France becomes first country to explicitly enshrine abortion rights in constitution

[essentialsaltes]

With the endorsement of a specially convened session of lawmakers at Versailles, France on Monday became the first country in the world to explicitly enshrine abortion rights in its constitution

The amendment referring to abortion as a “guaranteed freedom” needed the approval of three-fifths of lawmakers — or 512 votes. The vote result on Monday evening was 780 in favor and 72 against.

France decriminalized abortion in 1975; abortion is legal for any reason through the 14th week of pregnancy. This amendment won’t change any of that.

But while other countries have inferred abortion rights protections from their constitutions, as the U.S. Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade, France is the first to explicitly codify in its constitution that abortion rights are protected. France is not interpreting its constitution; it is changing its constitution.

Since the end of Roe, six states — California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Vermont and Ohio — have approved abortion-related constitutional amendments. [I believe it's more accurate to say 6 have put it on the ballot. 4 passed, protecting abortion rights. 2 failed, which would have said there is no constitutional right to abortion.]

 

[TPop]

Abortion = Satan, Slavery, Murder.

Peace and Blessings

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Is there a non-paywall version of the article?...getting that pesky pop-up.

Per this NPR article:

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1235217454/france-abortion-rights-constitution

It sounds like the 14 week restriction is still in place as you mentioned:
France limits the possibility for an elective abortion at 14 weeks — a shorter timeframe than the proposed 15-week nationwide ban that has caused an uproar in the United States.

Sounds similar to what you mentioned seeing in the WaPo article.

I actually think that a 14 weeks for elective, exemptions for the other 3 scenarios after that model would actually get quite a bit of support in the US among center-left/center/center-right.

Kinda shows the differences in perspectives on specific issues. Even Scandinavian countries (considered to be far more progressive than we are) tend to limit elective abortions to somewhere in the 12-16 week time window (with exemptions for the other 3 scenarios obviously)

It would seem as if the Democratic position of the 1990's of "safe, legal, and rare" is a sentiment that has some staying power in many parts of the world.

Given how we've seen voting break down on it (when it's offered up as a single issue), there's two things people don't seem to be keen on
- Overly restrictive laws that say you can't have one ever for any reason
- Overly lax laws that allow for people to get an elective one at 20+ weeks "just cuz"

Or to put it in different terms, it would seem that many people have rejected both the notion of "you can't have one...period" as well as the notion of "an elective abortion at 22 weeks is a symbol of women's empowerment"

 

[BCP1928]

Is there a non-paywall version of the article?...getting that pesky pop-up.

Per this NPR article:

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1235217454/france-abortion-rights-constitution

It sounds like the 14 week restriction is still in place as you mentioned:
France limits the possibility for an elective abortion at 14 weeks — a shorter timeframe than the proposed 15-week nationwide ban that has caused an uproar in the United States.

Sounds similar to what you mentioned seeing in the WaPo article.

I actually think that a 14 weeks for elective, exemptions for the other 3 scenarios after that model would actually get quite a bit of support in the US among center-left/center/center-right.

Kinda shows the differences in perspectives on specific issues. Even Scandinavian countries (considered to be far more progressive than we are) tend to limit elective abortions to somewhere in the 12-16 week time window (with exemptions for the other 3 scenarios obviously)

It would seem as if the Democratic position of the 1990's of "safe, legal, and rare" is a sentiment that has some staying power in many parts of the world.

Given how we've seen voting break down on it (when it's offered up as a single issue), there's two things people don't seem to be keen on
- Overly restrictive laws that say you can't have one ever for any reason
- Overly lax laws that allow for people to get an elective one at 20+ weeks "just cuz"

Which is a vanishing small number anyway. Most late term abortions are related to medical conditions, and the destruction of a viable fetus (24 weeks and dropping) is already illegal in 42 states and against medical ethics everywhere.

Or to put it in different terms, it would seem that many people have rejected both the notion of "you can't have one...period" as well as the notion of "an elective abortion at 22 weeks is a symbol of women's empowerment"

Of course these countries generally have single payer health care of some sort or another and generous family leave and child care arrangements.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Which is a vanishing small number anyway. Most late term abortions are related to medical conditions, and the destruction of a viable fetus (24 weeks and dropping) is already illegal in 42 states and against medical ethics everywhere.

Given that medical reasons are covered by exemptions, and late term elective abortions are as you called it vanishingly rare, do you think pro-choice activists would be on board with something resembling what the European countries have? Or have people become so galvanized in the positions that any amount of compromise or meeting in the middle would be equated with "failure to uphold the cause"?

While elective late term abortions are illegal in most states, the pro-choice activists in the US are trying to change that.

What would you say is your ideal legal framework on the matter?

 

[BCP1928]

Given that medical reasons are covered by exemptions, and late term elective abortions are as you called it vanishingly rare, do you think pro-choice activists would be on board with something resembling what the European countries have? Or have people become so galvanized in the positions that any amount of compromise or meeting in the middle would be equated with "failure to uphold the cause"?

While elective late term abortions are illegal in most states, the pro-choice activists in the US are trying to change that.

What would you say is your ideal legal framework on the matter?

My absolutely unsupported non-legal opinion?

First, it depends on what you mean by "elective." I have an idea that prochoicers would be satisfied if it meant "elective" between the patient and her doctor without the interference of a magistrate or the possibility of legal action afterward.. There have been too many horror stories lately of women struggling with a potentially lethal condition while waiting for the matter to be hammered out by lawyers. No pregnant woman wants that hanging over her.

Second, the pro-life movement has made a very untrustworthy impression generally. The "no abortion at any time for any reason" faction has been very vocal with its "she shudda kepper legs closed" rhetoric and very influential in crafting anti-abortion legislation.
Consider:
Who is it that pushes the idea that life begins at conception and makes it clear that the concept is also the basis of the move to eliminate access to birth control.?
Who is it that opposes comprehensive sex education in the schools, which when fairly taught actually reduces teen pregnancies?
Who is it that opposes single payer health care?
Who is it that opposes family leave?
Who is it that opposes child care allowances?

All the same people. It is possible to form the impression, and with considerable justification, that what the pro-life movement really wants is not just an end to abortion, but complete control over the reproductive life of women. In Jesus' name of course, because none of this would be a problem if women only would live their lives according to Christian Family Values, right?
And that is why women regard elective abortion as part of their "empowerment" even though they are (surprise) not all wantons too lazy to take precautions while doing something they shouldn't.

Given the social and political background of the situation in this country, I don't think a abortion law like France's stands a chance. Otherwise it might, but the Right will have to lose the culture war first.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

My absolutely unsupported non-legal opinion?

First, it depends on what you mean by "elective." I have an idea that prochoicers would be satisfied if it meant "elective" between the patient and her doctor without the interference of a magistrate or the possibility of legal action afterward.. There have been too many horror stories lately of women struggling with a potentially lethal condition while waiting for the matter to be hammered out by lawyers. No pregnant woman wants that hanging over her.

Second, the pro-life movement has made a very untrustworthy impression generally. The "no abortion at any time for any reason" faction has been very vocal with its "she shudda kepper legs closed" rhetoric and very influential in crafting anti-abortion legislation.
Consider:
Who is it that pushes the idea that life begins at conception and makes it clear that the concept is also the basis of the move to eliminate access to birth control.?
Who is it that opposes comprehensive sex education in the schools, which when fairly taught actually reduces teen pregnancies?
Who is it that opposes single payer health care?
Who is it that opposes family leave?
Who is it that opposes child care allowances?

All the same people. It is possible to form the impression, and with considerable justification, that what the pro-life movement really wants is not just an end to abortion, but complete control over the reproductive life of women. In Jesus' name of course, because none of this would be a problem if women only would live their lives according to Christian Family Values, right?
And that is why women regard elective abortion as part of their "empowerment" even though they are (surprise) not all wantons too lazy to take precautions while doing something they shouldn't.

Given the social and political background of the situation in this country, I don't think a abortion law like France's stands a chance. Otherwise it might, but the Right will have to lose the culture war first.

I think the third thing to consider is that, due to the American healthcare system, a significant percentage (probably a majority) of people don't see a doctor regularly and/or have limited access to care. This means that it's not uncommon for women to not know they are pregnant until they're approaching or even past the cutoff point that many European countries use (generally about 14-16 weeks). This isn't just an issue with the system - it's cultural as well. Going to the doctor is not a "normal" thing for many Americans because of the associated costs and the difficulty of scheduling an appointment. So a key component of US abortion restrictions would have to be improvements to the healthcare system as a whole, including messaging designed to encourage people to use the revamped system.

 

[BCP1928]

I think the third thing to consider is that, due to the American healthcare system, a significant percentage (probably a majority) of people don't see a doctor regularly and/or have limited access to care. This means that it's not uncommon for women to not know they are pregnant until they're approaching or even past the cutoff point that many European countries use (generally about 14-16 weeks). This isn't just an issue with the system - it's cultural as well. Going to the doctor is not a "normal" thing for many Americans because of the associated costs and the difficulty of scheduling an appointment. So a key component of US abortion restrictions would have to be improvements to the healthcare system as a whole, including messaging designed to encourage people to use the revamped system.

Which means, as I said, that the Right will have to lose the culture war first.

 

[jayem]

I would support a Solomonic compromise--named after the OT Hebrew king:

The average human gestation is 40 weeks. So---as King Solomon ruled--cut it in half. From conception up to 20 weeks, abortion--whether medical or surgical--is a private decision between a pregnant woman and an abortion provider. After 20 weeks, a state can restrict abortion to serious and potentially life threatening maternal (or fetal) health reasons only. Sure, this is arbitrary. But so what? A lot of laws are arbitrary.

 

[Nithavela]

Given that medical reasons are covered by exemptions, and late term elective abortions are as you called it vanishingly rare, do you think pro-choice activists would be on board with something resembling what the European countries have? Or have people become so galvanized in the positions that any amount of compromise or meeting in the middle would be equated with "failure to uphold the cause"?

In my opinion, the pro-life people have achieved a great feat of unity. Any difference in their creeds is completely ignored or at least postponed for after the "final victory" against abortion, to be resolved after the pro-choice position is utterly defeated. Until then, they'd rather ban too many abortions rather than too little. Individual pro-life people might be for exemptions for rape, incest, medical emergencies or even very early term abortions, but they'd rather march at the side of absolutists than be seen as joining the pro-choice side of the discussion on any issue.

The left sadly has not achieved anything approaching the purity of thought of the conservative side. They'd rather smugly use their brain in a time where more can be achieved with reflexive rage and unthinking loyalty to the cause. In that, they fail the people they claim to wish to help.

 

[Nithavela]

I would support a Solomonic compromise--named after the OT Hebrew king:

The average human gestation is 40 weeks. So---as King Solomon ruled--cut it in half. From conception up to 20 weeks, abortion--whether medical or surgical--is a private decision between a pregnant woman and an abortion provider. After 20 weeks, a state can restrict abortion to serious and potentially life threatening maternal (or fetal) health reasons only. Sure, this is arbitrary. But so what? A lot of laws are arbitrary.

I would support an alternative solomonic compromise. Alternate in making abortions obligatory and forbidding them for every individual woman. You can flip a coin to see what you start with, either at birth, or if you like to keep things interesting, after the first positive pregnancy test.

 

[Tom8907]

What's sad is that the people smiling and laughing now will not be in eternity if they don't accept Christ.

 

[Nithavela]

What's sad is that the people smiling and laughing now will not be in eternity if they don't accept Christ.

Some people say that they are christians and yet support women's right to choose abortion.

 

[Larniavc]

Abortion = Satan, Slavery, Murder.

Peace and Blessings

Where in the Bible is slavery referenced as a thing from Satan and not an acceptable part of life?

 

[Larniavc]

What's sad is that the people smiling and laughing now will not be in eternity if they don't accept Christ.

That threat only applies to Christians.

 

[Desk trauma]

What's sad is that the people smiling and laughing now will not be in eternity if they don't accept Christ.

So very often Christianity comes across as little more than a revenge fantasy.

 

[Tom8907]

So very often Christianity comes across as little more than a revenge fantasy.

Not a revenge at all, would be great if they get saved!

 

[BCP1928]

Not a revenge at all, would be great if they get saved!

That doesn't quite ring true, since many of the "Libs" you want to "own" are actually devout Christians already and for all you know may be in fact saved.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

First, it depends on what you mean by "elective."

Elective meaning reasons outside of rape, incest, or health

Second, the pro-life movement has made a very untrustworthy impression generally. The "no abortion at any time for any reason" faction has been very vocal with its "she shudda kepper legs closed" rhetoric and very influential in crafting anti-abortion legislation.
Consider:
Who is it that pushes the idea that life begins at conception and makes it clear that the concept is also the basis of the move to eliminate access to birth control.?
Who is it that opposes comprehensive sex education in the schools, which when fairly taught actually reduces teen pregnancies?
Who is it that opposes single payer health care?
Who is it that opposes family leave?
Who is it that opposes child care allowances?

All the same people. It is possible to form the impression, and with considerable justification, that what the pro-life movement really wants is not just an end to abortion, but complete control over the reproductive life of women. In Jesus' name of course, because none of this would be a problem if women only would live their lives according to Christian Family Values, right?
And that is why women regard elective abortion as part of their "empowerment" even though they are (surprise) not all wantons too lazy to take precautions while doing something they shouldn't.

Given the social and political background of the situation in this country, I don't think a abortion law like France's stands a chance. Otherwise it might, but the Right will have to lose the culture war first.

With the two items you posted that I highlighted in red, I would agree that those need to be addressed (and I actually have harped on those two items when debating conservatives on the matter).

With the other 3 items you list, I'm not so sure those would be of much impact with regards to the national discussion on policy. You can make an argument for those things on other grounds, but I don't think "reducing demand for abortion by any meaningful amount" is one of them.

If we use California as a case study:
They're actually the first state in the nation to offer Universal healthcare coverage to their residents (regardless of immigration status)
They also offer paid family leave
They also have a fairly robust child care subsidy program through their CalWORK initiative


Would the fact that they have those offerings available make Californians any more receptive to a model like France's or Denmark's (where the elective ones are capped somewhere between 12-16 weeks)?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

If we use California as a case study:
They're actually the first state in the nation to offer Universal healthcare coverage to their residents (regardless of immigration status)
They also offer paid family leave
They also have a fairly robust child care subsidy program through their CalWORK initiative


Would the fact that they have those offerings available make Californians any more receptive to a model like France's or Denmark's (where the elective ones are capped somewhere between 12-16 weeks)?

Possibly, but California has to be considered within the context of the entire US. If they were to impose abortion restrictions, that would be seen as setting a precedent for other states, even those without the services that California provides (which I think you're slightly over-selling here - CalWORKS and Medi-Cal are both income/asset-based welfare initiatives).