The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

IVG: "To attack the conscience clause is liberticide"

2020-10-14T15:30:53.051Z

FIGAROVOX / TRIBUNE - While the National Assembly has just voted for the abolition of the "conscience clause" granted to doctors and staff who have to perform an abortion, Damien Le Guay considers that it is an attack on our democratic tradition, which does not force to act against its principles.



Damien Le Guay is a philosopher, president of the National Committee for Funeral Ethics, and emeritus member of the scientific board of the French Society for Palliative Support and Care (SFAP).

He teaches in the regional ethical spaces of Île-de-France and Picardy.

He is the author of

Les Morts de notre vie

(Albin Michel, 2015).

In the midst of a health storm, in the midst of the greatest social and financial crisis that France has known since the Second World War, the National Assembly, concerned about independence, finds the time, despite everything, to move the lines on the issue. of abortion in France.

Three changes.

In July, the so-called “bioethics” law introduced medical termination of pregnancy (IMG) (up to 9 months) for women suffering from “psycho-social distress”.

Faced with the vagueness of this distress, its possible extension, Michel Onfray considers that this is an

"infanticide"

.

We understand that it is necessary to save a woman when her life is in danger, but this taking into account of a "distress" of a psychological nature, which would go as far as "suppressing" or "killing" a baby for up to a few days before his birth, indicates, Chantal Delsol said here last August, that we

"today legitimize other exceptions to" you will not kill "".

Read also:

Alice Coffin, Pauline Harmange: When feminists openly hate men

And there, the National Assembly has just voted two provisions: on the one hand, an extension of a possible recourse to abortion from 12 to 14 weeks and a removal of the special regime of the "conscience clause" granted to doctors and staff who would have to perform an abortion - a regime that has been in place for 40 years.

The government hesitates, does not know on which foot to dance, and has just discarded itself by asking CCNE for its opinion.

The Order of Physicians is against it.

Professor Israel Nissand, specialist in these questions, practitioner and president of gynecologists and obstetricians in France, is also against.

"Wrong answer,"

he said.

"A later abortion is a dangerous act"

.

As for the increase in the number of abortions in France, with a sad record at 232,000 in France in 2019 (for 753,000 births), he explains it by a

"demonization of contraception and a trivialization of abortion"

.

Yet, he says, we do not take into account all of the

"considerable psychological costs"

for women.

The government hesitates, does not know on which foot to dance, and has just discarded itself by asking CCNE for its opinion.

The Order of Physicians is against it.

Other practitioners explain that everything should be done to reduce this "sad record", leave abortion as a "last resort", and that facilitating these interventions too much there is a risk of encouraging an "overbidding" and by there to continue in the betrayal of the spirit and the letter of the Veil law of January 17, 1975. Simone Veil, in the debates, had indicated her conviction:

"abortion must remain the exception, the last resort for dead-end situations ”

and legalization was not intended to encourage abortions, but, on the contrary, to

“ control ”

and

“ dissuade women from doing so ”.

In spite of everything, “progressivism” without brake is in the maneuver.

We must, to hear the latest debates in the National Assembly, facilitate abortion, remove obstacles, reduce delays and make it

"an act of health like any other"

in the words of Albane Gaillot - MP who wears this parliamentary initiative.

And Aurore Bergé, walker, adds in the debates

"we expect women to be able to experience their access to abortion as they wish, as they wish, and without hindrance".

To read also:

Abortion: 92% of French people consider that an abortion leaves "psychological traces"

However, Simone Veil precisely insisted on the absence of banality of this "drama" and considered that the "obstacles" (time for reflection, deadlines, discussions, alternative solutions, the lack of support by the social security - which did not come into effect until 1982) responded

"to the conscious or unconscious desire of all women who find themselves in this situation of anxiety".

Resistance helps to make one's decision explicit, to reflect on it, to overcome it or to change it.

One point attracts attention: the violation of the special status of the “conscience clause specific to abortion”.

In the reasons for this law, it is clearly stated that this deletion would not change anything with regard to the “conscience clause” of physicians, which generally applies.

What has been called into question is due to the specificity of this second specific clause - provided for by the Veil law.

Abortion must remain the exception, the last resort for dead-end situations

Simone veil

Albane Gaillot, rapporteur, in her preparatory report, indicates that it is important, thus, to

"overcome the stigmatization and the difficulties of access to abortion caused by this double clause of conscience"

.

She adds that this is a

"symbolic measure"

so as

"to change mentalities"

, while the Order of Physicians, opposed to this measure, fears that this deletion is a way of putting causes this capacity of doctors not to do what is contrary to their conscience.

During the discussion in the Commission, a deputy (Thibaut Bazin) pointed out that these two clauses are not of the same nature.

The general one is regulatory;

that specific to abortion is legislative.

In principle, the law protects more than a regulation.

And he adds that this general clause only applies to the doctor and not, as in the special clause, to all the nursing staff involved.

To read also:

Child "transgender" on the set of Quotidien: the decryption of a child psychiatrist

But nothing helps!

