Can women be given more options in lieu of abortion?

by | January 23, 2015 | Abortion, News, Publications

40 years after the first law legalizing abortion, it is still widely practiced throughout France

Each year 220,000 women abort their babies in France, which represents 1 out of 5 pregnancies. According to the latest statistics from the National Institute of Demographic Studies, one third of French women will have recourse to an abortion during their lifetime.

Whether abortion is considered as a personal liberty or not – and even if the opposition surrounding this subject is relentless – can our society let us believe that women could consider it as nothing more than an innocuous act?

For 15 years, I’ve accompanied women confronted with this difficult question; I’ve been witness to profound inner questioning that a pending abortion incites. These women know very well: it is the life of a human being as well as their own destiny that is at stake.

In 40 years time, the family planning of births has been imposed as a social norm; any unplanned pregnancy has become more and more difficult to accept.

In France, in spite of one of the highest rates of contraceptive use in the world, including youth, almost ¾ of women opting for abortion were on birth control when they became pregnant. Forgetting to take their birth control pills, misusing condoms, and becoming pregnant while using an IUD (intra-uterine device): a report of the IGAS (lnspection Générale des Affaires Sociales) published in 2010 concluded that “a complete control of fertility is illusory”. But does this justify that abortion be proffered as the only solution? When a “surprise” pregnancy arrives, questions are jostled around in panic, and often in solitude. Many women, whether young or not, feel judged and rejected when they reveal that they are pregnant without having planned to be. The enormous pressure that some women experience, especially from the man’s side, should be taken into account more often. Is it possible to welcome a child born of a non-planned pregnancy? Without the support of their “companion” and of their close friends, these women too often accept an abortion as an inevitable fatality, in spite of their heart-felt wishes.

With the increased use of medication abortions, which can be performed before 7 weeks of pregnancy at the hospital, or before 5 weeks of pregnancy at home, women often have little time to decide, precisely at a time when they experience both inner and exterior conflicts.

A real effort to prevent abortion is nowadays more and more abandoned by public services.

Women find themselves too often confronted with technical information about abortion without receiving help, which might permit them to continue their pregnancy serenely.

The law passed on July 4, 2001 ended the presentation of aid and protection assured to pregnant women in the information guide given to those seeking possibilities concerning abortion.

It’s neither by proclaiming the insignificance of such an act, nor by imposing silence about abortion, that we can respond to the needs of women.

If some women say that they do not feel anything or have no regrets, why deny the painful aspect of the event that others have experienced? This denial constitutes a form of psychological violence. Women need to be liberated by being able to speak freely, in an environment of respect about what they feel. However, many have difficulty in finding the listening accompaniment, help, and consolation that they need.

« How old would he be now? » is a question that women admit to asking themselves throughout their life following an abortion. Some feel a painful emptiness due to the absence of the ‘baby’, which they regret. By refusing to acknowledge that certain women have been subject to outside social pressure, society thereby locks them up with their inner pain and guilt feelings. Occasionally, men also appeal to us when they realize the pain of their companion, which they did not suspect, or, on the contrary, when they, themselves experience pain for having not been consulted.

For the Chief Health Authorities, [1]: « Abortion often remains a difficult event to experience from the psychological perspective. This dimension needs to be objectively and scientifically clarified. » And yet, since this report, no public research study has been carried out.

Our country needs a wide-open debate on true ways to prevent abortion. This will demand courage to uncover the truth on this act, its’ reality and its’ repercussions.

 

Caroline Roux, assistant general delegate and coordinator of help-line services at Alliance Vita.

[1] sited in the IGAS report on the prevention of non-desired pregnancies (2010)

Gestational Surrogacy: Women and Children First

by | December 17, 2014 | Bioethics, Maternity, Medically Assisted Procreation, News, Publications

Who would have imagined that the dawn of the 21st century would be marked by an archaic regression, exploiting women as ‘phantoms’ degraded to the point to being used to give birth on behalf of others?

Who would have thought that in France, the Minister of Justice could force his clerks to turn a blind eye to laws being broken, thereby transforming women and children into commodities that can be bought and sold? Can we tolerate individuals managing a woman’s life for nine full months, and controlling her intimacy just to produce a child in accordance with a quality chart? Whether the women are “consenting “ or not, and paid or not, Gestational Surrogacy (GS) constitutes a serious lack of respect for a human being’s integrity, for the consideration of a woman’s body other than as an instrument, and for children other than as merchandise to be bought and sold.

Would the Ministry in charge of Industry approve with full knowledge importing goods produced by foreign slave workers, or would the Health Ministry accept organ donations from people living in very precarious conditions in less developed countries?

It is not a question of stigmatizing children born to surrogate mothers. On the contrary, the challenge is to protect the child’s interest. The issue of acquiring French nationality is a contrived issue: by virtue of article 21-12 of the Civil Code, a child who has lived in France for five years can obtain French nationality, regardless of how he was conceived. The interest of the child is that no one “play” with his procreation, his origin or his parentage. Let’s not reverse the roles: it is people having recourse to Gestational Surrogacy who are at the origin of this so-called “mistreatment”, and not the French government.

