Reproductive Justice in Europe:
What is the state of reproductive justice in Europe? Going beyond the
Pro-Choice and Legality debate
Master of Science in
Political Science- International Relations June 26, 2020
Author:
Mujinga-Clarisse Kombo (12545333) Supervisor:
Dr. Franca van Hooren Second Reader:
Dr. Afsoun Afsahi
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my parents and my brother for their continuous moral support during my studies. I would also like to thank my friends who have made this a memorable experience. My gratitude also goes to my supervisor, Dr. Franca van Hooren, for her continuous help during the completion of this thesis. It was not easy, and some tears were shed in the process. Thank you to Dr. Afsoun Afsahi from the UvA and Béatrice Châteauvert-Gagnon from the University of Montréal, for introducing me to the field of Politics and Gender, it has been a life changing discovery, both on an academic and personal level.
Table of content
List of Abbreviations………4
Tables………..5
1 Introduction ...6
2 Literature review ...9
3 Theoretical Framework ...17
4 Methodology ...21
5 Availability ...26
5.1 Abortion on the EU level ...26
5.2 Abortion laws in Europe ...32
5.3 Typology of countries ...41
5.4 The political actors in the availability debate ...42
6 Accessibility ...47
6.1 Barriers and obstacles to abortion ...47
6.2 Typology of countries ...66
6.3 Political actors in the accessibility debate ...69
7 Conclusion ...72
List of Abbreviations:
CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women CESCR Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
ECHR European Convention on Human Rights ECtHR European Court of Human Rights EU European Union
FRA Fundamental Rights Agency
ICPD International Conference on Population and Conference IPPF International Planned Parenthood Federation
MERJ Migrants and Ethnic Minorities for Reproductive justice NGO Non-governmental organization
PFA Platform for Action PoA Program of Action
RJT Reproductive Justice Theory SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SRHR Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights UN United Nations
Tables:
Table 1………….40
Table 2………….41
Table 3………….68
1 Introduction
Even though abortion has been made widely available in Europe, it is still considered as a controversial topic. The debate is not only addressed in politics but also in numerous academic fields such as political science, international relations, psychology, sociology, law, human rights studies and medicine. The mainstream debate on abortion is today dominated by the pro-choice and the pro-life movements. Pro-choice adherents advocate for giving women the ability to control their own body, hence they do not oppose abortion and put the emphasis on women’s ability to have the choice whether or not to have an abortion. On the other hand, pro-life adherents consider abortion as murder, the murder of the fetus, who is considered a living human being from the moment of its conception.
During the 1990’s in the United States of America, African American feminists claimed that the pro-choice movement did not take every woman into account and demanded for a more inclusive movement. This was the beginning of a new movement: the reproductive justice movement. Contrary to the pro-choice movement, reproductive justice considers itself to be more inclusive as it tries to take an intersectional lens to study reproductive politics and rights. Indeed, reproductive justice does not isolate abortion from other social justice issues such as “economic inequalities, immigrants’ rights, discriminations based on race or sexual orientation, age or disability rights” (Ross 2006, p.14). The goal is of this framework is to address the necessities of different groups of women and to place special emphasis on women who do not have access “to privilege, power and resources.” (Ross 2006, p.19). The criticism voiced against the pro-choice framework, is that not every woman has the choice to decide due to factors such as income, age and legal status that interfere in her decision-making process. Reproductive Justice theorists claim that the availability of abortion does not necessarily translate into accessibility for every woman. Since then, many American academics have dealt with the concept of reproductive justice that distinguishes between availability and accessibility when it comes to reproductive rights. Consequently, the debate on reproductive justice has been dominated by the American context and American politics. There is a gap in the literature when it comes to reproductive justice in Europe. Indeed, one can find isolated cases on reproductive justice in Europe, but there has been no systematic research on the topic. In Europe the debate on abortion is still heavily influenced by the pro-choice and pro-life division. Therefore, the European debate on abortion politics places the
emphasis on legality. Pro-choice adherents are in favor of the legality of abortion in Europe and pro-life adherents oppose the lawfulness of termination of pregnancy. At a time where many ask for more inclusiveness in society, the reproductive justice theory tries to include all the individuals in reproductive politics and give individuals from different backgrounds a seat at the table. The aim of this thesis will therefore be to go beyond the pro-choice and legality debate and to analyze the state of reproductive justice in a European context. Consequently, this research studies if the legality (availability) of abortion necessarily translates into its accessibility. Hence, my research question is: What is the state of reproductive justice in Europe? Furthermore, I have three sub-questions: What is the state of availability of abortion in Europe? What is the state of accessibility of abortion in Europe? Who are the actors in the political debate on abortion? To answer these questions, this research does a cross-national study of 14 European countries (the Netherlands, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Ireland, Great Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Malta). The thesis will start with a literature review to give an overview of the academic contribution on the topic so far and show how this research will contribute to the existing literature. Then, the theoretical framework will present in more detail the reproductive justice theory. After the methodology, I will analyze the state of availability in Europe followed by an analysis of the state of accessibility of abortion in Europe. During the thesis I will show that even though abortion has been made widely available in Europe, this does not translate necessarily into its accessibility, specifically for vulnerable and marginalized groups. Indeed, there are several obstacles that obstruct women’s access to safe and legal abortion. The thesis will conclude with a discussion and try to pinpoint the most important elements of the thesis and emphasize on elements that need further research.
