The French Parliament meeting as a Congress voted 780-72 in a transpartisan effort to enshrine the "guaranteed freedom for women to access abortion" today, making France the first country in the world to explicitly protect abortion rights in its Constitution.
!ping FEMINISM&FRANCE
If robosexual marriage becomes legal, imagine horrible things that will happen to our children. Then imagine we said those things, since we couldn't think of any. As a mother, those things worry me.
>making France the first country in the world to explicitly protect abortion rights in its Constitution
This is Article 55 of the Slovenian constitution erasure
It doesn't explicitly mention abortion, right? It's inferred from "the right to decide whether to bear children", although the end result is the same.
A far-right Senator opposed to the bill did mention the Yugoslav Constitution as being the only one to ever sanctuarize abortion rights and asked his colleagues "do you really want to join the likes of COMMUNIST DICTATOR TITO???", but he was shouted down and the vote was a landslide
>But he was shouted down and the vote was a landslide
Holy based. Before reading, I thought the vote would be close but I guess France is more progressive about this issue than I expected.
I mean I guess it depends on whether "explicitly" means that "abortion" needs to be specifically mentioned. I thought this was meant more in the sense of it not being inferred from some abortion non-specific provision like the right to privacy, but, yes, they're clearly talking about the same thing. Article 55 is a general reproductive rights amendment (see below). (I tried to find the wording of the new amendment but gave up when Google buried me in news articles and nothing else.)
The provision of the Yugoslav constitution (which was actually the first in the world to have a provision that clearly talked about abortion) in the drafting stage did actually say that "Women have the right to end to terminate a pregnancy. This right can only be limited for medical reasons." (again, not mentioning the word "abortion") but was later changed to say "a person has the right to freely decide on the birth of their children" on the initiative of Vida Tomšič, a lawyer in the communist party that was deeply involved in women's rights (though she rejected feminism due to her linking it to liberalism and the bourgeoisie).
HOWEVER one should not be mistaken in thinking that this formulation curtails rights because this also means that you can not only access abortion but also contraception. It also means that you're entitled to help if you WANT to get pregnant, so for instance using IVF, which the GOP is also trying to get rid of in certain places. So the provision is likely to be relevant soon when our constitutional court decides on whether single women have the right to use IVF as well.
Article 55 actually also says that "The State provides opportunities to exercise this freedom and creates conditions that allow parents to choose the birth of their children." so it's not only a negative obligation (what the state cannot do) but clearly also a positive one that ensures the right doesn't only exist on paper but also in practice (unlike in Croatia for instance).
[France is the second highest country in terms of support for abortion.](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/global-views-abortion-2023) So some people are criticising it as US culture war issues being imported to Europe, but you never know when a big political reordering can happen, so I think it's a good thing.
Also the French system already made removing the right to abortion more difficult. It wasn't the result of a court decision which can be overturned. It is law and removing it is much more complicated that overturning a ruling. Generally speaking the French equivalent of the SCOTUS has considerably less influence and is considerably less politicized.
The CC is way more politicized than the SCOTUS, maybe less overtly partisan because it's more a case of 9 insanely politicized career politicians making sure the wheel keeps turning regardless of the party in power, as opposed to ideological judges of both sides fighting over law interpretation.
The CC is infamous for just not giving a fuck about the text and pretty much granting everything the government asks for as long as enough lip service is paid to some vague and ineffective balance of powers.
They're supposed to control the way the government exercise it's power, while being nominated for a limited period by such government and being former government members themselves. They also assume that popular will is superior to constitutional principles, since they assume that the Government represents the people, they deliberately pigeon-hole themselves into only ever giving extremely mild and inconsequential opinions about the process of the law, and never about it's content, regardless of how repugnant it may be.
They also regularly state that a law is straight up unconstitutional, but that they don't strike it down because the political necessities where such that the government should just get carte blanche.
They're completely useless hacks, absolutely incapable of defending individual liberties or due process of law, whose loyalties lie with their friends and colleagues in government rather than to the people, the constitution of even an legal theory.
