President Emmanuel Macron plans to include in the Constitution the freedom to resort to voluntary termination of pregnancy. The sociologist Jean Viard returns to this announcement, and retains especially the word “freedom”.
Sociologist Jean Viard answers a social question every Saturday and Sunday. Here, the announcement of the Head of State to want to include in the French Constitution the freedom to resort to voluntary termination of pregnancy.
franceinfo: How is it useful, today, in 2023, to include such freedom in the Constitution?
John Viard: The first thing I remember is the word “freedom”, because it is less strong than the word right. If we say that it is a right, that means that any nurse or any doctor cannot refuse to perform an abortion. If we say it’s a freedom, the caregiver will have the freedom to refuse, taking into account, for example, his philosophical opinions. The word freedom is more beautiful but it is less powerful in legal terms than the word right. The second thing is that on these subjects, men must let women choose what they want, because the real question is the right to dispose of their bodies. Somehow, I would say that we men are none of our business. We must abandon the idea that we decide for women.
What is your view on the pro and anti abortion divide, which would perhaps justify including such freedom in the Constitution?
It must be inscribed in the Constitution, even if that guarantees nothing because what is inscribed in the Constitution can be erased by another political majority, but it is an important, positive step. We are in a period where we are increasingly challenging women’s right to dispose of their bodies. The best example is the apartheid that is emerging in Afghanistan, which is tragic. It’s like in Iran, where little girls can be married from the age of nine. There is a movement to regain power over women’s bodies which is an eternal movement of societies, which must be a fight that never stops.
Gisèle Halimi said it extremely well, a fight is never definitively won on this subject, especially when there are forces of populism. Remember how Trump talked about women. Let us also remember how in the 19th century the Church pushed for the multiplication of children because it was losing power over politics. By pushing women to have many children, she hoped that this would increase the number of Catholics, thus restoring her influence. The battle is never over and will never be over because there is a question of power over the birth rate, over pleasure, which are issues where we must constantly fight for women to defend their rights. As long as there are no women priests in the Catholic Church, there will be no real equality.
Would it have made sense to submit this proposal to a referendum?
What would have come out of a referendum? It’s extremely complicated to answer this question because there are forces that are against it and a male power that remains strong. We are touching the balance of our society: the status of women is, I think, the greatest revolution of the 21st century. The idea that women have power over themselves and that they have the same power as men in politics, economics, art, etc. But we can clearly see that this revolution divides the world between those who are radically against it and those who are the vanguard.