Societal and Academic relevance
Abortion is part of a wider concept called Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR). In the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 5 (UN, SDG n°5), Gender equality, one of the targets is to “ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of
their review conferences” (PoA, 1994). The United Nations therefore states that gender equality can only be achieved if all women have access to SRHR which entails universal access to contraception and abortion care.
Furthermore, the conversation on the topic concerns almost everyone “directly or indirectly”: the legislators create and amend the abortion laws; the politicians are often judged on their stance on abortion; the voters will vote for politicians who defend their ideology concerning abortion; health-care workers decide on conducting or not the abortions and decide on the procedures to take; academics and activists can influence the policy-making process; and teachers and social workers are responsible for the sexual education of the society (Kaczor 2011, p.1).
In the context of abortion, the concept of reproductive justice is also important, as it allows to take a more holistic and inclusive approach to reproductive rights and politics. Indeed, it shows how factors such as socio-economic and cultural inequalities allow some individuals to have “easier access to self-determination and bodily autonomy” concerning abortion rights than others (Higgins 2014, p.240).
2 Literature review
The following literature review will provide both a review of the scholarly contribution that has been made on the debate of abortion and provide an explanation in how this thesis will contribute to the existing literature. Hence it will also show that the concept of reproductive justice has not really been tackled in Europe. Indeed, the debate on the European level is still very much dominated by the pro-choice vs. pro-life framework.
Abortion as a Human Right
From a Health issue to a Human Right
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), every year 25 million unsafe abortions take place in the world (WHO 2019). At least 70 000 women die every year of the complications of unsafe abortion and research has found a significant relation between the legality of abortion and its safety, hence individuals “living in countries with restrictive abortion laws often resort to unsafe abortions, jeopardizing their health” (Zampas and Gher 2008, p.250). Consequently, abortion has growingly been considered a health issue and human rights advocacy in favor of safe abortion has gathered momentum in the last decades (Zampas and Gher 2008). Today most literature addresses abortion as a human right, this change is in part due to the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo which advanced the idea of a human right to (reproductive) health. Indeed, human rights law recognizes that restrictive abortion laws may violate an individual’s right to “freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment” (De Londras and Enright 2018, p.46). Considering abortion as human right rather than just a health issue broadens the scope and takes elements such as power relations and social and economic factors into account. Therefore, the ICPD put the accent both on women’s reproductive health and rights (Porter 2013). Cook and Dickens claim that “the shift in focus to human rights”, is probably one of the most memorable moment abortion law has gone through (Cook and Dickens 2003, p.5).
The International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo
Since the 1990’s, abortion is considered a human right on the international scene, hence the issue has been tackled not only in national courts but also in international human rights courts, such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Indeed, today abortion is part of a wider concept called sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), a concept popularized in 1994, during ICPD in Cairo. The goal of this conference was to find an international agreement on development and population for the next two decades (MacIntosh and Finkle 1995). In this context, emerged the Program of Action which was adopted by 179 countries (PoA 1994). The program’s aim was to encourage governments to reconstruct their policies concerning “population control” and contend with issues such as “the prevention and treatment of unsafe abortion, and above all the empowerment of women” especially in the “developing world” (MacIntosh and Finkle 1995, p.225).
The PoA does not force its signatories to legalize abortion, but calls for abortion, “when it is not against the law”, to be “safe” and “women to have access to quality services” when it comes to abortion (article 8.25). Indeed, during the ICPD there was a shift in focus on the topic of population control. The Program of Action considers the control of the population growth through women’s fertility as “inherently coercive and abusive” and promotes a new model where women are free to choose the “number and the timing of their children” (MacIntosh and Finkle, 1995, p.227). Indeed, especially in the “Global South” in order to control the growth of the population, many women were coerced (in large part by international NGOs) into receiving “injectable contraceptives” and “the vaccine against pregnancy” (Porter 2013, p.138). The ICPD tried to shift from this paradigm, the goal was to “empower” women through not only education, but also the provision of work and the elevation of their status in our society. Instead of interfering in their fertility, women should have access to adequate family planning services (MacIntosh and Finkle 1995, p.227).
Finally, the PoA defines reproductive health as a “complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes” and women should have the ability to have “a satisfying and safe sex life and (..) the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if,
when and how often to do so” (PoA 1994, article 7.2). Furthermore, reproductive rights were defined as “embracing certain human rights that are already recognized in national law” such as the right to education, freedom of expression, and the right to equality (non-discrimination) (Pizzarossa and Perehudoff 2017, 322) (PoA 1994, 7.3). By doing so, the Conference became the first place where SRHR were linked to human rights and gave SRHR more credibility on the national level (Pizzarossa and Perehudoff 2017).
