Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AnyoneArnol t1_ixnk2jf wrote

This is making me feel proud to be French!

58

SomniumOv t1_ixpnzua wrote

Unfortunately it now needs to go through the senate, where it will meet more opposition.

2

Majormlgnoob t1_ixppcvl wrote

Does France just require a simple majority for it to get through?

1

SomniumOv t1_ixpq3gx wrote

Yes, but the Right has that majority in the senate, and already refused a similar proposition in september.

They might still let it go through though, as the french public is really really not divided on the subject.
As the article states, a recent poll found that 80% of the voters want better protections for the right to abortion (and in the remaining 20% you're bound to have a lot who don't think it needs more protection because they think the current law is good enough, but are pro-right to abortion).

Outside of Integrist Catholics / TradCaths circles, there's not really any debate on abortion in France. The Far Right don't like it but they don't have the political drive to attack it, it would be a political self-inflicted wound for them.

10

Nizla73 t1_ixpvlsd wrote

As it is to change the constitution, it's a little more complicated than a simple majority :

The text need a simple majority in the national assembly AND a simple majority in the senate (which is not the case for regular laws).

Once you have that, there is 2 way for it to finally happened :

  • The congress (National Assembly + Senate) is united in one assembly (it happens in Versailles traditionally) and 60% (3/5) must vote for it to pass.
  • A National referendum is called and then it become a simple majority referendum.

And that is without talking about the Article 11 of the French 5th Republic Constitution that is, risky to say the least.

2

unovayellow t1_ixnfjxt wrote

Bold move France on protecting women’s rights, if only others could also do this

26

AlexandersWonder t1_ixoag0u wrote

We just did it here in Michigan. It’s soon to be a part of our state constitution now that the proposal passed in the recent election

18

Majormlgnoob t1_ixppi6i wrote

Colorado and I think California did as well via their State Assemblies

Michigan still needs to do that part (Dems got a majority though so I doubt they drag their feet on rubber stamping it)

4

AlexandersWonder t1_ixpwh02 wrote

It goes into effect December 23, 45 days after election. Constitutional amendments in Michigan can be passed by citizen initiative, the legislature is not required.

3

dowhatmelo t1_ixo4kcd wrote

Murder is not a right.

−57

AlexandersWonder t1_ixoajj3 wrote

You’re right, it’s not. But this about abortion, not murder.

15

dowhatmelo t1_ixofaoq wrote

if you call a baby a fetus and a murder an abortion, suddenly it becomes all good with you.

−30

AlexandersWonder t1_ixogg99 wrote

Before fetal viability it’s really just a clump of cells, it’s a glorified tumor. After fetal viability it was never really legal to abort anyways, and I think most people would agree with that approach.

But also, if fetuses are people then why don’t they get citizenship rights when they’re conceived in the US instead of at birth? Why don’t pregnant mothers get child tax breaks? Why aren’t fetuses counted in the census? Seems like the law doesn’t exactly regard them as people either.

11

dowhatmelo t1_ixogtnw wrote

Mate they’re never going to limit abortions to just the first few weeks which is the only period you could legitimately call it a clump of cells. This sort of stuff always pushed later and later meanwhile actual fetal viability gets earlier and earlier as medical tech improves. As for legal classifications that’s a bad faith argument, there’s always stuff you can do at some ages and not others. Why can 18 year olds vote and buy guns but not drink alcohol etc. it’s not a proof of anything.

−19

AlexandersWonder t1_ixoikjh wrote

Viability takes quite a bit longer than the “first couple weeks” of a pregnancy. Before Roe was overturned in the US, viability was where the law drew the line nationwide.

People below 18 are still entitled to citizenship, still get counted in the census, are still eligible for child tax breaks. Pretty disingenuous to compare those to guns and voting and alcohol, which are widely regarded as adult things which require some degree of maturity to handle responsibly.

