The vote on Wednesday, February 1 in the Senate was presented as historic. It was, in fact, the first time that the Upper House voted by 166 votes against 152 in favor of the inclusion in the Constitution of the “freedom to terminate pregnancy”. One of the first times the Senate has agreed to debate the subject.
A first step praised by the initiators and defenders of this modification of article 34 of the Constitution. “For us, the progress is that the Senate was willing to debate and was willing to voteexclaims Sarah Durocher, the president of Family Planning. This is an important signal on the very principle of bringing abortion into the Constitution. »
Mélanie Vogel, EELV senator who carried this modification of the Constitution, also recognizes a first victory. “Last October, the right did not even want to discuss the text because it refused the principle of including abortion in the Constitution, today the debate is behind us”she says to the “Obs” while providing some nuances.
Blandine Lenoir: “Not so long ago, abortion was a real social injustice”
Because this is not totally what the deputies and senators on the left had written. Before the vote in the Senate, the wording of this article was largely modified by an amendment by Senator LR Philippe Bas. Initially, the debate focused on the inclusion of a “right” to abortion in the Constitution in these terms: “The law guarantees the effectiveness and equal access to the right to voluntary termination of pregnancy”. However, the senators voted for a “freedom” to abort inscribed in this way: “ The law determines the conditions under which a woman’s freedom to terminate her pregnancy is exercised”.
A vote ” which brings no guarantees to women”
A wording “subtle that brings no guarantee to women”, assures the professor of constitutional law, Dominique Rousseau. When a citizen has a right, the State has the duty to organize the exercise of this right, he explains. However, if she has a freedom, the woman will certainly be able to abort without being penalized, but will have to manage to do so.
“The Senate’s formulation leaves the legislator free to organize women’s freedom as he wishes, he can reduce it, say that it is not reimbursable. »
Why the inclusion of abortion in the Constitution would be a “pioneering gesture”
For the constitutionalist Bertrand Mathieu, this vote of the Senate concerns the order of the “symbol”. “It is an exact transposition of what the Constitutional Council says”, he observes. The freedom to abort is therefore already guaranteed by the case law of the Constitutional Council and “it is as difficult to reconsider a case law of the Constitutional Council as it is to reconsider a provision of the Constitution”, adds Bertrand Mathieu.
This wording “theoretically allows to regress”, laments Melanie Vogel. Clearly, if this article is adopted, reducing the time within which an abortion must be performed, for example, would remain legal. Senator EELV does not understand “inconsistency” of its counterparts located to the right of the hemicycle. “Why don’t you accept being prevented from regressing? Stop telling us that the right to abortion is not threatened and at the same time refuse that something in the Constitution prevents me as a legislator from attacking it”she berates.
Avoid the referendum
Now, MPs, senators and feminist activists want the government to take up the subject by developing a bill. Its advantage? Avoid a referendum that could lead to far-right anti-abortion demonstrations. For now, the initiative is parliamentary. The amendment must therefore be adopted to the comma by both chambers. The National Assembly does not have the last word as when examining an ordinary law. Then, the bill must be submitted to a referendum. This is not the case of a bill (at the initiative of the government therefore).
Right to abortion in the Constitution: we asked their opinion to intellectuals
“We are waiting for the word of the government on this”says Sarah Durocher. “We clearly have a majority in both chambers to work on this issue. The government must take responsibility and start working on a bill”concludes Mélanie Vogel.
The president of the LFI group in the Assembly, Mathilde Panot, who defended the text at the Palais Bourbon, also challenged Elisabeth Borne on this subject: “Propose the bill, we are waiting for that. »