Fourth World Conference on Women
The World Conference on Women in 1995 in Beijing was the fourth UN conference on women. As the ICPD the previous year, the goal was to uplift and reinforce women’s right “as an integral part of the human rights paradigm” (Plattner 1995, p.1249). Hillary Rodham Clinton, then First Lady of the US, set the tone by asserting that “human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights once and for all (…)” (UNDP 1995). Many issues concerning women were addressed as for instance women’s health, specifically women’s reproductive health (Plattner 1995, 1249). The Beijing Conference underlined the definition of reproductive health and rights adopted in the Plan of Action of Cairo and from the Conference emerged the Beijing Declaration and the Beijing Platform for Action. The latter recognizes that the access to health is different both between men and women, and among women due to factors such as social classes and ethnicity (Beijing PFA 1995, article 89). Additionally, compared to the PoA, the PFA goes a step further and encourages governments to eliminate sanctions for women who “have undergone illegal abortions” (De Cruz 2001, p. 416).
Even though resolutions and documents such as the Program of Action, the Beijing Declaration and the Beijing Platform for Action are not legally binding, they are still relevant, because they have become part of the “the historical record of the United Nations, where they are included as recommendations that have been universally endorsed” (MacIntosh and Finkle 1995, p.226). Indeed, these international conferences have “internationally endorsed and legitimized” reproductive health and rights. Consequently, this has reconceptualized abortion as human right on the international scene, restrictive abortion laws are today considered disrespectful and as going against women’s “wish, interest, health, and bodily integrity” (Cook and Dickens 2003, p.12). In this context, the role of international organizations such as the UN are important as they have been
trying to find an international consensus and have been able to change the conceptualization of reproductive rights such as abortion (Cook and Dickens 2003).
The pro-choice vs. pro-life debate
Today the political debate on abortion is divided into two: the people who are in favor of its legalization and the ones who are opposed to it. The former group is part of the pro-choice movement and the latter of the pro-life movement. As Andrea Smith explains, the pro-life position asserts that “the fetus (or embryo)1 is life; hence abortion should be criminalized” (2005, p.121). On the other hand, the pro-choice camp maintains that the embryo/fetus is not life and in consequence a woman should have the power to control her own body (Smith 2005). Moreover, the pro-choice side asserts that legalizing abortion will allow society to attain gender equality as women who control their fertility can “participate equally in the nation’s social, political and economic life” (Borgmann and Weiss 2003). The argument of both medical and individual privacy is also often evoked by the pro-choice party to defend the right to abortion (West et al. 2014). Based on the pro-choice consensus, abortion should be an individual right protected by the constitution and protected against political changes (West and al. 2014). According to pro-choice defenders having the choice “opens doors that otherwise would be closed”, women can wait to have children when they have a secured job or when they are financially stable to support a baby (Borgmann and Weiss 2003).
In this context, Bertha Alvarez Manninen underlines that there is a distinction to be made between the concepts of pro-choice and pro-abortion (2014, 89). In her book she analyzes the different values in the abortion debate in the US through conducted interviews and the language used, based on this, the author notices that the terms pro-choice and pro-abortion are “frequently considered synonymous”, even though they are “vitally different” (Alvarez Manninen 2014, p.89). Indeed, as already mentioned before, the term pro-choice, is about giving women a choice, if they do or do not want to continue their pregnancy, it means “respecting the choice” (Alvarez Manninen 2014, p.90). The term pro-abortion on the other hand, refers to “someone who encourages, and 1 Smith just uses the term fetus, but I use the term fetus and embryo, because there is a distinction to make. Embryo
celebrates abortion, who desires to see women choose it over other options” (Alvarez Manninen 2014, p.90). Forcing women to continue their pregnancy against their will is then considered a human right violation.
The pro-choice ideology emphasizes the need for women to have a choice; the belief is that if abortion is legal, every woman will have the choice and the option to have a safe abortion if she wants to. Choice will give women autonomy over their bodies and allow society to attain gender equality (Smith 2005, Manninen 2014, Borgmann & Weiss 2003).
As Ross and Sollinger explain the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate has “dominated the headlines and mainstream political conflict” (2017, p.1). The conversation on abortion is monopolized by this dichotomy in the political as in the academic sphere. Many academics papers dealing with the issue of abortion especially in Europe look and analyze this dichotomy opposing the camps in favor vs. the camps who oppose abortion. For instance, the (academic) debate on abortion in Poland, where abortion laws count among the most restrictive in Europe, is monopolized by the opposition between pro-choice and pro-life camps. In their article, Paprzycka, Dec-Pietrowska and Lech analyze the stance and language used by the two opposing camps. As the authors explain, in Poland there are the ones defending women’s rights to control their bodies and their reproductive rights relying their arguments on the human rights norms (pro-choice) and the conservative side, heavily influenced by the powerful catholic church of the country, who argue that abortion is murder (2019). The national poll the authors refer to, shows that 38% of Poles are against abortion (pro-life) vs only 18% in favor (pro-choice) (Paprzycka and Dec-Pietrowska 2019). Many other researchers have dived into the subject of abortion in Poland and in Europe in general, always with a focus on the pro-life vs. pro-choice stance (Paprzycka, Dec-Pietrowska and Lech; Jelen and Wilcox; Klugman and Budlender).