8

NormalSociety t1_ixocnyv wrote

You going to pay for all the kids who will need financial, mental, physical, emotional help?

You going to pay for food, clothes, school, medical, and any special needs they may have?

Are you going to forfeit part if your bodily rights?

14

14DusBriver t1_ixojzat wrote

> You going to pay for all the kids who will need financial, mental, physical, emotional help?

A normal, functioning society should absolutely do that because it’s a moral good to support the less fortunate and less able. It is also morally good to ensure the practice of elective abortions not justified by some absolute necessity like rape or medical complications is banned, criminalized, and assigned social stigma.

> You going to pay for food, clothes, school, medical, and any special needs they may have?

What do you think taxes and charity is for?

Are you seriously suggesting that the answer to the question of “what if a child is born in poverty?” is to kill them but only at a point where they cannot resist?

Do you just assume everyone in the anti-abortion crowd doesn’t care for the life of children and mothers after birth?

−6

dowhatmelo t1_ixohu36 wrote

People can deal with the consequences of their own actions, i didnt make them go out and get pregnant. Just because a homeless dude has no money doesn't mean it's ok to kill them. Frankly though i'm fine with halving the military budget and using that budget instead for better social services for children. Bodily rights is just made up bullshit.

−9

AlexandersWonder t1_ixoiw10 wrote

Is getting raped a “consequence of one’s own actions” to you?

If body rights are just made up bullshit then surely you wouldn’t care about the government making medical decisions about treatment on your behalf? You’re not a hypocrite, right? You don’t care about the right to make your own decisions about your health and medical care?

12

Bodydysmorphiaisreal t1_ixpk1h1 wrote

Wow, you actually don’t give a single fuck about these children nor women who get pregnant. People have sex for pleasure, sometimes, even when being responsible, accidental pregnancy happens, this will never stop being the case and it’s outright malicious to treat children as punishment for women that are put in an unfortunate, heartbreaking situation. We already don’t have the capacity to care for Americas children in the system and you want to stress it more? You want more human beings to suffer because it’s important they be born? Halving the military budget will not cover the cost needed to care for every child you would ask be in the system and, even if it did, they’ll never (virtually never) know the love of a family that wanted a child. Be pragmatic, have some empathy, and be realistic about this situation. We cannot do this currently, it’s just not in the cards and I doubt it ever will be. If you’re so passionate about life, give back, foster children, donate time to help those who need it (we always need more people helping out). Fuck, my partner and I have elected to not have biological children so we can foster and possibly someday adopt. THERES CHILDREN/YOUNG ADULTS WHO NEED HELP NOW!!!

I’m sure you’d feel much different the second you’re asked to forfeit your bodily autonomy. Compelling birth is gonna fuck a lot of women and children over.

6

dowhatmelo t1_ixqg5vv wrote

Murder trumps all that bullshit you just spewed.

1

Bodydysmorphiaisreal t1_ixqogag wrote

I mean, if you’re not going to consider the entirety of the situation, not let new information effect your conclusions, and grandstand from a place of believed moral superiority all the while being dismissive of the suffering of very real, already existing, and unique whole persons… then sure, I guess you could say that. I would rather we take a pragmatic look at how we best improve the livelihoods of society as a whole and prevent overall pain and suffering as much as possible….. but, again, MuRder or whatever.

2

dowhatmelo t1_ixtw3r3 wrote

I’m not dismissing it, I’m saying it doesn’t justify murder.

1

Stranger0nTheWeb t1_ixojtnq wrote

>People can deal with the consequences of their own actions, i didnt make them go out and get pregnant.

So a smoker shouldn't be allowed to get treatment for lung cancer? A drunk driver shouldn't get medical treatment when they crash? Those are consequences of ther actions. Oh wait no those things can also happen to men...

5

dowhatmelo t1_ixonsys wrote

Not if the "treatment" is murdering someone else.

This is not a men vs women thing, this is about the rights of the unborn child.

