It is therefore noteworthy that one of the first actions he took in the White House, on just the third day of his presidency, was to abolish a rule that denied US taxpayer dollars to international family planning clinics that provide, suggest or mention abortion to women in developing countries.

Obama said simply that family planning aid had been used as a ''political wedge issue'', adding that he had ''no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate''.

A similar set of policies prevails regarding the use of Australian aid in developing countries but, sadly, while committing themselves to review these policies, our politicians are yet to take decisive action on what is indeed a stale and fruitless debate created through wedge politics.

It is stale and fruitless because it is hopelessly bogged down in moral arguments.

This is fundamentally a development issue that is about preventing the unnecessary deaths of women in poor countries who are 300 times more likely to die in childbirth or from pregnancy-related complications than women in rich countries.

The Australian policies, known as the ''AusAID Family Planning Guidelines'', came about as part of a deal done by the former Howard government with Independent Tasmanian senator Brian Harradine to enable the then government to proceed with the sale of Telstra.

While the sale of Telstra went ahead, a policy was applied that denied women in developing countries the full range of services available to Australian women.

The result of the AusAID policy has not just been an increase in the risk of needless deaths because of unsafe procedures: the policies themselves have made it increasingly hard for aid and development agencies to carry out any sexual and reproductive health services.

UNICEF refers to the difference in pregnancy risk between women in the developing and developed worlds as the ''greatest health divide in the world''.

This shocking gap shows how vital it is for all women to have access to comprehensive family planning information and services.

A woman in Niger has a one-in-seven chance of dying in childbirth. That is in stark contrast to the risk for mothers in the US, where the risk is just 1:4800.

The AusAID family planning guidelines have impeded the delivery of vital health services by aid providers.

Since their introduction until 2007, the total funding for family planning declined by more than 80 per cent

Australia is a signatory to the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goals eight specific targets to halve global poverty by 2015.

Alarmingly, of the eight MDGs least progress has been made towards goal five, a commitment to ''reduce by three-quarters the maternal mortality ratio; and achieve, by 2015, universal access to reproductive health''.

Oxfam Australia, CARE Australia and Save the Children Australia are three of the largest Australian international aid and development agencies.

Our collective experience shows clearly that progress towards this reduction in maternal mortality requires a comprehensive approach to the provision of sexual and reproductive health services.

Every day the AusAID Family planning guidelines remain in place, the capacity of Australian agencies to provide comprehensive reproductive health services to women and communities as part of our development assistance programs is impaired.

Ultimately, we are concerned for the lives of women worldwide and believe that the guidelines act as a barrier to wider poverty alleviation efforts.

Andrew Hewett is executive director of Oxfam Australia.

Julia Newton-Howes is chief executive of CARE Australia.

Peter Falvey is chief executive of Save the Children Australia.