This topic is relevant for the thesis, because it shows that abortion is a controversial issue and still divides society. Furthermore, it raises the question of legality of abortion that will play a role in this thesis. The following thesis will go beyond the dichotomy between pro-choice and pro-life as the research will analyze the access women have to abortion and will not solely focus on the debate concerning the legalization of abortion. Indeed, the pro-choice position often comes under
criticism by the reproductive justice theory because it does not take an intersectional approach and presumes that if abortion is legal, all women will automatically have access to it.
Abortion access in the United States
The US represents an interesting case when it comes to the study of abortion. In both activism and literature, one can find a significant shift from the pro-choice framework to the reproductive justice framework. Indeed, the concept of reproductive justice was born in the US and is firmly rooted in the American political and cultural context. Therefore, it is important to look at the American situation when it comes to the difference between availability and accessibility of abortion care.
Marlene Gerber Fried is an American academic focusing her scholarship on “reproductive rights, health and justice” (Hampshire College). In her article she analyzes “the extreme dissonance between the wide availability of abortion and its inaccessibility to women on the social and economic margins” in the US (2000, p.177). She explains that abortion has been legalized in 1973 in the US, after the famous Roe vs. Wade judgement. However, since then, many anti-choice forces have been trying to undercut this right. Consequently, restrictive laws, policies and practices have limited the access to abortion care for women, especially “low-income women, women of color and young women” (Fried 2000, p.178).
Factors such as class, race and age do play a role when it comes to the access of abortion care in the US. Moreover, the American private health care system has had a negative impact when it comes to accessibility. Indeed, in 2000, 37 million Americans did not have a health insurance among them were 9 million women who were in “childbearing age”. Moreover, one third of health insurances do not cover abortion, and one third of women do not benefit from “employment-linked health insurance” (Fried 2000, p.179). Last but not least, Medicaid, a federal and state funded program that provides health care for low income people for “necessary medical services”, does not cover abortion (Fried 2000, p.180). As class is often racialized, many women of color (Black and Latina) are more likely to be low-income and to benefit from Medicaid. About 24% of Latina
women and 30% of Black women are registered for Medicaid in contrast to only 14% of White women (Planned Parenthood). This is due to the huge wealth gap between white women and women of color. In consequence, even though abortion is available in the US, it is not always accessible, especially to low-income women, and women of color as they do have to pay the medical procedure with their own money, without financial aid on the federal or state level.
Furthermore, although abortion is legal, it is not always within reach. Fried underlines that 9 out of 10 abortion providers in the US are today located in metropolitan areas hence approximately 25% of women seeking an abortion have to drive for about 80 km to the nearest abortion provider (2000). This makes the access difficult for women who do not have a driving license and a car, especially for adolescents under the age of 16 and for low-income women who cannot afford a car. Another barrier for accessing abortion can be age. In the US 39 out of the 50 states require underaged girls to have the authorization of their parents to have an abortion (Fried 2000). Consequently, girls who are under 18 do not have their bodily integrity and are dependent on their parents’ approval which can be an obstacle to receive abortion care.
Taking a simple pro-choice perspective in these cases is not sufficient, because even though the law is theoretically on women’s side, in practice there are huge discrepancies in access and certain women are more impacted than others (Fried 2000). This is why in 1994, Loretta Ross and 11 other Black feminists, called Women of African Descent for Reproductive Justice created the reproductive justice framework during a pro-choice conference in Chicago that was organized in reaction to President Clinton’s health care reform which was not taking women’s reproductive health into consideration (Ross and Solinger 2017). For the 12 Black feminists present at the conference it was important to redefine reproductive rights and to put themselves at the center of the debate, as they thought they had been ignored so far (Ross et al. 2004). Indeed, they believed “that the women’s rights movement, led by and representing middle class and wealthy white women, could not defend the needs of women of color and other marginalized women and trans* people” (SisterSong). The new reproductive justice lens started to explicate how different people “experience reproductive capacity according to multiple intersecting factors including their class, race, gender, sexuality, status of their health, and access to health care” (Ross and Solinger 2017, p.66). As Ross claims, women of color’s ability to control their body “is constantly challenged by
poverty, racism, sexism (..) and injustice in the United States” (Ross et al. 2004, p.43). The starting point for reproductive justice in the USA was therefore race and all the factors it can bring with itself, the concept has since then been broadened and encompasses many different factors.