−2

Stranger0nTheWeb t1_ixout14 wrote

The unborn child does not have the right to use the mother's organs to sustain itself if she does not want it to. And pregnancy is dangerous for women. It's the mother's choice whether it stays inside her or not.

And why not consider male masturbation/ ejaculating into a condom mass murder? Why is a sperm only considered an "unborn child" the moment it touches an egg and its the woman's problem?

9

dowhatmelo t1_ixpffxn wrote

Sure it does.

Because sperm on its own is not viable.

−1

14DusBriver t1_ixokkmw wrote

> People can deal with the consequences of their own actions, i didnt make them go out and get pregnant

They can have sex all they want, they must simply accept that the life of the unborn is more important than the orgasm.

> Just because a homeless dude has no money doesn't mean it's ok to kill them.

This same point applies to those with deformities and disabilities. Abortion should never be used as a method of cleansing the gene pool - that is called eugenics. We do not go out and stone people with Down syndrome. Unless the medical condition is on the level where it is incompatible with living, we should not strip agency from people who have done nothing wrong on their own

“Bodily rights” has become a sham word to cover up what is essentially infanticide excused by rampant hedonism

−10

dowhatmelo t1_ixonifs wrote

Yeah i've had that eugenics discussion with people before. It's crazy what people find acceptable after dehumanising the victim.

−1

14DusBriver t1_ixojwuq wrote

Remember, murder implies that the victim is a human being.

If we’ve stripped away the quality of humanity from the target, it no longer becomes murder.

According to the pro abort crowd, abortion is somehow healthcare, even if it means the termination of a potential life who could have went on.

−8

[deleted] t1_ixnblu6 wrote

[deleted]

24

BillionNewt t1_ixnusq0 wrote

Some touchy US residents on here... Seems like some people don't understand you can be a patriot AND still admit there are ways to improve your country. I don't understand the "if you don't like it, leave" mentality at all. If you don't like it... work to make things better.

18

ChiralWolf t1_ixnx9nq wrote

Never felt more proud of my home state than seeing when they passed our proposal to make abortion and contraceptives a right for all people in our state.

7

minimell_8910 t1_ixnhq2d wrote

Tell me you don't understand how the US government works without telling me you don't know how the US government works

−11

Liberal-Patriot t1_ixnd5kq wrote

Edit: State laws are not FEDERAL (read: U.S.) laws.

There is no U.S. law preventing abortion.

Try again.

The most restrictive abortion laws IN THE WORLD, are found in Europe.

Edit 2: Monaco, Poland, San Marino, Andorra, Lichtenstein, Malta, have outright abortion bans or very restrictive laws.

The average across Europe is a 12 week limit on abortions.

The majority of the U.S. has more liberal and open abortion laws than than that. All the downvotes and Franco dick riding won't change facts and reality.

−32

mexheavymetal t1_ixnedpa wrote

Yeah there are lol they may be state legislated laws but there are several laws severely restricting abortion in the US.

10

Liberal-Patriot t1_ixnehyz wrote

Those aren't U.S. laws. Those are state laws.

And there are even more restrictive European laws restricting abortion. Which is one of my points.

−29

Ad_Friendly_Anal t1_ixnnxdr wrote

Several of them are US laws. Any Texas citizen that gets an abortion, anywhere in the US or world, can be jailed for up to 99 years along with everyone that helped them, even if they(those that helped them) are not Texas citizens.

That's a law effecting the entire US, passed by a single state, because the US does not enshrine human rights in its constitution.

16

Dufresne85 t1_ixo9jyj wrote

The first time they go after an out of state citizen for this is when that law will be slapped down. States don't get jurisdiction outside of state lines.

5

mexheavymetal t1_ixo9wgu wrote

On that note, if anyone in Texas needs help getting an abortion in PA hmu

3

Ad_Friendly_Anal t1_ixoan42 wrote

You really hope so. We fought a civil war last time states tried to enforce laws over state lines, but never really codified that anywhere that that's not allowed.

