In the ACT abortion was decriminalised in 2002 and the decision rests with the woman, her partner if appropriate, and with the help of proper and professional medical consultation. The decision no longer rests with the law although there are necessary conditions and restrictions to the procedure and certainly does not rest with a higher power.

For most of Australia, the matter has never been decided. Victoria works under common law from 1958, and a Supreme Court ruling in 1969, to decide what is legal. NSW and Queensland work under similar conditions.

For the first time, the Victorian Parliament is seriously debating abortion law reform. The State Government has introduced a Bill to remove abortion from the Crimes Act, and introducing a new law making it illegal for unqualified people to perform one.

Under the Bill, a termination can be performed until 24 weeks, while a series of restrictions will be put in place for later-term abortions. The proposed restrictions include ensuring two medical practitioners agree that the procedure is warranted, and that current and future physical and psychological factors have been considered. The Bill also sets out a doctor's responsibilities.

As with the Federal debates about the ''abortion pill'' RU-486 and stem cell research, Victoria's MPs are relishing the opportunity for a conscience vote and to make history without the constraints of party politics. A few are taking the chance to put their personal histories on the public record; others are striving to keep their emotions out of play, with perhaps an eye on the polls.

The Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 became instantly controversial, with pro-life hecklers evicted from the public gallery the day it was introduced. Right to Life also set up a stall in Bourke Street last weekend to gather support.

Right to Life's website shows the organisation believes it is a travesty the Federal Government ''supports'' terminations, and is lobbying for an overturn of Medicare rebates for some procedures. The Victorian branch president, Margaret Tighe, says the Bill will actually deny human rights, namely that of the unborn child.

Pro-Choice Victoria fears that the Bill falls short of being history-changing legislation; it is worried that the law is too restrictive, limiting the changes to pregnancies under 24 weeks and leaving a ''dog's breakfast'' of uncertainty for late-term abortions. The group's spokeswoman, ethicist Dr Leslie Cannold, says while later-term abortions are only performed about 20 times annually in Victoria, they are often extreme cases.

Cannold says one case that came to light recently involved a mentally disabled woman, unable to consent to sex, who fell pregnant in a case of incest.

Other extreme cases include pubescent girls, some who have never had their period, who learn of their pregnancy late in their term. There may also be more simple medical reasons for delaying an abortion until 25 weeks' gestation.

Cannold says these women, like those who seek abortions before 24 weeks, do not deserve to be treated as criminals. She also worries it will ''leave a foothold'' for anti-choice groups who want the existing Crimes Act to be enforced.

There is also the risk that if the Bill is defeated, Parliament will effectively be reinforcing the existing common law, and a ruling that has not been discussed by the Supreme Court since 1969.

Despite reservations, she hopes Parliament will seize a historic opportunity to hand the moral authority to women.

''It's long overdue that politicians consider it, because Victoria never has,'' she says. ''It's never been on the agenda before. We would certainly like to see some improvement to it, but overall we are quite supportive.''

There is interest also in the political implications, with the major parties allowing members to vote however they deem fit on the abortion Bill and a private member's bill to legalise euthanasia, which is much less likely to succeed. Monash University politics expert Dr Nick Economou says the divisions are within parties instead of between them, and MPs are expected to enjoy debating issues rather than attacking each other. The debate on euthanasia was lively, even swinging a few votes, and in that sense is a return to how Parliament was envisaged before the invention of party politics.