Conclusion
On the international scene, abortion is today regarded as a human right. On the national, the discussion on abortion is still dominated by the mainstream pro-life versus pro-choice debate. This field of study usually concentrates its research on the legality of abortion, and rarely takes an intersectional approach and barely systematically studies the impact of the law and practices on women’s access to abortion, especially in a European context (Berer 201; Simon 1998; Machteld 1990). Indeed, in the United Sates, since the end of the 1990’s, there has been a shift in focus from the pro-choice paradigm to the reproductive justice lens. The reproductive justice framework considers itself to be more inclusive. It takes an intersectional and human rights lens and studies how the availability de jure does not translate into its accessibility de facto. The literature on reproductive justice is mainly focused on the United States (Ross and Solinger 2017; West et al. 2014; Luna and Luker 2013; Smith 2005). When it comes to the European context, we can find isolated academic texts, but there is no systematic study that has been done so far, this will therefore be the aim of this research.
3 Theoretical Framework
For my theoretical framework I will use the reproductive justice theory (RJT). The latter analyzes the unequal access to sexual and reproductive rights for women. The RJT takes an intersectional approach, that is why I will start with an introduction on intersectionality. I will then continue with the RJT.
Intersectionality
First, I will briefly tackle the theory of intersectionality in order to make the following segment on reproductive justice theory more comprehensive.
The term intersectionality was coined in 1989 by Kimberlé Crenshaw. She used the term to underline “the various ways in which race and gender interact to shape the multiple dimensions” of Black women’s lives (1991, 1244). Indeed, Crenshaw tried to illustrate how Black women in the US were simultaneously marginalized in feminist and in anti-racism movements and politics (Crenshaw et al. 2013, 303). They were marginalized in women’s movements, because they were black and marginalized in the anti-racism movement, because they were women. In her book Black Feminist Thought, Patricia Hill Collins explains how Black women find themselves in the intersection of “gender, race, class and sexuality” (1990, 22). Indeed, a Black woman does not only face discrimination because of her gender, but also because of her race.
Today the theory of intersectionality has been broadened and captures a wide “range of issues and social identities” (Crenshaw et al. 2013, p.304). Indeed, the concept is not limited to Black women’s experience anymore and encompasses a variety of different characteristics (class, sexual orientation, religion, education, legal status etc.) and still underlines how these characteristics can intersect with each other and lead to a specific way of marginalization. Intersectionality has become a tool to analyze the complexity of the human experience. For instance, when it comes to social inequalities, people’s experiences are more comprehensive “as being shaped not by a single axis of social division, be it race or gender or class, but by many axes that work together and influence each other” (Hill Collins and Bilge 2016, p.22). In other words, when a person is facing
inequalities it is often due to many characteristics that work together and shape a person’s experience. For instance, in a country where abortion is illegal, a woman faces discrimination against her gender. However, a woman who has enough financial resources will be able to travel to another state to receive an abortion. On the other hand, a woman who lacks the necessary financial resources, will not be able to travel to another state. Consequently, in this experience, gender is not the only axis, but other characteristics like social class will come into play too and shape a woman’s experience on her quest to abortion care. Without taking an intersectional approach the following analysis is not possible. The intersectional lens allows to realize that people, in this case women, do not form a “homogenous, undifferentiated” group and it explains how factors such as race, class, legal status, sexual orientation, nationality can work together and shape someone’s experience and “position (people) differently in the world” (Hill Collins and Bilge 2016, p.49). The intersectional approach shows that the issue of sexual and reproductive health and rights is not only gendered but encloses many more factors.
Reproductive Justice Theory
The term “reproductive justice” was coined in the 1990’s by Loretta J. Ross and 11 other African American feminists. The concept was born in the U.S. and is strongly rooted in the theory of intersectionality and the theory of human rights (Ross and Solinger 2017). The concept needs to be understood in its American context, where it was countermovement. Indeed, there was a feeling among African American feminists that reproductive politics did not take factors such as race and class into consideration (Ross and Solinger 2017).
Ross and Solinger define reproductive justice theory (RJT) as a “contemporary framework for activism and thinking about the experience of reproduction” (2017, p.9). It lies on three principles: “(1) the right not to have a child, (2) the right to have a child, (3) the right to parent children in safe and healthy environments.” (2017, 9).
As mentioned previously, the reproductive justice theory is rooted in the theory of human rights. Consequently, the human rights analysis of RJT rests on the claim that the intrusion in the well-being of reproductive people is a “blow against their humanity” and preventing this intrusion is a way to protect their human rights (Ross and Solinger 2017, p.10). The intersectional analysis of RJT rests on the fact that RJP pays attention to laws, policies and practices that are based on
“racial, gender and class prejudices” (Ross and Solinger 2017, p.10). In other words, RJT is aware of how different laws, policies and practices can affect people differently depending on their race, class and gender. As Fried explains in 1976 the American Congress passed an amendment that banned federal Medicaid funding for abortion and many states followed by banning state aid. The result was that poor women, disproportionately women of color, saw their abortion access evaporate” (2017, p.143). Indeed, many of them did not and do not have the financial resources to afford an abortion without the government’s help. Here the author stresses the difference between availability and access. In 1976, abortion became legal and available in the US, but it was not accessible to everyone, women who did not have the resources (e.g. financial), did not have access. That is why Fried claims that “women must have the resources necessary to turn their rights into realities” (2017, p.144). As reproductive justice theory takes an intersectional approach it shows that people do not have an equal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights. Fried explains that Black women in the U.S. complained about the fact that reproductive activism did not take an intersectional approach after the Roe vs. Wade judgment (2017). Therefore, Ross and Solinger claim that the debate of reproductive justice is different from the pro-choice/pro-life debates that “have dominated the headlines and mainstream political conflict for so long” (2017, p.1). Indeed, putting the focus on choice, as the pro-choice framework does, suggests that if abortion is legal, it is accessible to everyone, which is not the case (Thompson 2017). Indeed, taking an intersectional approach as RJT does, shows that the accessibility to abortion is still unequal among women.