Modern police departments were formed from the former slave catcher departments; and let's face it, modern police are just as loyal to the state and anti-Citizen as they always have been.

It's nice to think that the law will get slapped down, but realistically for the woman that is first captured and deported back to Texas to 'stand trial,' she's got a hell of an uphill battle if she's even captured alive.

With this Supreme Court going in the exact same direction as the rulings that lead up to the civil war, it's not really clear what will happen.

2

RomieTheEeveeChaser t1_ixoys4x wrote

Canadian here. I was taught that that war was entirely about slavery and the U.S did encode it with a single NWS Clause at the end?

2

Ad_Friendly_Anal t1_ixpm5jm wrote

The war was primarily about slavery, but more importantly the attempt from Southern States to codify the legality of slave-catchers in Northern States;

A specific tl;dr is slaves in the South increasingly were able to escape North; as they got to states where they were people, not property, they had all the inalienable rights of free men -- this meant that the state they escaped from could not compel them to return legally.

That did not stop them from trying -- resulting in kidnapping and clashes between local security forces (anything from port authority to sheriffs to the local militia) and slave catchers were becoming increasingly common. The South had one simple ultimatum -- all slaves were to be considered property unless explicitly freed, no matter where they were in the US. They would not budge on this, at all, which pushed Northerners to continue to exert their (at the time) right to secure their state and refuse to work out a 'compromise' federally that left them with less power.

This, along with the thought among the South that just threatening to secede would be enough to to get them to comply (they erroneously thought they contributed more economically and militarily to the US than the North did, so they thought the US would collapse without them), and then the North basically said "fucking do it, pussies." With the federal government really upset with both parties for refusing to compromise on, you know, the definition of a person.

After the South was defeated so badly that their already poor socioeconomics were simply worse than developing colonies at the time there was a compromise on slavery -- the 14th bans slavery except as a punishment for a crime (which is why the modern day south has roughly double the number of inmates as the former North, and also why red states now tend to have a significantly higher non-white prison population than other states).

The federal government also reasserted its dominance in matters related to interstate justice by establishing the first federal prisons shortly after the war, but this is widely considered to be just a way to cash in on federally legal slaves. Officially the federal government handles people that commit a crime in one state and then leave to another state if the law is also a federal crime, like murder; but it is still within each state to recognize out of state warrants for crimes that do not have a federal counterpart, and to that end the federal government does not interfere with those matters (possibly in any way, as in a state cannot compel another to accept a warrant, but the matter at hand, one state sending agents to another to arrest someone without permission of the host state hasn't been tried in a very long time.)

If there is precedence on the matter, it would be in SCOTUS' wheelhouse as, as far as I'm aware, there are no laws at the federal level stopping this -- and with SCOTUS' current makeup being close to that before the civil war, I wouldn't put it past them to basically force the issue into being legal with no recourse, which may result in direct interstate violence.

2

RomieTheEeveeChaser t1_ixppgzq wrote

Ah, thank you for taking the time to make such an informative response I really appreciate it.

This is all really facinating. We don't get a good perspective on all of the little dohikkies of what the South and North of the U.S wanted/their motivations which drove them to war other than one side is pro-slaves and the other not so this was amazing.

I'll admit to being kind of thick so I'm not sure if this was intentional or not on your part but it seems like you're hinting that modern history may be rhyming and within its first stanza with regards to how southern states may be chasing after women getting abortions over state lines in the future mirroring how they chased after their run away slaves in the past. Is this idea a common worry within contemporary American politics and steps are being taken by leadership to avoid it or do you think it's already too far gone and it's going to come to massive arms before a resolution is found?

Sorry, you don't have to answer that but your response was so well written I kind of just got curious. Thank you though~

2

Timely_Position_5015 t1_ixoaw6a wrote

> We fought a civil war last time states tried to enforce laws over state lines

We’ll do it again if we have to.

