Fact check: Do women who have late term abortions qualify for a stillborn baby payment

1. Summary of the results

Based on the available analyses, women who have late-term abortions may indeed qualify for the Stillborn Baby Payment in certain jurisdictions. The Stillborn Baby Payment is a $4,225 federal government payment designed to support parents of stillborn babies ^[1].

The key eligibility criteria for this payment are:

• Stillborn babies born at a gestation period of at least 20 weeks
• OR weighing at least 400g at the time of birth ^[1]

Critically, there is no rule barring access to the payment following a late-term abortion, which has created what pro-life advocates describe as a "horrific loophole" ^[1]. This means that if a late-term abortion results in a fetus that meets the gestational age or weight requirements, the parents may be eligible for the same financial support as those who experience natural stillbirth.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several important contextual elements:

• Jurisdictional specificity: The analyses appear to reference Australian policy (based on The Advertiser source), but the question doesn't specify which country's system is being discussed ^[1]
• Policy controversy: The question omits the significant political and ethical debate surrounding this issue, with pro-life advocates viewing the eligibility as problematic ^[1]
• Broader support systems: One analysis mentions various other benefits available for pregnancy loss, including Statutory Maternity Pay, Maternity Allowance, and Parental Bereavement Leave and Pay, suggesting a more comprehensive support framework exists ^[2]
• Medical vs. administrative definitions: The question doesn't address how medical termination procedures are classified administratively for benefit purposes, which appears to be central to the eligibility determination

Pro-life organizations and conservative political groups would benefit from highlighting this policy as evidence of what they consider inappropriate government spending, while reproductive rights advocates and healthcare providers would benefit from maintaining access to comprehensive support for all pregnancy losses regardless of circumstances.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears neutral and factual rather than containing obvious misinformation. However, it lacks important nuance:

• The question doesn't specify which jurisdiction's policies are being referenced, potentially leading to confusion about applicability
• It doesn't acknowledge the controversial nature of this policy intersection, which could mislead readers about the complexity of the issue
• The framing as a simple yes/no question oversimplifies what appears to be a nuanced policy area with significant political implications

The analyses themselves show some limitations, with multiple sources providing no relevant information ^{[3] [4] [5] [6]}, suggesting either poor source selection or limited available information on this specific policy intersection.