With the constitutionalization of abortion, we are sanctifying as a remarkable act what was initially thought of as a dramatic necessity, deplores Father Benoist de Sinety, dean priest of the city of Lille.
Abortion is too serious an issue to be addressed in a peripheral manner. But how can we not comment on the almost neurotic frenzy that accompanied its inclusion as a now constitutional right? Commentators boast that our country is on the verge of being the only one to have made this now inalienable right sacred. Good. But let us ask a question: what is the aim of the maneuver?
about:blank
No warnings
The Veil law aimed to find a solution to a dramatic situation, that of clandestine abortions and the injustice it caused. It was accepted that resorting to such a practice was always considered painful. Hence the numerous safeguards, since conscientiously removed. The number of these acts increases from year to year, reaching 243,300 in 2022, + 8% compared to 2021. No prevention, or barely. No words of warning at a time when we are terrified of being accused of being moralistic. On this point at least, we will have a trans-partisan consensus: all parties have come together, terrified of breaking away from a norm that supports neither discussion nor debate.
By making a response to dramatic situations an article of the Constitution, we take the risk of suggesting that a law only has real value if it is written in this stone.
The only question that is worth the effort is therefore for the legislator, that of access everywhere in the territory, for all women, to this possibility. We would be happy if the State was as attentive to fighting against medical deserts and against poverty and that it put as much energy into it as it does on this point. Will it then be a matter of forcing doctors to perform abortions if they invoke their duty of conscience? We are assured that no. But it is difficult to see how we would henceforth avoid recourse to the courts against any medical personnel who show the slightest reluctance.
The inability to offer other perspectives
In the era of “at the same time”, we would like at least an ambitious policy to be put in place to support families and encourage the birth rate, which has recently become a “great national cause” in an atmosphere of rearmament. Instead of the clamor of victory for such a serious subject, we would prefer to hear only silence. To which believers could add a prayer. Because abortion is always a failure for a society: beyond the misery and personal tragedies of which it is the consequence, it underlines each time a little more our inability to offer other perspectives.
We could always object that it is a very difficult thing, and always risky, to give advice on how to want or refuse children when you do not welcome any yourself. By making a response to dramatic situations an article of the Constitution, we take the risk of suggesting that a law only has real value if it is written in this stone. Which promises us interesting debates for the future. We sanctify as a remarkable act what was initially thought of as a dramatic necessity: “To obey my demands, I am with those who suffer the most, with those who are condemned the most, with those who are despised the most […] ]. Because of this, because of Him, I will take my share of the burden. I will fight against everything that leads to abortion, but I will vote for the law” declared the deputy Eugène Claudius-Petit (UDR) from the podium of the Assembly in 1974. Morals and political consciousness have definitely changed…
