Une liberté garantie? : The Constitutionalisation of Abortion in France
L’Assemblée Nationale in Paris (Image courtesy of Helena Pruszewicz)
On the 26th November 1974, Simone Veil stood before the Assemblée Nationale and delivered a now legendary speech that was instrumental in the decriminalisation of abortion in France. Addressing a parliamentary cohort that was almost entirely male, Veil declared that “History shows us that the great debates that divided the French for a time appear, with the passage of time, to be a necessary stage in the formation of a new social consensus”. On Monday 4th March, French Parliament voted to enshrine abortion as a constitutional right, with 780 out of 925 MPs supporting the move. The results were broadcast to thousands that were gathered in Place du Trocadéro and met with scenes of celebration. Supporters embraced one other amidst a flurry of purple flags and smoke flares, with the iconic Eiffel Tower lit up with “#MyBodyMyChoice”.
Historically, France has never been a trailblazer for women’s rights. Under the Vichy Regime, abortion was punishable by death. French women couldn’t vote until 1945. In 2021, for 30,780 reported incidents of rape, there were just 1413 convictions. This monumental constitutional development raises the question of the motivations behind it. How did a country that imposed capital punishment for abortion just eighty years ago become the world’s first to constitutionalise the right to terminate a pregnancy? While acknowledging the far-reaching effects this move has on reproductive healthcare, it is crucial to consider whether this truly is the remarkable feminist milestone it is being hailed as.
Post-war France was defined by the vocal and unwavering Second Wave of feminism. Sparked by Simone de Beauvoir’s pioneering work “The Second Sex”, French feminism of the latter half of the century was marked by protest, legislation, shock and scandal. In April 1971, the Nouvel Observateur published the Manifeste des 343 salopes, in which 343 French women claimed to have had abortions, including French film star Catherine Deneuve. Gisèle Halimi- the sole lawyer signatory of the manifesto- provided the women with legal protection via the group Choisir. Halimi also defended 16-year-old Marie-Claire Chevalier, who had an abortion after being raped, in the infamous Bobigny trial, dubbed “France’s Roe v. Wade”. Her acquittal was a landmark moment in the process towards the legalisation of abortion two years later.
Fifty years after the legalisation of abortion, France has decided that it is a constitutional right. This reflects popular opinion, with recent polls indicating that around 85% of the French public supported the amendment. The little opposition there was to the amendment manifested in the usual suspects of pro-life groups, the Vatican and a handful of far-right politicians. Speaking on behalf of the Rassemblement National, Marine Le Pen, Macron’s biggest political rival, stated that “We will vote to include it in the constitution because we have no problem with that”.
Instead, opposition to this reform concerns Macron’s motives, specifically his alleged undermining the constitution for personal political benefit. As it stands, the Rassemblement National is advancing in the polls ahead of Macron’s Renaissance. With the European Elections looming and the unpopularity of last year’s pension reform and immigration law hanging over him, Macron desperately needs a boost in public opinion. Such constitutional amendments rarely come from a place of strength. Under President Jacques Chirac in 2000, the presidential term was amended from seven years to five, aligning it with that of the legislative branch of government, the Assemblée Nationale. Chirac was a conservative, but Lionel Jospin, the Prime Minister, was socialist. By synchronising the parliamentary and presidential terms, Chirac was able to reduce the possibility of cohabitation and reinforce the presidential mandate.
This recent amendment has garnered a lot of praise. Danielle Bousquet, former left-wing MP stated that “Enshrining this right in the constitution makes it practically untouchable”. While it is certainly a significant advancement in the protection of reproductive healthcare, this is not entirely accurate. The current version of the French constitution dates back to just 1958, with the establishment of the Fifth Republic. Since then, there have been twenty-four amendments. This most recent amendment follows the decision of the US Supreme Court in January 2022 to overturn Roe v Wade. Now, abortion legislation is decided on a state-basis and is far from guaranteed. In February, Alabama’s Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are legally considered children. In a country that established a constitutional foundation for the right to terminate a pregnancy in the 1970s, now 6 in 10 women live in states that ban abortion. That is not to say that something similar will happen in France, however, it does question the solidity of this recent amendment. The future of France’s reproductive healthcare is not as clear-cut or guaranteed as it may seem.
Verbal framing surrounding abortion poses another problem. The buzzword of this issue creates an etymological battleground that places a target on reproductive healthcare. Bodily autonomy is a right, as is the ability to choose to have an abortion. However, the use of the word “right” by lawmakers, activists and politicians alike establishes a fictitious battle between the rights of the woman and the rights of the foetus to which anti-choice advocates latch on. Countries in which abortion is far less contentious an issue are those where it has been successfully integrated into healthcare. Abortion has been a service provided by the NHS since its legalisation in 1967, framing it as care first, right second. It is a lot harder to mobilise and campaign against care than it is a right. While reproductive care shouldn’t have to be palatable to the majority in order to be accepted, protected and upheld, it is often far safer in countries where this is the case.
Constitutionalising a right does not come from a place of strength. This is the climate in which French society, and Macron’s Government find themselves. The impact of this on Macron’s progressive credentials won’t be clear until the European elections in June. Personal political gain aside, reproductive freedom is not an inalienable right. Now, the most effective advancement would be a concerted effort to insert abortion into the nation’s collective view of healthcare, by dismantling how it is currently viewed by French society. It is, however, important to recognise this milestone, especially given the political climate of reproductive justice across the EU. In Hungary, women must listen the foetus’ heartbeat before terminating their pregnancy. Almost 70% of gynaecologists in Italy are “conscientious objectors”, making abortion access nearly impossible in certain parts of the country. France’s amendment demonstrates the progress made since the second half of the 20th century and has the opportunity to be a catalyst for the development of reproductive healthcare in Europe.