1

Ad_Friendly_Anal t1_ixobtco wrote

You hope. For any one in a civil war to win you need the active military split or entirely on their side. If Republicans control all three branches at the federal level, the best you can hope for is a split, and even that's pretty unlikely if you've ever talked to an active duty marine or soldier, almost all of whom vote republican until they get out and experience the VA.

1

Timely_Position_5015 t1_ixod0v9 wrote

All will do what they have to do if it comes to that.

0

Ad_Friendly_Anal t1_ixoewbg wrote

Given the increasing number and severity of hate-crime based mass shootings that are actively been praised by right-wing media; People already are.

1

Timely_Position_5015 t1_ixofex6 wrote

We take the high road; we will wait until the correlation is undeniable.

Let’s breathe and keep our eyes wide open.

1

Dufresne85 t1_ixob5gl wrote

That would require a state to deport her, which isn't impossible especially if she was a Texas citizen. But to get the people that helped deported will never happen unless they have other warrants. Even the super conservative states don't want to give authority over their constituents to another state's government. For whomever ends up having to fight that nonsense it'll be a nightmare and legislators who knowingly pass blatantly unconstitutional laws need to be heavily penalized and removed from office.

1

AlexandersWonder t1_ixol8ii wrote

If they tried enforcing that, the law would quickly be slapped down for unconstitutionality. I kind of think they know better than to try for that reason, it’s just political scarecrow with no teeth in that regard. States don’t have the right to legislate citizens of other states. I’m not sure they can even really enforce the law on Texans who get abortion elsewhere. You can’t be arrested in a state where marijuana is illegal because you smoked weed in a legal state, it’s the same idea, well, sort of.

2

Ad_Friendly_Anal t1_ixpmezb wrote

Unconstitutionality, as we have well found out recently starting this whole mess is a meaningless phrase.

SCOTUS determines what is constitutional and what isn't. Not the constitution. Not any other part of the federal government. It takes 2/3rds majority of both houses to remove a SCOTUS judge, so there is effectively no balance of power, so they can decide what they like without any effective possible recourse as long as it aligns with at least one of the two major party platforms.

There is no guarantee, that despite its unconstitutionality, that it will be ruled that way. We've just found out there's no right to privacy in the constitution, and there's no guarantee for anything in our Miranda rights. It turns out quite a lot of things we thought were in the constitution weren't, it was just SCOTUS making up shit, to quote the Robert's court.

2

Liberal-Patriot t1_ixob5if wrote

:rubs temples:

The law you're attempting to reference has no criminal penalty. It's a possible law suit, which hasn't been tested in court.

In short that is a non-threat. It's unenforceable, red meat, appealing to the political base nonsense which is sadly typical of every politician.

A better example is what California does to emissions or safety standards in this country. By forcing companies to adopt THEIR laws, they force the company to change their entire product everywhere...but I digress.

−2

AlexandersWonder t1_ixonfgs wrote

I mean, that’s just capitalism. They aren’t mandating what other states do. They’re only regulating what companies do in their own state. Companies are more than free to just not sell their products in California and then aren’t bound by the regulations in California. But capitalism being capitalism, companies will choose to meet the regulations, because California is one of the largest economies in the world and they stand to make a lot more money by doing business there. And since it’s generally cheaper to make all their products the same instead of specializing a portion of their products for California only, products in other states end up conforming to the regulations incidentally.

The Texas law, on the other hand, is attempting to impose its legislation on other states and the people in them, instead of on companies that are doing business within their borders. The California regulations does not impact the laws and regulations of another state. It does impact how companies behave in other states, but only because they really really want to do business in California and it’s just easier to make all of their products conform to the standard instead of making California-only products just for them. I would maybe compare it with the way that media companies would conform to Chinese censorship in their movies, games, etc, because the Chinese market is absolutely huge and they stood to make an absolute killing by conforming. Companies will always choose to make as much money as they can, and that’s just capitalism. The Texas law is an entirely different beast and it’s probably constitutionally unenforceable for the most part.

