In terms of anti-choice politics, it's hard to think of a more ridiculous set of abortion restrictions than the ones floated recently by Victorian MP Geoff Shaw. Shaw intends to introduce a bill requiring doctors to "resuscitate babies who survive abortion attempts.” His use of the term "babies" is an insensitive ploy to conjure images of healthy, viable infants, and the circumstances this rule purports to address are virtually impossible. The overall effect betrays either ignorance of abortion procedures or a cynical attempt to shock and mislead. He also proposed outlawing "partial birth" abortions – an inaccurate nonsense term deployed only by the ignorant or dishonest – along with a range of other changes to the state's abortion law.

During discussion of the bill, Shaw made further eyebrow-raising comments contrasting what he perceives as disregard for the unborn with regulations surrounding wildlife protection:



Here in Australia we can’t kill snake eggs but we are quite happy to kill an egg in the tummy and it should be the safest place for a baby to be.

The reaction to Shaw's proposals centred largely around these comments, rather than the appalling content of his bill. Twitter lit up with mockery of Shaw's supposed misunderstanding of biology, suggesting that if he believes "eggs," either human or animal, to be worthy of protection, he should be cracking down on menstruation and ejaculation as well. His use of the term "tummy" was taken to mean he believes foetuses are gestated in the stomach.

This is a lazy misreading of what he said, and I was puzzled by the facile direction of these criticisms. I believe Shaw does, in fact, know where babies come from – and outrage based on the suggestion that he doesn't makes the pro-choice discussion appear weak and shallow.

The proposed bill, and the appearance of Zoe's law in NSW, illustrates that the consensus on abortion in Australia is changing. We are entering what looks like a new era of anti-choice political action. Even if the quality of what it has been throwing up recently leaves a lot to be desired, its existence means feminists and pro-choice activists are going to have to step up our game. "Tummy eggs" isn't going to cut it any more. We should be preparing for the task of coherently arguing against complex anti-choice positions, and engaging a new generation of abortion advocates who have never lived in an Australia where termination of pregnancy has been especially challenging to obtain.

What does this mean, practically speaking? In an environment where access to abortion cannot be taken for granted, our arguments and our slogans must be strong. Heaping derision on everyone who believes abortion is wrong or illegal does not build a coherent case, and simplistic pronouncements like "abortion is a human right" will not convince people who genuinely think foetuses are human beings who possess an interest in not being killed. I find most of the circulating pro-choice rhetoric unsatisfying, even though I believe in unrestricted legal access to abortion.

It would do us well to re-familiarise ourselves with the intellectual and activist history of abortion struggles in Australia and other countries. There are many interesting and convincing justifications of abortion that don't necessarily boil down to "my body, my choice," and a quick glance at how well that's been working in the US over the last 10 years should be enough to make the case that we might need to come up with something better.

We also need to support and re-engage with reproductive health groups like Reproductive Choice Australia, Women's Abortion Action Campaign, Sexual Health and Family Planning Australia, as well as various state-based initiatives formed to lobby the state governments, who are responsible for legislation concerning abortion. In other words, we must build a solid pro-choice movement that is intellectually strong, emotionally convincing, and ready to mobilise against those who seek to dismantle Australia's reproductive health system.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with pithy Twitter activism, but sloganeering cannot exclusively address people who are already committed to the cause. Almost all of what Shaw proposes screams for clever, funny, or angry riposte – yes, he compared reproductive health to wildlife protection and yes, his bill is full of blatant nonsense. But if his power and visibility are a harbinger of things to come, there may be a day when anti-choice arguments can't be ridiculed so easily.