The COVID-19 pandemic has heralded a host of setbacks for the pro-life movements of Europe. The Netherlands has removed its waiting period for women seeking an abortion, intended as a period of reflection on an irreversible decision; Germany’s new socialist government has revoked its ban on advertising for abortion; and EU’s parliamentary president Roberta Metsola, a Maltese pro-lifer, reneged on her anti-abortion stance mere days after getting elected by saying she’d support recognizing abortion as a fundamental right in the EU’s charter.
It is perhaps unsurprising that there is now more bad news out of France since it has been French president Emmanuel Macron pushing to have abortion recognized as a fundamental right despite the fact that a number of European countries, including Malta, still ban abortion. Like most European countries, France has restricted abortion to 12 weeks, but in recent years there has been a massive push to legalize abortion further.
Interestingly, Macron was reluctant to liberalize France’s abortion regime, perhaps worried that he would further inflame his nation’s traditional factions in the leadup to April’s elections. He told one magazine that having an abortion so late was “more traumatizing” for women and that “extended time limits are not neutral in terms of a women’s trauma” although he remained silent the morality of the question.
Watch this video, for example, to see babies of that age clenching and unclenching their fists, waving their arms and legs—and then imagine what those babies might look like once the abortionists were through with them.
Macron took fire for his position from politicians such as Laurence Rossignol, former Socialist minister for families, who accused Macron of being stuck in the past. “I had an abortion, and I am not traumatized,” she announced to the senate. Another senator joined her in the declaration.
One thought on “For progressive politicians, the conscience rights of doctors ‘perpetuate the stigma’ of abortion”
Navi says:
They give the game away right there. Forcing doctors to participate in abortion has nothing to do with making sure more women can access abortions. Every time abortion advocates have been asked to prove in court why it’s necessary to require the referral, they’ve been unable to come up with any actual example of someone being unable to have an abortion because her doctor had a functioning conscience (they instead appeal to vague hypotheticals). Notably, this came up in the landmark NIFLA v. Becerra Supreme Court decision. The real reason is to further marginalize pro-life people and drive them out of healthcare professions. Joyce Arthur, who has made a total ban on conscientious objection one of her main hobby horses, makes clear what it’s really about:
“[Conscientious objection] in reproductive health care is actually a reflection of stigma against abortion and women’s autonomy, not CO in the true sense of that term. It is an attempt to claw back the legality of abortion and return women to their traditional roles of wife and mother, producing soldiers and citizens for the state. We also see it as a form of revenge by organized religion for its loss of power in a world dominated by democracy, self-determination, and evidence-based science and medicine.”
They give the game away right there. Forcing doctors to participate in abortion has nothing to do with making sure more women can access abortions. Every time abortion advocates have been asked to prove in court why it’s necessary to require the referral, they’ve been unable to come up with any actual example of someone being unable to have an abortion because her doctor had a functioning conscience (they instead appeal to vague hypotheticals). Notably, this came up in the landmark NIFLA v. Becerra Supreme Court decision. The real reason is to further marginalize pro-life people and drive them out of healthcare professions. Joyce Arthur, who has made a total ban on conscientious objection one of her main hobby horses, makes clear what it’s really about:
“[Conscientious objection] in reproductive health care is actually a reflection of stigma against abortion and women’s autonomy, not CO in the true sense of that term. It is an attempt to claw back the legality of abortion and return women to their traditional roles of wife and mother, producing soldiers and citizens for the state. We also see it as a form of revenge by organized religion for its loss of power in a world dominated by democracy, self-determination, and evidence-based science and medicine.”
https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2014/05/14/why-we-need-to-ban-conscientious-objection-in-reproductive-health-care/
See also, the vicious witch hunt against Rafael Zaki.