In the book Radical Reproductive Justice: Foundation, Theory, Practice, Critique, Beverly Yuen Thompson explains the dichotomy between availability and accessibility, through a negative and positive liberty framework. She explains that the (American) government presents a “negative liberty”, when it comes to abortion. In other words, abortion is “free from legal restrictions”, it is “available” (2017, p.251). This in contrast with “positive liberty” that wants to ensure that abortion is “accessible for all” (Thompson 2017, p.251). In mainstream politics it is often thought that if abortion is legal/available, it can “be chosen by any woman”, but as Thompson underlines “this is only the case for women who have the necessary resources” and these resources can be different in origin, for instance financial, legal or educational (2017, p.252). The author gives several examples that do illustrate the obstacles women can face in order to get an abortion: (In this context, it is important again to keep in mind that the author talks from an American perspective.)
In the USA, “9 out of 10 abortion providers are located” in cities, women who live in rural areas do often have to drive (if they have a license and a car) for long hours to get to an abortion provider (Thompson 2017, 252). Then, there are often “mandatory-waiting-periods”, which means that women are restricted by time and this varies considerably depending on the states (USA again). Last but not least, as Thompson explains many obstetricians/gynecologists (OB/GYN) in the US are rarely taught the abortion procedure in their “residency programs” and are therefore not able to conduct an abortion (2017). She concludes that the “narrow focus on choice has consistently overlooked the reality of access many women face” (2017, p.252).
This why RJT goes beyond the legal framework and beyond the pro-choice debate. Indeed, as Solinger explains taking a human rights approach and talking about rights is more accurate, because everyone is entitled to human rights. The concept of choice on the other hand, is often related to the “possession of resources” (Smith 2005, 128) (Solinger 2001). As a consequence, as Andrea Smith explains, in a capitalist society, women who have more resources (e.g. financial), have more choices (2005). The theory, therefore, contributes to a more holistic and inclusive view of reproductive rights.
4 Methodology
First, it is important to note, that the reproductive justice theory does not only concentrate on abortion or contraption. Indeed, RJT asserts that individuals should have “(1) the right not to have a child, (2) the right to have a child, (3) the right to parent children in safe and healthy environments.” (Ross and Solinger 2017, p.9). In the context of point (1) points out to abortion but also contraception. Points (2) and (3) make reference to individuals who have been forced to abortion or sterilization against their will. Mobley mentions Jewish women who underwent forced abortion on grounds of eugenics, the same goes for African American women in the US and women in “developing countries” (2006, p.22). However, for the following thesis, my focus will lie solely on abortion within the reproductive justice framework.
Assessment of availability and accessibility of abortion care
As we have seen in previous chapters, RJT underlines how factors such as socio-economic and cultural inequalities allow some individuals to have “easier access to self-determination and bodily autonomy” than others (Higgins 2014, p.240). Consequently, RJT tries to assess accessibility of reproductive rights and distinguishes between legality (availability) and accessibility. RJT has no clear predefined model to assess these two concepts. This is why for this research, I decided to use the definition used by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) of the UN to comment article 12 on “the right to the highest attainable standard of health” of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UN 2000). The normative comment of the CESCR does not mention abortion specifically. However, it talks about goods and services related to health and as we have seen in the literature review abortion has been considered as a health issue by the UN, thereafter, these recommendations do apply to abortion as well. Furthermore, the criteria used by CESCR align with the existing literature on reproductive justice.
According to the CESCR’s definition, abortion is considered available when it is legal (UN 2000, article 12). When it comes to accessibility, there are four dimensions to consider. (1) Abortion is considered accessible when the service and good is non-discriminatory, especially to vulnerable and marginalized part of the population. (2) Then abortion is considered accessible
when it is physically accessible, in other words abortion should be “within safe physical reach for all section of the population” even in rural areas, especially for marginalized and vulnerable people, such as ethnic minorities, women and people with physical disabilities (UN 2000, article 12). (3) Furthermore, abortion is considered accessible when it is affordable for the population, specifically for “socially disadvantaged groups” (UN 2000, article 12). Poorer groups should not be “disproportionally be burdened by health expenses” compared to their richer counterparts. (4) Last but not least, information should also be accessible for all. Everyone should have the right to “seek, receive and impart” information related to abortion (UN 2000, article 12).