But neither is it a question of ignoring the painful desire of some women who, for medical reasons, are unable to bear children. It is essential that they be accompanied with good care but there are undeniable lines not to be crossed. This is what can help them find a different approach, not to breach the fundamental rights of human dignity. The suffering of those having difficulty in conceiving is only made worse by all the media reporting various procreation techniques springing up all over the world, regardless of the means employed. Alliance Vita witnesses this on its helpline “SOS BABY.” We spend time with people so they do not find themselves going off on tracks where they haven’t been able to anticipate all the pitfalls.

How can we not be astonished by the media industry’s complacency over the last few days showing cases of men using GS in a completely illegal way? This is exceedingly hurtful for women; constituting the epitome of their denial and exploitation. It is so unfair for the children who are being intentionally deprived of a maternal relationship. Recall that there is no given “right to have a child” is a necessity we have to affirm, to help those men avoid violating the rights of the child.

Yet in January 2013, Taubira’s report, as well as the refusal to appeal the ECHR decision of June 2014, constitute an implicit approval of gestational surrogacy.

The saying “Women and Children First” takes on a special meaning in this context.

European citizens are fighting against “maternity trafficking” to encourage politicians to be courageous enough to put a stop on practices that are opposed to Human Rights. Let’s support them by joining them on www.nomaternitytraffic.eu . With them let’s reaffirm that one cannot dispose of a woman’s body, that one cannot ask another woman to ‘make babies’ for someone else: women are not for rent and children cannot be bought or donated to others.

Debate on Embryo Research Suppressed

by | July 17, 2013 | Bioethics, Human embryo research, News, Publications

Interview with Caroline Roux, General Secretary for Alliance VITA, who expresses her disappointment due to the lack of debate. You can find this interview (in French) on Newsring.

The authorization of research on embryo stem cells and on human embryos is not only ethically unacceptable but also scientifically unjustified. Furthermore, there has been no opportunity to debate this matter. The 2011 Bioethics law, which upheld the principle of excluding research on embryos, proposed the setting up of a commission in times of major ethical changes. Science has made great advances, whether on umbilical cord blood cells, on adult stem cells, or on reprogrammed, induced pluripotent stem cells (also known as IPS cells). Therefore, it was worth having a proper debate of the subject.

The 2011 law was already far from being ideal. We were opposed to this law because we are opposed to using human embryos – a human being at his/her first embryonic stage – as laboratory materials. The ban by principle (with its derogations) at least allowed symbolic embryo protection. But the new legal project goes a step beyond this: the principle of respecting the embryo as a human being will now become the exception.

Embryos used as guinea-pigs

This poses profound ethical questions. In particular one needs to question the large stock of frozen living embryos in France. There are about 171,000 according to latest statistics from the Biomedical Agency. These embryos were created from a very strong desire, and they are destined to be used in research like guinea-pigs. This should challenge our society who acts as a divine power over the smallest and weakest members, those placed at the very beginning of life.

To this day, embryo research has given us nothing, whereas alternative research on adult stem cells has already borne fruit. More than 90 types of disease are now treated with blood cells from umbilical cord tissue. Some countries have advanced greatly on IPS – reprogrammed stem cells, which are far more promising. And if one day we no longer had thousands of spare embryos from in-vitro fertilization, should they be created? We are faced with an extremely serious ethical problem.

At Alliance Vita, we are asking for a moratorium on freezing embryos, so that spare embryos from in-vitro fertilization should no longer be frozen. There is something extremely unjust in fixing embryos, wanting to stop time. You could even have embryos conceived simultaneously who can be born twenty years apart. This already creates whole depths of psychological issues. Producing embryos, born from a desire, that in the end are destroyed, raises serious questions for our society!

Treating infertility rather than using substitute solutions

For years, we have also been asking that real research be carried out on infertility. We must discover means to treat it properly instead of by-passing it. Listening to couples confronted to infertility, one understands that they want the possibility to procreate naturally to do without medical artifice. Yes, one can have children by medically assisted procreation, but medicine has only found substitute solutions that don’t answer the challenge of curing infertility.

As an embryo is ‘another’ genetic being, there may be problems of cell compatibility with the potential recipient. With reprogrammed cells, however, since they are the cells of the same person, there are no rejection problems, and therefore more chances of success. To think that one can be treated with one’s own cells opens large horizons of success. By the way, this is the choice made by Japan.

The Justice Minister said that France is falling behind. I do agree, because our country is still focusing on a standard considered promising in the early years of 2000. In today’s scientific research reviews we see that there is always prevention against using embryonic stem cells, due to ethical aspects and to rejection problems. Things have evolved greatly these last years, notably with Shinya Yamanaka’s research, the Japanese Nobel Prize winner of 2012. The American company Geron has also abandoned its research on embryos as being unprofitable.