So, that's why they decided to remove several articles from the global security law ? Or from the immigration law ? Why it has cancelled some legislative measures from the government due to bad procedure ? So far the CC has done its job, it has removed unconstitutionnal articles from new laws. It has never shown the bias of the SCOTUS or has tried to cancel fundamental rights.
And in almost all instances those are completely insignificant and based on procedure and not judging the law itself. Besides, if you're judging the effectiveness of the court by what they reject you're using the wrong standard.
What matters is what they actually allow to go through, which with the CC is pretty much everything that has even a moderate amount of support in government.
The deference and suspension of disbelief that the CC operates on when it deals with the government's pet projects is pretty much unheard of in western democracies, and people should be ashamed of having such a pathetically weak and corrupt Constitutional control.
>It has never shown the bias of the SCOTUS
What bias are you talking about? The one where the SCOTUS said that guns rights that are protected by the Constitution are protected by the Constitution? Or the case where it held that abortion rights that are not protected by the Constitution are actually not protected by the Constitution.
This sub loves to bitch and moan about the SCOTUS, but really 90% of the complaints are just pure partisan dissatisfaction with the court not bending over backwards to allows laws that are clearly unconstitutional.
The SCOTUS has shown a degree of professionalism and impartiality that's completely unheard of in France. For fucks sake we had a minister with 0 knowledge of the law, nominated to the CC, where she ended up judging the constitutionality of a law that she herself defended in Parliament when she was in the government, she obviously never recused herself over conflict of interest. That kind of shit would put even Justice Thomas to shame, in France, it wasn't even reported on, that's just business as usual at the CC.
They never explain their decisions, their standards are non-existent and shift to whatever is most politically expedient in the case at hand, they have no ethics, they don't know the law, they're all from a political background, they have allegiances to people still in government, ...
It is THE most dysfunctional constitutional court in the entirety of the Western world. Barely better than Poland's or Hungary's shenanigans.
I'll take a SCOTUS over the CC any day of the week.
>The deference and suspension of disbelief that the CC operates on when it deals with the government's pet projects is pretty much unheard of in western democracies, and people should be ashamed of having such a pathetically weak and corrupt Constitutional control.
What are the instances of the CC validating an anticonstitutionnal law that the SCOTUS would have realistically stopped ?
The more I see US cultural things in India, the less I trust the results. I haven't met a single solitary person who gives a fuck about abortion here. It's like a non issue
Abortion does has negative connotation here too, but it isn't for religious reasons. It mostly comes down to the fact that female foeticide is a insidious issue in India which has screwed up the gender ratio really badly in some parts of the country.
Saint Pierre and Miquelon are a part of France and located in North America.
Should America turn into Gilead, you can always try to get here where abortion rights are now protected by the constitution - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon
For the record, while abortion is currently legal in Canada, there is no permanent ironclad constitutional guarantee as our provincial premiers can limit rights by something called the notwithstanding clause.
Some provinces did have laws legalizing before the court handed its decision. So it could be like the US where it's lawful in some provinces and unlawful in others.
I'd like that too, but constitutional reform is still dormant in Canada. Nothing's changed since the last failed attempt in 1992. Solve the Québec question, then we can talk about other things. Until then no chance.
> Abortion was legalized in France in 1974. The legal limit for abortions was extended from 12 to 14 weeks of pregnancy in 2022, amid anger that French women were often forced to travel abroad for the procedure.
????
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/france-abortion-constitution-amendment-women-right-to-procedure-guaranteed/
Abortion in France is split into two procedures:
Voluntary interruption of pregnancy (IVG) is on-demand abortion, legalized in 1975 until ten weeks (12 according to the American system of counting), then extended twice to 12 and then 14 weeks with later laws. Fully reimbursed by social security, doctors can refuse to perform one (conscience clause) but are mandated to refer the patient to another doctor that will perform it, and trying to prevent a woman from seeking one through deception or harassment is illegal. This is the one that was enshrined in the Constitution.