Data Collection and processing
To analyze how this dichotomy between availability and accessibility translates into practice, I use secondary literature. On the one hand, for the study of availability (legality), I worked mainly with legal documents (abortion bills, Criminal Codes). On the other hand, for the study of accessibility, I made use of academic papers, newspapers (e.g. The Guardian), legal texts, and studies conducted by international organizations and NGOs. I focused my study on secondary literature that concentrates on Europe and reproductive health, rights and politics but also on concepts such as intersectionality. Then, I analyzed the existing literature, brought it together and synthesized it.
Furthermore, I conducted interviews to find out further information that were not necessarily available in the secondary literature. Furthermore, as the topic of reproductive justice underlines the discrepancies between theory (availability) and practice (accessibility), it was important to have the expertise/testimonies of people working or/and studying the field. I chose to conduct semi-structured interviews as they allowed me to address specific topics while also allow the appearance of new issues and/or topics (Wilson 2013).Additionally, semi-structured interviews are perfectly suited for “small-scale research”, as they are very flexible and allow interviewees to express themselves more freely (Drever 1995). Consequently, my interviewees were able to raise issues that I had not think of and not find in secondary literature. The interviews were conducted both on Zoom and by phone. There was no face to face interview, as all of them were conducted in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, hence traveling and meeting in person was not possible during this time. All interviews were recorded with my phone (with the consent of the
interviewees), and then transcribed and labelled in relevant sections (repeated concepts, words, sentences). These were then grouped into themes. Some themes came up repeatedly, therefore, I created a hierarchy of themes.
Conducted interviews:
Interview 1 Legal advisor Center for
Reproductive Rights
Interview 2 Volunteer Ciocia Basia
Interview 3 Volunteer Abortion Network
Amsterdam (ANA)
Interview 4 Journalist France Inter
Interview 5 Project Manager CESAS
(National Center for the promotion of
sexual and reproductive health)
(1) The Center of Reproductive Rights is an international NGO with offices in Africa, Latina America, North America and Europe. The goal of the Center is to advance gender equality by defending individual’s access to contraception and abortion care. The center regroups attorneys who plead in front of both national and international courts in order to contribute to the adoption of inclusive laws that guarantee the access to contraception and abortion services (interview 1; 2020). Additionally, the Center engages with policymakers and also conducts research on the issue. I was able to interview a legal advisor of the Center who focuses on Europe. (2) Ciocia Basia is Polish/German NGO that helps individuals from Poland to receive safe and legal abortions in Germany. Their expertise lies primarily on Poland and Germany. (3) Abortion Network Amsterdam (ANA) is a Dutch NGO that helps women from all over the world to get safe and legal abortion care in the Netherlands. For both NGOs, I interviewed a volunteer from the organization. (4) Furthermore, I interviewed a journalist based in Paris, she has conducted several interviews on the accessibility of abortion in Europe, specifically in Poland, Ireland and Luxembourg. Last but not least, I interviewed a project manager at the (5) CESAS, the Luxembourgish Center for the Promotion of Sexual and Reproductive Health.
Choice of countries
My thesis consists of a cross-national study. I chose 14 European countries (Malta, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Poland, Slovakia, Luxembourg, Ireland, France, Great Britain, the Netherlands Germany, Sweden and Denmark). There are multiple reasons for my selection of countries. First, I tried to have a representation of the different European regions. Indeed, I included Scandinavian countries, but also Western, Southern, Eastern and Central European countries. Furthermore, I used large countries such as France and Germany, but also small countries such as Luxembourg and Malta, which is a microstate. I also decided to include countries with different political and religious backgrounds. For example, Poland and Slovakia are former communist countries and have only changed their political and economic model in the beginning of the 1990’s. When it comes to religion, I selected countries with different relationships to the Church. France, for instance, is famous for being an openly secular country. On the other hand, Italy, even though it is a secular state, has still a deep connection to the Catholic Church. Additionally, the diversity of the population was also taken into account during the selection of the countries. Sweden’s immigrant population accounted in 2016 for 16% of the overall population (Larsson et al. 2016, 14). In Poland, on the other hand, immigrants account for only 1% of the population (Kafkadesk 2019).
Moreover, when it comes to abortion care, I tried to have countries with different regulations. The aim was to have a representation of extremes and everything in between. For instance, in the Netherlands abortion care on request is legal until the 24th week of pregnancy. In Malta, on the other hand, abortion is forbidden under any circumstance. Additionally, I chose countries with different time regulations, as we have seen in the Netherlands, abortion care can be sought until the 24th week, in Portugal this is only possible until the 10th week. The aim was to have different countries in order to perhaps find patterns.
Language
As I have mentioned previously, my thesis will use the reproductive justice theory. The goal of this theory is to be the as inclusive as possible and to include all the individuals in the debate of reproductive politics. In this context, the language is important, in my research, I use both the term “women”, but also “individuals”. Indeed, women are not the only ones who can get pregnant, I am here thinking of transmen. On the other hand, some women are biologically not able to get pregnant as for instance transwomen. However, in some instances, I believe that it is important to use the term women as it is an issue that concerns them particularly, because of their biological and reproductive features. Furthermore, the lack of abortion availability is often due to a long history of sex discrimination.
