressed and addressed publicly. People need to be on the public record.'' Loading The best we can hope for is that any debate on abortion is governed purely by facts.