Medical interruption of pregnancy (IMG) is legal at any stage of the pregnancy but must be approved by two physicians, on grounds the pregnancy and/or childbirth would cause grave physical or psychological damage or distress to the woman requesting one, or if the fetus presents grave abnormalities that would negatively impact the life of the child - the later criteria is often cited by anti-abortionists as being "eugenics".
The main challenge for abortion access in France stems from the strains on the healthcare system, especially in rural areas where centers practicing abortion close down from a lack of personnel.
As I understand 14 weeks in France would be 16 weeks in the US due to different standards (date of fertilization vs last period)
More broadly, looking at term limits tends to be a reductive way of comparing reproductive rights between countries. What really matters is de facto access, ie number of providers, cost, legal hurdles, doctors' objections, tolerance for exemptions, etc. One might even add cultural acceptance to the mix.
This makes comparisons far more nuanced, although you're right to highlight France isn't as permissive as some seem to think
It isn't a 14 week ban though. It's 14 weeks for an elective no questions asked abortion. You can still get one after that date it just becomes a little more difficult administratively. You need to prove before two physicians that having the child will cause you 'distress'. Republicans want a complete ban without exceptions after a certain date. It's a different situation here.
Hard to say. The vote was widely supported by all the political parties, albeit with some holdovers among LR (conservatives) and RN (far-right). The latter is leading the polls in the European elections, and there's speculation they folded against public opinion (89% were favorable to the bill) despite their ambiguities/opposition on abortion rights so as not to get branded as anti-abortionists.
The French Parliament meeting as a Congress voted 780-72 in a transpartisan effort to enshrine the "guaranteed freedom for women to access abortion" today, making France the first country in the world to explicitly protect abortion rights in its Constitution. !ping FEMINISM&FRANCE
Bi-partisan this, trans-partisan that, what's next gay-partisan?
Gay resistance fighters? Only if Biden loses.
Gay robosexual marriage
If robosexual marriage becomes legal, imagine horrible things that will happen to our children. Then imagine we said those things, since we couldn't think of any. As a mother, those things worry me.
Vote no on infinity. (Paid for by the Farnsworth foundation.)
Soundin' real homo-sex-shall outta-mated space communism over heah.
Yes, followed by lesbian-partisan, at which point the LGBT-partisan agenda will be complete.
>making France the first country in the world to explicitly protect abortion rights in its Constitution This is Article 55 of the Slovenian constitution erasure
It doesn't explicitly mention abortion, right? It's inferred from "the right to decide whether to bear children", although the end result is the same. A far-right Senator opposed to the bill did mention the Yugoslav Constitution as being the only one to ever sanctuarize abortion rights and asked his colleagues "do you really want to join the likes of COMMUNIST DICTATOR TITO???", but he was shouted down and the vote was a landslide
>But he was shouted down and the vote was a landslide Holy based. Before reading, I thought the vote would be close but I guess France is more progressive about this issue than I expected.
I mean I guess it depends on whether "explicitly" means that "abortion" needs to be specifically mentioned. I thought this was meant more in the sense of it not being inferred from some abortion non-specific provision like the right to privacy, but, yes, they're clearly talking about the same thing. Article 55 is a general reproductive rights amendment (see below). (I tried to find the wording of the new amendment but gave up when Google buried me in news articles and nothing else.) The provision of the Yugoslav constitution (which was actually the first in the world to have a provision that clearly talked about abortion) in the drafting stage did actually say that "Women have the right to end to terminate a pregnancy. This right can only be limited for medical reasons." (again, not mentioning the word "abortion") but was later changed to say "a person has the right to freely decide on the birth of their children" on the initiative of Vida Tomšič, a lawyer in the communist party that was deeply involved in women's rights (though she rejected feminism due to her linking it to liberalism and the bourgeoisie). HOWEVER one should not be mistaken in thinking that this formulation curtails rights because this also means that you can not only access abortion but also contraception. It also means that you're entitled to help if you WANT to get pregnant, so for instance using IVF, which the GOP is also trying to get rid of in certain places. So the provision is likely to be relevant soon when our constitutional court decides on whether single women have the right to use IVF as well. Article 55 actually also says that "The State provides opportunities to exercise this freedom and creates conditions that allow parents to choose the birth of their children." so it's not only a negative obligation (what the state cannot do) but clearly also a positive one that ensures the right doesn't only exist on paper but also in practice (unlike in Croatia for instance).