1

Liberal-Patriot t1_ixromc6 wrote

That isn't Capitalism at all. Lol. I'm not reading your book when you get it so wrong right of the gate. Is fraud Capitalism? No. Is a Ponzi scheme Capitalism? No sir.

That's California using their market share to bully everyone.

0

mylifeintopieces1 t1_ixpiyk3 wrote

I love how human rights are common and always about everything but we have to be specific about women's rights.

5

AlexandersWonder t1_ixoados wrote

Way to go France! We just did that here in Michigan! Love to see it

4

autotldr t1_ixnbphx wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 69%. (I'm a bot)

> France has moved a step closer to becoming the first country in the world to enshrine abortion as a constitutional right, after lawmakers approved a resolution in the lower house to guarantee access to "The right to voluntarily end a pregnancy".

> Several parties in France, from the left to centrists, began pushing for abortion rights to be written into the constitution after the US supreme court's decision in June to overturn the landmark Roe v Wade ruling, which recognised a woman's constitutional right to an abortion and legalised it nationwide.

> The far-right leader Marine Le Pen, whose National Rally is the biggest single opposition party in parliament, this week called the move "Totally misplaced", arguing that abortion rights were not under threat in France.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: right^#1 abortion^#2 party^#3 France^#4 vote^#5

1

ShadowShamanShaded t1_ixopi3g wrote

For those who are curious, it's worth noting that abortion is still limited to 14 weeks in most regions of France.

−9

likhal t1_ixpf67w wrote

"most regions" we don't have regional laws in France. Its 14 weeks of pregnancy, so 16 after the last periods.

7

Flames57 t1_ixoab28 wrote

technically a bad move* for the left parties.

−15

AlexandersWonder t1_ixokcqa wrote

Why is that? I’m not really knowledgeable about French politics but I’d be interested in hearing about that

6

Flames57 t1_ixpmzin wrote

it's not just for French. You just need to look at the US. When tipically Left policies get added to basic rights, people feel more safer - which is obviously good - but they also feel safer to vote to other sides: center, right, etc.

When basic rights get removed from the constitution, and those same rights become politicized (mostly the right wingers want to weaken them) then people get mobilized to vote against the right.

So in summary, it is in the interest of the Left to keep some rights outside of the constitution and keep them politicized.

Being downvoted.... I'm not saying I agree with it, just summarizing what is logical.

−7

PageK1979 t1_ixp0f6z wrote

What a hideous 'right' to fight for. What a disgusting act to be proud of.

−27

WanderingPickles t1_ixo0jgt wrote

Ah, the right to murder the unborn. Now that’s freedom!

/s

−41

Stranger0nTheWeb t1_ixojfhm wrote

When it's inside a woman's body it's her choice what to do with it. Stop pretending you care about other people's babies/ fetuses and mind your own buisness

16

WanderingPickles t1_ixoluba wrote

Stop pretending you know what I do or do not care about.

This is where we differ; my position is that it is a human being no matter where it is located. Yours is in opposition to that. It is an intractable disagreement.

Where we do agree, I think and hope, is that human life is important.

−23

Stranger0nTheWeb t1_ixonh8s wrote

I never said it wasn't a human, I said so long as it's a part of the mother's body it's her choice of what to do with it. Getting an abortion is alwayse an emergency "something-has-gone-wrong" occasuon wether it be an accidental pregnancy or the wanted fetus is not viable and may be putting the mother in danger. Anti abortion laws hinder life saving procedures.

If you care about life then surely you care that Anti abortion laws kill women

11

Fellowship_9 t1_ixpk8u4 wrote

Hypothetically if a stranger was dying and the only way to save them was for them to be grafted onto your body for 9 months, should the government be able to force you to undergo the procedure to save them?

9