To miss. The Senate voted yesterday evening for the adoption of a text which provides for the inclusion in the Constitution of the “freedom of women” to have recourse to abortion. Is this vote really a victory?
Matilda Philip Gay. No, it’s not a win. As proof, the Senate website mentions a “compromise amendment”. If this is a compromise, it is because this text is not at all the same as the one proposed by the deputies to the National Assembly, i.e. a text that would protect the right to abortion in the Constitution. MEP Yaël Braun-Pivet welcomes of the adoption of the text by the Senate, stating that “the words differ, but the intention is common”. But the intention is not at all the same, and this is confirmed by the simple fact that the two Chambers have adopted different formulations which each cover a different reality. However, to lead to the revision of the Constitution, the text must be adopted in the same terms by the deputies and by the senators, in the paragraph. It is therefore neither a political nor a legal victory.
In fact, the text adopted by the National Assembly speaks of “law” while the one voted by the Senate speaks of “freedom”. How is this fundamental difference?
Freedom is the ability to do something. For the freedom to have an abortion, this means that a woman is free to have an abortion or not (if a state forces women to have an abortion). However, it seems to me that this is not the question that Parliament wanted to answer by constitutionalising the right to abortion. The idea behind the version of the text proposed by the deputies is rather that of guaranteeing the right, that is, the effectiveness of the possibility of accessing abortion in case of need. Furthermore, the right is guaranteed by the state, so there are remedies if, for example, this right cannot be guaranteed in some regions or cities.
On the other hand, freedom is leaving the choice to the law to decide. The difference between right and freedom is therefore subtle, because it means that the conditions of access to abortion could be called into question by laws that would modify it., in the case, for example, of a new, more radical government. The text that was voted on by the Senate therefore has a symbolic meaning, but legally this does not change anything and, if these terms are maintained, the right to abortion will not be better protected.
How could the right to abortion be called into question in such conditions?
In various ways, but above all through small challenges that eventually become big through legislative or administrative measures. To clarify: today, in Europe, most states have guaranteed abortion, except Malta, which has not legalized it. That just doesn’t mean that its access is the same everywhere. For example, in Poland, a person in bad faith could claim that the right to abortion is guaranteed. We know that in reality this is no longer the case, as it is particularly limited to cases of rape, or danger to the life of the mother, for example. However, abortion is legal there.
Today, 81% of French men and women are in favor of the constitutionalization of abortion. Our current system is very protective of this right, which is why many voices are raised to say that there would be no interest in doing so. But this is to forget that a change of majority could take place in the next few years, thanks to a presidential election that would lead to a president “For the life” to the Elysée and who might decide to question this right. It is therefore not for now that we must act, but for later, when we will no longer be able to choose to protect this right.
The text must return to the National Assembly for a second reading. What will be the next step?
In November, the National Assembly proceeded to a first reading, yesterday it was the turn of the Senate to examine the text. The readings will then continue in the National Assembly to return, no doubt, once more to the Senate. Since the text must be adopted on the same terms by both chambers, it is very likely that a joint commission will be convened to seek a real compromise and find a text on which the two chambers can agree. If so, this may allow for the adoption of the text and ultimately for the holding of a referendum. The journey of this text is therefore far from finished.
Source: Madmoizelle
Mary Crossley is an author at “The Fashion Vibes”. She is a seasoned journalist who is dedicated to delivering the latest news to her readers. With a keen sense of what’s important, Mary covers a wide range of topics, from politics to lifestyle and everything in between.