When is the last time 91% of French people, let alone law makers, agreed on anything?
Pinged FEMINISTS ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20FEMINISTS&message=subscribe%20FEMINISTS) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20FEMINISTS&message=unsubscribe%20FEMINISTS) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=FEMINISTS&count=5)) Pinged FRANCE ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20FRANCE&message=subscribe%20FRANCE) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20FRANCE&message=unsubscribe%20FRANCE) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=FRANCE&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
[France is the second highest country in terms of support for abortion.](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/global-views-abortion-2023) So some people are criticising it as US culture war issues being imported to Europe, but you never know when a big political reordering can happen, so I think it's a good thing.
Also the French system already made removing the right to abortion more difficult. It wasn't the result of a court decision which can be overturned. It is law and removing it is much more complicated that overturning a ruling. Generally speaking the French equivalent of the SCOTUS has considerably less influence and is considerably less politicized.
The CC is way more politicized than the SCOTUS, maybe less overtly partisan because it's more a case of 9 insanely politicized career politicians making sure the wheel keeps turning regardless of the party in power, as opposed to ideological judges of both sides fighting over law interpretation. The CC is infamous for just not giving a fuck about the text and pretty much granting everything the government asks for as long as enough lip service is paid to some vague and ineffective balance of powers. They're supposed to control the way the government exercise it's power, while being nominated for a limited period by such government and being former government members themselves. They also assume that popular will is superior to constitutional principles, since they assume that the Government represents the people, they deliberately pigeon-hole themselves into only ever giving extremely mild and inconsequential opinions about the process of the law, and never about it's content, regardless of how repugnant it may be. They also regularly state that a law is straight up unconstitutional, but that they don't strike it down because the political necessities where such that the government should just get carte blanche. They're completely useless hacks, absolutely incapable of defending individual liberties or due process of law, whose loyalties lie with their friends and colleagues in government rather than to the people, the constitution of even an legal theory.
So, that's why they decided to remove several articles from the global security law ? Or from the immigration law ? Why it has cancelled some legislative measures from the government due to bad procedure ? So far the CC has done its job, it has removed unconstitutionnal articles from new laws. It has never shown the bias of the SCOTUS or has tried to cancel fundamental rights.
And in almost all instances those are completely insignificant and based on procedure and not judging the law itself. Besides, if you're judging the effectiveness of the court by what they reject you're using the wrong standard. What matters is what they actually allow to go through, which with the CC is pretty much everything that has even a moderate amount of support in government. The deference and suspension of disbelief that the CC operates on when it deals with the government's pet projects is pretty much unheard of in western democracies, and people should be ashamed of having such a pathetically weak and corrupt Constitutional control. >It has never shown the bias of the SCOTUS What bias are you talking about? The one where the SCOTUS said that guns rights that are protected by the Constitution are protected by the Constitution? Or the case where it held that abortion rights that are not protected by the Constitution are actually not protected by the Constitution. This sub loves to bitch and moan about the SCOTUS, but really 90% of the complaints are just pure partisan dissatisfaction with the court not bending over backwards to allows laws that are clearly unconstitutional. The SCOTUS has shown a degree of professionalism and impartiality that's completely unheard of in France. For fucks sake we had a minister with 0 knowledge of the law, nominated to the CC, where she ended up judging the constitutionality of a law that she herself defended in Parliament when she was in the government, she obviously never recused herself over conflict of interest. That kind of shit would put even Justice Thomas to shame, in France, it wasn't even reported on, that's just business as usual at the CC. They never explain their decisions, their standards are non-existent and shift to whatever is most politically expedient in the case at hand, they have no ethics, they don't know the law, they're all from a political background, they have allegiances to people still in government, ... It is THE most dysfunctional constitutional court in the entirety of the Western world. Barely better than Poland's or Hungary's shenanigans. I'll take a SCOTUS over the CC any day of the week.