Those who defend this abolition do so from another perspective: to make access to abortion easier.

This is, says Valérie Six,

"to remove the obstacles that prevent access to abortion"

and Delphine Bagarry to add

"by deleting the specific clause, we affirm that abortion is not an act of special nature, but care like any other for all women ”

.

Cécile Muschotti, she specifies that the deletion of this clause is

"only symbolic"

because it

"stigmatizes abortion".

Wouldn't removing this supposed “stigmatization” amount to removing this time for reflection which seemed necessary for Simone Veil?

But, we can only regret the more inquisitorial tone used in the bill tabled on August 25, and signed by deputies (or rather “deputies”) - among others Cédric Villani, Aurélien Taché, Eric Coquerel, Danièle Obono, Delphine Batho.

In the explanations for deleting this clause, it is stated:

"By allowing healthcare professionals not to perform abortion, the latter (the conscience clause) enshrines the right of the medical profession to contest the law in the name of personal convictions ”.

And so, to avoid any "dispute"

, we must remove this hat clause, this particular clause, this freedom given by law.

By deleting the specific clause, we affirm that abortion is not an act of a particular nature, but a treatment like any other for all women

Delphine Bagarry

We are far from the simple "symbolic" measure which takes nothing away from anyone and just cleans up the law.

The promoters of this law have a hidden intention.

They question the legitimacy of this clause, the very principle of a reluctant individual conscience.

And as soon as it is no longer protected by the law, it would be easier, in a second step, to frame this clause, to correct it, to plan it in a only regulatory framework, far from the eyes and from the debates. of the National Representation.

It is surprising that members of the left, and even of the ultra-left, concerned about individual freedoms and about ways of resisting laws which they deem contrary to their convictions (when it is necessary, for example, to support those who break the laws on the entry of foreigners into France), can call into question, in such an explicit way, this particular right of withdrawal which does not go against the law but comes under it.

This withdrawal does not give the right to challenge the law, but not to apply it for oneself, while giving the women who come to consult the contact details of the doctors who apply it.

To read also:

"There is a paradox: we encourage barrier gestures, but we lower the symbolic thresholds"

In general, in our democracies, a principle of law is essential: who does not say a word consents.

It was that of Thomas More who tried to defend himself against Henry VIII from the depths of his prison and in the lawsuit against him.

We had nothing to reproach him with, he who had said nothing against the laws, which did not prevent the king from having him beheaded.

A long tradition, from the revolt of Antigone against Creon, to the official recognition of conscientious objectors, has prevailed in our democracies: the right to withdraw, to shelter one's conscience, to not to be forced to do what is contrary to its principles.

My conscience is not above the law in a position of separatism;

the law provides, in certain delicate situations (such as for abortion), to protect the conscience of caregivers, to be protective of their silence, their withdrawal, their conscientious objections.

They can get on the sidelines, and in some situations this dissent from within is permitted by law - which is protective of the weak against the strong.

The law offers a niche in which to put one's conscience.

The withdrawn conscience respects the law, as the law respects the conscience which abstains.

A long tradition (...) has established itself in our democracies: the right to (...) not be obliged to do what is contrary to its principles

However, these deputies, on the subject of abortion, question this long tradition.

They are liberticides when they say that caregivers should align their convictions with what the law allows, when they do not admit this personal reserve of practitioners which would ipso facto go against the law.

According to them, those who let the law be done without them would challenge it.

Silence would be guilty.

The withdrawal, guilty.

The guilty conscience, when it doesn't think like the law.

And therefore, members of the medical profession must be prohibited from having a conscience, based on "personal convictions" which may go against the requirements of the law.

A little further on, in the same statement of reasons for this proposal accepted by the National Assembly, these deputies contest, I quote,

"ethical resistance"

which would tend to think that

"abortion remains considered a separate act"

.

Ethics, which is in principle resistance, a way of thinking for oneself for the common good, is here challenged in principle.

The very idea that abortion is a

"separate act"

, which was clearly indicated by Simone Veil herself, is contested.

To read also:

Emmanuel Sapin: "Extending the period of abortion from 12 to 14 weeks raises serious ethical questions"

The objective is clear: to play down abortion, to consider it as a "treatment" like the others, as commonplace as the others.

The very principle of "resistance" in his soul and conscience is contested.

It would take an alignment of consciences with the law and a condemnation of those who think otherwise and give themselves the right to have a right of withdrawal recognized by democratic principles.

We come back to the spirit of the law of suspects: he who is not for the law is against it, he who takes refuge in his conscience with something to hide, he is secretly plotting against the law.

Covering Simone Veil with flowers the better to betray her lacks elegance, but nowadays, for the cause of women, “first class funerals” are flourishing!

One more.

Source: lefigaro

All news articles on 2020-10-14

You may like

News/Politics 2020-10-14T15:30:53.051Z
Life/Entertain 2020-06-23T06:12:14.542Z

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2021-01-16T13:31:49.413Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy