The Veil law speech

A look at the news - Loris S. Musumeci

78651. Simone Veil received this number at the age of sixteen. She has carried it ever since. Until last Friday June 30, the living memory of the Shoah remained in this woman.

Tributes are pouring out of newspapers, radio stations and TV studios. A symbol has passed away. A symbol of courage, strength and wisdom. But also rebirth: a Jewess destined to burn, who ended up carrying Western Europe in a bag of unity and peace.

Simone Veil is complete; nothing is missing from her career. Fecundity encompasses every trace of life that the deceased have left on their peers. In this sense, Simone's fecundity is generous, whether through her children, her testimony as a survivor or the Veil Law.

The announcement of this political and social revolution dates back to November 26, 1974. In a France where the old had not yet suffocated under the tide of May '68, such a change was bound to upset many. The Minister of Health was insulted and called a murderer, among other things. Yet the tragic situation of three hundred thousand women having illegal abortions every year could not be ignored.

Under the Giscard government, the former deportee had to act. Moral fault or justice delivered, now is not the time to pass judgment - let the politicians do that. Nor is it the time for ideology. It would be a jerky tribute to make the text legalizing abortion say what it doesn't mean. Simone Veil's message is clear. In its entirety, this is a speech that continues to leave its mark on contemporary history:

«Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,

As Minister of Health, a woman and not a member of parliament, I stand before you today to propose to the nation's elected representatives a far-reaching change to the law on abortion. I am deeply humbled by the difficulty of the problem, and by the extent to which it resonates within each and every French woman and man, and I am fully aware of the seriousness of the responsibilities we are about to assume together.

But it is also with the utmost conviction that I will defend a project that has been carefully thought through and deliberated by the entire government, a project which, in the words of the President of the Republic, aims to ‘put an end to a situation of disorder and injustice, and bring a measured and humane solution to one of the most difficult problems of our time’.

If the government is able to present you with such a project today, it's thanks to all of you - and there are many of you, from all walks of life - who, for several years now, have been striving to propose new legislation, better adapted to the social consensus and de facto situation in our country.

It's also because the Messmer government took the responsibility of submitting an innovative and courageous project to you. We all remember the remarkable and moving presentation made by Jean Taittinger.

And finally, it's because a special commission chaired by Mr. Berger heard from many members of parliament, who spent long hours listening to representatives of all the different mindset families, as well as leading figures in the field.

Yet some people still ask: is a new law really necessary? For some, the answer is simple: a repressive law already exists, and all we have to do is apply it. Others wonder why Parliament should be deciding these issues now: it's well known that, from the outset, and particularly since the turn of the century, the law has always been rigorous, but has been little enforced.

So what has changed that makes it necessary to intervene? Why not maintain the principle and continue to apply it only in exceptional cases? Why enshrine a criminal practice and thereby risk encouraging it? Why legislate to cover up the laxity of our society, encouraging individual egoism instead of reviving a morality of civic-mindedness and rigor? Why risk exacerbating a downward trend in the birth rate, which is now dangerously underway, instead of promoting a generous and constructive family policy that enables all mothers to give birth to and raise the children they have conceived?

Because everything points to the fact that the question is not posed in these terms. Do you think that this government and its predecessors would have decided to draw up a text and propose it to you if they had thought that another solution was still possible?

We have reached a point where public authorities can no longer shirk their responsibilities in this area. Everything points to this: the studies and work carried out over the last few years, the hearings of your committee, the experience of other European countries. And most of you are aware that we cannot prevent clandestine abortions, nor can we apply the criminal law to all women who would be subject to its rigors.

So why not continue to turn a blind eye? Because the current situation is bad. I'd even go so far as to say it's deplorable and dramatic.

It's bad because the law is openly flouted, or worse, ridiculed. When the gap between the offences committed and those prosecuted is such that there is no longer any real repression, it is citizens' respect for the law, and therefore the authority of the State, that is called into question.

When doctors, in their practices, break the law and make it known publicly, when public prosecutors, before prosecuting, are asked to refer each case to the Ministry of Justice, when social services of public bodies provide women in distress with information likely to facilitate a termination of pregnancy, when, for the same purposes, trips abroad are organized openly and even by charter, then I say that we are in a situation of disorder and anarchy that can no longer continue.

But why? You may ask, why let the situation deteriorate like this, and why tolerate it? Why not enforce the law?

Because if doctors, social workers and even some members of the public are taking part in these illegal actions, it's because they feel compelled to do so; sometimes in opposition to their personal convictions, they find themselves confronted with situations they cannot ignore. Faced with a woman who has decided to terminate her pregnancy, they know that by refusing their advice and support, they are consigning her to the loneliness and anguish of an act carried out under the worst possible conditions, which risks leaving her mutilated for ever. They know that the same woman, if she has the money, if she knows how to inform herself, will go to a neighboring country or even to France to certain clinics and will be able, without incurring any risk or penalty, to terminate her pregnancy. And these women are not necessarily the most immoral or unconscious. There are 300,000 of them every year. These are the women we deal with every day, and whose distress and tragedies we mostly ignore.

We must put an end to this mess. It is this injustice that must be stopped.

First of all, I'd like to share with you a woman's conviction - and I apologize for doing so in front of this almost exclusively male assembly: no woman has recourse to abortion out of the goodness of her heart. Just listen to women. It's always a tragedy and always will be. That's why, if the bill before you takes account of the existing situation, if it admits the possibility of an abortion, it does so in order to control it and, as far as possible, dissuade women from having one. In this way, we believe we are responding to the conscious or unconscious desire of all women who find themselves in this situation of anguish, so well described and analyzed by some of the personalities your special commission heard from in the autumn of 1973. At present, who cares about those who find themselves in this distressing situation? The law rejects them not only in opprobrium, shame and solitude, but also in anonymity and the fear of prosecution. Forced to hide their condition, all too often they find no one to listen to them, enlighten them and provide them with support and protection.

How many of those who are now fighting to change the repressive law were concerned with helping these women in their distress? How many have gone beyond what they consider to be a fault, and shown young single mothers the understanding and moral support they so badly needed?

I know there are some, and I'd be wary of generalizing. I'm not ignoring the efforts of those who, deeply aware of their responsibilities, are doing everything in their power to enable these women to assume their maternity responsibilities. We will help their companies; we will call on them to help us provide the social consultations required by law. But concern and help, when they exist, are not always enough to dissuade. Admittedly, the difficulties women face are sometimes less serious than they perceive. Some can be played down and overcome, but others remain, leaving some women feeling trapped in a situation with no other way out than suicide, the ruin of their family equilibrium or the misfortune of their children. Sadly, this is more common than so-called “convenience” abortion. If it weren't so, do you think that all countries, one after the other, would have been led to reform their legislation in this area and admit that what was severely repressed yesterday is now legal?

So, aware of an intolerable situation for the State and unjust in the eyes of most, the government renounced the easy way out, which would have been not to intervene. That would have been laxity. Assuming its responsibilities, the government is submitting a bill designed to provide a realistic, humane and fair solution to this problem. Some will no doubt think that our sole concern has been the interests of women, and that this bill has been drafted with just that in mind. There is little mention of society, or rather the nation, nor of the father of the unborn child, and even less of that child. I don't want to think that this is an individual matter concerning only the woman, and that the nation is not involved. This is a problem that concerns the nation first and foremost, but from different angles and not necessarily requiring the same solutions.

It's certainly in the nation's interest for France to be young and for its population to be growing. But isn't there a risk that such a project, adopted after a law liberalizing contraception, will lead to a sharp drop in our birth rate, which is already beginning a worrying decline? This is neither a new fact, nor a trend peculiar to France: a fairly regular downward trend in birth and fertility rates has been apparent since 1965 in all European countries, whatever their legislation on abortion or even contraception. It would be risky to look for simple causes for such a general phenomenon. No explanation can be found at national level. It is a fact of civilization, indicative of the times in which we live, and obeying complex rules about which we know little. Observations made by demographers in many foreign countries do not allow us to assert that there is a proven correlation between a change in abortion legislation and changes in birth rates and, above all, fertility rates. It is true that the example of Romania seems to belie this observation, since the decision taken by the Romanian government at the end of 1966 to reverse non-repressive provisions adopted ten years earlier was followed by a sharp rise in the birth rate. What we fail to mention, however, is that a no less spectacular decline followed, and it is essential to note that in this country, where no modern form of contraception existed, abortion was the main method of birth control.

In this context, the sudden intervention of restrictive legislation explains a phenomenon that has remained exceptional and temporary. There is every reason to believe that the adoption of the bill will have little effect on the level of fatality in France, with legal abortions in fact replacing illegal ones, once a period of possible short-term oscillations has passed. The fact remains, however, that the decline in our birth rate, while independent of the state of abortion legislation, is a worrying phenomenon to which the public authorities have a pressing duty to react.

One of the first meetings of the Planning Council to be chaired by the President of the Republic will be devoted to an overall examination of French demographic problems and ways of halting a worrying trend for the country's future. As for family policy, the government felt that this was a separate issue from abortion legislation, and that there was no reason to link the two in the legislative discussion.

That's not to say it's not extremely important. On Friday, the Assembly will be debating a bill to significantly improve childcare and orphan allowances, particularly for the children of single mothers. The bill will also reform the maternity allowance scheme and the conditions for granting loans to young households.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm about to propose a number of projects to the Assembly. One of them aims to promote the work of family workers by providing for their possible involvement in social assistance. Another is aimed at improving the operating and funding conditions of maternal centers, which take in young mothers in difficulty during pregnancy and the first months of their child's life. I intend to make a special effort to combat infertility, by abolishing co-payments for all consultations in this field. I have also asked Inserm to launch a thematic research project in 1975 on the problem of infertility, which so many couples despair about. Together with the Minister of Justice, I am preparing to draw conclusions from the report on adoption that your colleague, Mr Rivierez, a member of parliament on a mission, has just drawn up.

In response to the wishes of so many people wishing to adopt a child, I have decided to set up a Conseil supérieur de l'adoption, which will be responsible for submitting all useful suggestions on this issue to the public authorities. Last but not least, the government has publicly committed, through Mr Durafour, to starting negotiations with family organizations in the next few weeks on a contract for progress, the content of which will be agreed with family representatives, on the basis of proposals to be submitted to the Family Advisory Council which I chair.

In reality, as all demographers emphasize, what's important is to change the French people's image of the ideal number of children per couple. This objective is infinitely complex, and the discussion of abortion cannot be limited to financial measures that are necessarily ad hoc.

The second missing element in this project, for many of you no doubt, is the father. Everyone feels that the decision to terminate a pregnancy should not be taken by the woman alone, but also by her husband or partner. Personally, I hope that this will always be the case in practice, and I applaud the committee for proposing a change along these lines; but, as the committee has clearly understood, it is not possible to create a legal obligation in this area.

Finally, isn't the third missing element the promise of life that women carry within them? I refuse to enter into the scientific and philosophical discussions which the committee's hearings showed to be an insoluble problem. No one now disputes that, from a strictly medical point of view, the embryo definitively carries within it all the virtualities of the human being it will become. But it is still only a future, which will have to overcome many hazards before coming to term, a fragile link in the transmission of life. Do we need to remind you that, according to studies by the World Health Organization, for every hundred pregnancies conceived, forty-five stop of their own accord during the first two weeks, and that of every hundred pregnancies at the beginning of the third week, a quarter do not reach term, due to natural phenomena alone?

The only certainty we can rely on is the fact that a woman only becomes fully aware that she is carrying a living being who will one day be her child only when she feels the first manifestations of that life within her. And it is this gap between what is only a future, for which the woman does not yet have any deep feeling, and what the child is from the moment of its birth, which explains why some women, who would be horrified at the monstrous possibility of infanticide, resign themselves to the prospect of abortion. How many of us, faced with the case of a loved one whose future would be irremediably compromised, haven't felt that principles sometimes have to give way! Clearly, this would not be the case if abortion were truly perceived as a crime like any other.

Some of those who were most opposed to the vote on this project accept that, in fact, prosecutions should no longer be carried out, and would even be less vigorously opposed to the vote on a text that merely provided for the suspension of criminal proceedings. This is because they themselves perceive that this is an act of a particular nature, or at any rate, one that calls for a specific solution. I hope the House won't mind my having spoken at length on this subject. You all feel that this is an essential point, undoubtedly the crux of the debate. It was appropriate to raise it before turning to the content of the project.

In preparing the bill before you today, the government set itself a triple objective: to make the law truly enforceable; to make the law a deterrent; to make the law a protector. This threefold objective explains the economy of the project. First, an enforceable law. A rigorous examination of the terms and consequences of the definition of cases in which termination of pregnancy would be authorized reveals insurmountable contradictions. If these conditions are defined in precise terms - for example, the existence of serious threats to the woman's physical or mental health, or even, for example, cases of rape or incest verified by a magistrate - it is clear that the amendment to the legislation will not achieve its aim when these criteria are actually met, since the proportion of abortions for such reasons is low. What's more, the assessment of possible cases of rape or incest would raise evidentiary problems that would be virtually insoluble within a timeframe appropriate to the situation. If, on the other hand, a broad definition is given - for example, the risk to physical health or psychological balance, or the difficulty of material or moral living conditions - it is clear that the doctors or commissions responsible for deciding whether these conditions are met would have to make their decision on the basis of criteria that are insufficiently precise to be objective.

In such systems, authorization to terminate a pregnancy is in practice given solely on the basis of the personal views of doctors or abortion commissions, and it is the women least able to find the most understanding doctor or the most indulgent commission who will still find themselves in a no-win situation. To avoid this injustice, in many countries authorization is given almost automatically, making such a procedure unnecessary, while leaving a number of women to fend for themselves who do not want to incur the humiliation of appearing before a body they feel is a court of law.

However, if the legislator is called upon to amend current texts, it is to put an end to clandestine abortions, which are most often carried out by women who, for social, economic or psychological reasons, feel so distressed that they are determined to end their pregnancy under any conditions. That's why the government has decided not to use a formula that is more or less ambiguous or vague, but to face up to reality and recognize that, in the final analysis, the ultimate decision can only be taken by the woman herself.

Doesn't putting the decision back in the hands of the woman contradict the project's objective of dissuasion, the second of the three?

It's no paradox to argue that a woman who takes full responsibility for her action will be more reluctant to carry it out than one who feels that the decision has been made for her by others.

The government has opted for a solution that clearly indicates the woman's responsibility, as this is a greater deterrent than third-party authorization, which would quickly become nothing more than a pretense.

What's important is that women don't exercise this responsibility in solitude or anguish.

While avoiding any procedure that might discourage it from doing so, the draft therefore provides for a number of consultations to enable it to assess the full seriousness of the decision it intends to take.

The doctor can play a vital role here, on the one hand by fully informing the woman of the medical risks of terminating the pregnancy, which are now well known, and especially the risks of prematurity for her future children, and on the other, by making her aware of the problem of contraception.

This task of dissuasion and advice falls to the medical profession in a privileged way, and I know I can count on the experience and sense of humanity of doctors to do their utmost to establish the trusting and attentive dialogue that women are looking for, sometimes even unconsciously, during this one-on-one discussion.

The project then provides for a consultation with a social organization whose mission will be to listen to the woman, or the couple when there is one, to let her express her distress, to help her obtain aid if this distress is financial, and to make her aware of the reality of the obstacles that oppose or seem to oppose the reception of a child. Many women will learn that they can give birth anonymously and free of charge at the hospital, and that adoption of their child could be a solution.

It goes without saying that we want these consultations to be as diversified as possible, and in particular that the organizations that specialize in helping young women in difficulty can continue to welcome them and provide them with the help they need to give up their project. Naturally, all these interviews will take place on a one-to-one basis, and it goes without saying that the experience and psychology of the people called in to welcome women in distress can make a significant contribution to helping them change their minds. It will also be a further opportunity to discuss contraception with the woman, and the need to use contraceptives in the future, so as never again to have to take the decision to terminate a pregnancy if the woman does not wish to have children. This information on birth control - which is the best deterrent to abortion - seems so essential to us that we have decided to make it compulsory, on pain of administrative closure, for establishments where abortions are carried out. The two interviews that the woman will have had, as well as the eight-day reflection period that will be imposed on her, have been deemed essential to make her aware that this is not a normal or trivial act, but a serious decision that cannot be taken without weighing up the consequences, and that should be avoided at all costs. It is only after this realization, and if the woman has not renounced her decision, that the pregnancy can be terminated. However, this procedure must not be carried out without strict medical guarantees for the woman herself, and this is the third aim of the bill: to protect women.

First of all, termination of pregnancy can only be early, because the physical and psychological risks, which are never zero, become too serious after the end of the tenth week following conception for women to be allowed to expose themselves to them.

Secondly, termination of pregnancy can only be carried out by a doctor, as is the rule in all countries that have amended their legislation in this area. But it goes without saying that no doctor or paramedic will ever be required to take part.

Finally, to ensure the woman's safety, the procedure will only be performed in a public or private hospital.

We must not conceal the fact that compliance with these provisions, which the government considers essential and which continue to be sanctioned by the penalties provided for in article 317 of the penal code, still in force in this respect, implies a serious tidying-up which the government intends to carry out. Practices that have recently received unfortunate publicity will be brought to an end, and can no longer be tolerated once women have the legal option of having procedures performed in genuinely safe conditions. Similarly, the government is determined to firmly apply the new provisions on propaganda and advertising that will replace those of the 1920 law. Contrary to what has been said here and there, the bill does not prohibit the provision of information on the law and on abortion; it does prohibit incitement to abortion by any means whatsoever, as such incitement remains inadmissible.

The government will further demonstrate its firmness by not allowing pregnancy termination to give rise to shocking profits; fees and hospital charges must not exceed ceilings set by administrative decision under price legislation. In the same vein, and to avoid the abuses seen in certain countries, foreign women will have to provide proof of residency before their pregnancy can be terminated.

Finally, I'd like to explain the government's decision, which has been criticized by some, not to reimburse termination of pregnancy by the Social Security system.

When you know that dental care, non-compulsory vaccinations and corrective lenses are not reimbursed, or are still very incompletely reimbursed, by Social Security, how can you explain the fact that termination of pregnancy is reimbursed? If we adhere to the general principles of Social Security, termination of pregnancy, when it is not therapeutic, does not need to be reimbursed. Should we make an exception to this principle? We don't think so, as we felt it necessary to emphasize the seriousness of an act that must remain exceptional, even if it entails a financial burden for women in certain cases. What's important is that a woman's lack of resources should not prevent her from requesting a termination of pregnancy when it proves essential; that's why medical assistance has been provided for the most destitute. We also need to make a clear distinction between contraception, which should be encouraged by all means when women do not wish to have a child, and abortion, which society tolerates but neither supports nor encourages.

Few women don't want children; motherhood is part of the fulfillment of their lives, and those who haven't experienced this happiness suffer deeply. If a child, once born, is rarely rejected and gives its mother, with its first smile, the greatest joys she could ever know, some women feel unable, because of very serious difficulties they have experienced at some point in their lives, to provide a child with the emotional balance and solicitude they owe it. At that point, they'll do everything they can to avoid it or not keep it. And no one can stop them. But the same women, a few months later, their emotional or material life having changed, will be the first to wish for a child and may become the most attentive mothers. It's for these women that we want to put an end to clandestine abortion, which they are bound to resort to, at the risk of remaining sterile or deeply affected.

This brings me to the end of my presentation. I have deliberately chosen to explain the general philosophy of the project rather than the details of its provisions, which we will examine at our leisure during the discussion of the articles.

I know that a number of you will feel in good conscience that you cannot vote for this text, nor for any law that takes abortion out of the illegal and clandestine realm. For these people, I hope I have at least convinced them that this project is the fruit of an honest and in-depth reflection on all aspects of the problem, and that if the government has taken the responsibility of submitting it to Parliament, it is only after having measured its immediate scope as well as its future consequences for the nation. I will only give them one proof, and that is that using a procedure that is quite exceptional in legislative matters, the government is proposing to limit its application to five years. In the event that, during this period, it should become apparent that the law you have voted for is no longer adapted to demographic trends or medical progress, Parliament would have to vote on it again in five years' time, taking account of the new data.

Others are still hesitating. They are aware of the distress suffered by too many women and wish to help them, but fear the effects and consequences of the law. To these people, I want to say that, while the law is general and therefore abstract, it is designed to apply to individual situations that are often distressing; that if it no longer prohibits abortion, it creates no right to abortion and that, as Montesquieu said: ‘The nature of human laws is to be subject to all accidents that happen, and to vary as the wills of men change. On the contrary, the nature of religious laws is never to vary. It is in this spirit that, over the last ten years or so, thanks to the President of your Law Commission, with whom I had the honor of working when he was Keeper of the Seals, our prestigious Civil Code has been rejuvenated and transformed. At the time, some feared that taking note of a new image of the family would contribute to its deterioration. This has not been the case, and our country can pride itself on civil legislation that is now fairer, more humane and better adapted to the society in which we live. I know that the problem we are debating today concerns infinitely more serious issues, which are far more troubling for everyone's conscience. But in the final analysis, it's also a social problem.

Finally, I'd like to say this: during the discussion, I'll be defending this text, on behalf of the government, with no ulterior motive, and with all my conviction, but it's true that no one can take deep satisfaction in defending such a text - the best possible in my opinion - on such a subject: no one has ever contested, and the Minister of Health less than anyone else, that abortion is a failure when it's not a tragedy.

But we can no longer turn a blind eye to the three hundred thousand abortions that mutilate women in this country every year, flout our laws and humiliate or traumatize those who have them.

History shows us that the great debates that divided the French for a while French people appear, with the benefit of hindsight, to be a necessary stage in the formation of a new social consensus, in keeping with our country's tradition of tolerance and moderation.

I'm not one of those people who dread the future.

Younger generations sometimes surprise us in that they differ from us; we ourselves have brought them up differently from the way we were brought up. But these young people are courageous, as capable of enthusiasm and sacrifice as any others. Let's trust them to preserve the supreme value of life.»

Write to the author: loris.musumeci@leregardlibre.com

Photo credit: Wikimedia CC 3.0