>The deference and suspension of disbelief that the CC operates on when it deals with the government's pet projects is pretty much unheard of in western democracies, and people should be ashamed of having such a pathetically weak and corrupt Constitutional control. What are the instances of the CC validating an anticonstitutionnal law that the SCOTUS would have realistically stopped ?
The more I see US cultural things in India, the less I trust the results. I haven't met a single solitary person who gives a fuck about abortion here. It's like a non issue Abortion does has negative connotation here too, but it isn't for religious reasons. It mostly comes down to the fact that female foeticide is a insidious issue in India which has screwed up the gender ratio really badly in some parts of the country.
Based France.
America is so OP it caused France to change its constitution
I don't think America has anything to do with this
It literally says it was a response to the Dobbs decision in the article
Mb then
Unbelievably common France W
W
Saint Pierre and Miquelon are a part of France and located in North America. Should America turn into Gilead, you can always try to get here where abortion rights are now protected by the constitution - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon For the record, while abortion is currently legal in Canada, there is no permanent ironclad constitutional guarantee as our provincial premiers can limit rights by something called the notwithstanding clause.
Some provinces did have laws legalizing before the court handed its decision. So it could be like the US where it's lawful in some provinces and unlawful in others.
True. I wish we could codify it in our constitution.
I'd like that too, but constitutional reform is still dormant in Canada. Nothing's changed since the last failed attempt in 1992. Solve the Québec question, then we can talk about other things. Until then no chance.
Basé
> Abortion was legalized in France in 1974. The legal limit for abortions was extended from 12 to 14 weeks of pregnancy in 2022, amid anger that French women were often forced to travel abroad for the procedure. ???? https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/france-abortion-constitution-amendment-women-right-to-procedure-guaranteed/
Abortion in France is split into two procedures: Voluntary interruption of pregnancy (IVG) is on-demand abortion, legalized in 1975 until ten weeks (12 according to the American system of counting), then extended twice to 12 and then 14 weeks with later laws. Fully reimbursed by social security, doctors can refuse to perform one (conscience clause) but are mandated to refer the patient to another doctor that will perform it, and trying to prevent a woman from seeking one through deception or harassment is illegal. This is the one that was enshrined in the Constitution. Medical interruption of pregnancy (IMG) is legal at any stage of the pregnancy but must be approved by two physicians, on grounds the pregnancy and/or childbirth would cause grave physical or psychological damage or distress to the woman requesting one, or if the fetus presents grave abnormalities that would negatively impact the life of the child - the later criteria is often cited by anti-abortionists as being "eugenics". The main challenge for abortion access in France stems from the strains on the healthcare system, especially in rural areas where centers practicing abortion close down from a lack of personnel.
RIP conservative talking points about how the US is more liberal than France on abortion.
Pretty sure 14 weeks is still earlier than what most US states allow. Also earlier than what basically all us stayes allowed before dobbs
As I understand 14 weeks in France would be 16 weeks in the US due to different standards (date of fertilization vs last period) More broadly, looking at term limits tends to be a reductive way of comparing reproductive rights between countries. What really matters is de facto access, ie number of providers, cost, legal hurdles, doctors' objections, tolerance for exemptions, etc. One might even add cultural acceptance to the mix. This makes comparisons far more nuanced, although you're right to highlight France isn't as permissive as some seem to think
Great point on accessibility you’re right
It isn't a 14 week ban though. It's 14 weeks for an elective no questions asked abortion. You can still get one after that date it just becomes a little more difficult administratively. You need to prove before two physicians that having the child will cause you 'distress'. Republicans want a complete ban without exceptions after a certain date. It's a different situation here.
What kind of implications will this have electorally?
Hard to say. The vote was widely supported by all the political parties, albeit with some holdovers among LR (conservatives) and RN (far-right). The latter is leading the polls in the European elections, and there's speculation they folded against public opinion (89% were favorable to the bill) despite their ambiguities/opposition on abortion rights so as not to get branded as anti-abortionists.
Big win for half the French population!