Parliamentarians meeting in Congress will “constitutionalize” freedom of abortion. Was it necessary? For some, yes, given the challenges in the United States or in European countries. For others, no: this modification of the Constitution to introduce “the freedom guaranteed to women to have recourse to an interruption of pregnancy” only confirms the case law already applied by the Constitutional Council. In any case, it is not a “right to abortion” that is constitutionalized, but a “freedom to”. The revision secures the use of abortion, but does not introduce a claim to which the State should respond.
Abortion authorized since the Veil law of 1975 is a possibility, a “solution” for many, often facing a difficult situation, or even physical, psychological or social distress. No one can judge a woman’s choice to have an abortion. It is up to the woman to decide; to the man too, with her. This is a bad solution, Simone Veil already said. All the women who have been there will say it: we don’t have an abortion out of joy. But, in countries where abortion is banned, we are witnessing the return of practices from another time, of social inequalities, and the health of the poorest or loneliest women is too often put in danger. In this sense, abortion contributes to public health, to avoid the worst. Certainly, this is the worst response, because it harms life at its beginning. But when it comes to life to be protected, we must also talk about that of women.
We can still wonder why, in 2024, the number of abortions continues to increase so dramatically. Should we not rather question the lack of education in a form of sexual responsibility, including for men? We must not ban abortion. But do everything so that its recourse finally decreases.
2024-03-03 17:53:41
#IVG #education #sexual #responsibility