Covid-19
Some interviews were cancelled due to the pandemic, as the latter completely changed the situation for many potential interviewees. For instance, due to the circumstances, many Planned Parenthood organizations in Europe were not available for interviews. Indeed, many health care providers had to reconfigure their job and interviews in March and April were not convenient for them. Furthermore, in many organizations and NGOs the number of members of staff was reduced, consequently some people who had accepted to be interviewed, cancelled during the outbreak of the pandemic.
5 Availability
This next chapter will focus on the state of availability of abortion in Europe, which means on the legality of abortion care in Europe. As mentioned before, this thesis is a cross-national study of 12 countries. Consequently, I will analyze the lawfulness of termination of pregnancy in these 12 countries. However, as all the countries in my study are part of the European Union, I will first analyze the regulation on the EU level. Indeed, if there is a common regulation laid out by the EU, member states need to apply it in their country. It is therefore interesting to look at the EU level first. Then, I will continue with the regulations in the different countries and try to categorize the states into groups. Finally, I will study the political actors who have played a role in the debate on legality of abortion in Europe. To conclude, this chapter will give an overview of the information collected.
5.1 Abortion on the EU level
The EU and SRHR within its borders
In 1957, six countries (France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Italy) signed the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community. The treaty does not mention human rights because as the name indicates, the community was purely based on economic interests (Du Bois 2007). Indeed, as Miller explains, the EU was founded “primarily for economic reasons” (1999, p.198). However, 35 years later, in 1992, the Treaty of Maastricht was signed, and the question of human rights appeared for the first time on the EU level. Indeed, Miller evokes the clause F of the treaty which reads: “The Union shall respect fundamental rights” (1999, p.200). The “fundamental rights” the EU refers to here, are the rights granted by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms today known as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (Treaty of Maastricht, article F).
Since then, the EU has fixed itself the goal to “protect the fundamental human rights for EU citizens, and (..) promote human rights worldwide” (European Union)2. Moreover, gender equality has become an issue addressed and tackled by the EU through several reports, but also directives, “a legislative act EU states must achieve” on their own terms (EU law definition)3. Indeed, through directives such as Directive 2004/113/EC “which implements the principle of equal treatment between men and women in access to and the supply of goods and services”, the EU has tried to achieve gender equality (European Commission 2008, p.13). It is the first EU directive that recognizes that sex discrimination can happen outside of the workplace and demands people who supply good and services to not discriminate on the grounds of sex (European Commission 2008). Many feminist scholars assert that the EU has become an “an increasingly important arena for gender equality policy-making.” (Liebert 2003, p.188).
The EU was also present during the Cairo Conference in 1994 and the Beijing Conference of Women in 1995. After the Beijing Conference Ms. Cristina Alberdi, who then occupied the presidency of EU Council, stated “on behalf of the EU”:
“The European Union wishes to express its firm belief in the importance of promoting sexual and reproductive health for women and men (..). The European Union reaffirms its commitment to ensure the full enjoyment by women and the girl child of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including their sexual and reproductive rights, and to take effective action against violations of these rights and freedoms.” (EU, 1995)
However, the decision-making power concerning SRHR was deferred to the member states and the EU had no legal competence on this issue (1999). A turning point came in 2013, when the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) and Portuguese Member of Parliament, Edite Estrela, presented to the European Parliament, “The Report on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights”, also known as the Estrela Report (Hentges et al 2017, p.194). The aim of the latter was to demand EU member states to guarantee their citizens, without discrimination, legal access to information on SRHR, modern contraception and abortion care if necessary (Hentges et al 2017). The Estrela report underlines that abortion is not a method of
contraception but recognizes that some individuals might still need it. Furthermore, the report asked member states to guarantee its citizens sex education in respect with different sexualities and different genders in mind (Hentges et al 2017). The European Parliament recognized SRHR as human right and their importance. However, it rejected the report, claiming that it was on member states to implement SRHR in their policies and this without the intervention of European institutions (Hentges et al 2017). The adoption of the report would have been a stepping stone to harmonize European laws on SRHR and consequently to harmonize abortion laws in the EU. Nevertheless, this has not been the case and SRHR and abortion were left in the sole hands of the member states.
The EU and SRHR outside its borders
On the other hand, outside its borders, the EU has not only been promoting, but also financing SRHR. In this context, the New European Consensus on Development (2017), inspired by the 2005 edition, constitutes the EU’s objectives concerning development. In article 34 of the document, the EU reiterates its commitment “to the promotion, protection and fulfilment of the right of every individual to have full control over, and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality and sexual and reproductive health” and underlines the “need for universal access to quality and affordable comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information, education, including comprehensive sexuality education, and health-care services” in developing countries (EU 2017).
Moreover, through some of its Regulations, the EU has created a legal tradition when it comes to the promotion and funding of SRHR in developing countries. For instance, in Regulation (EC) No 1567/2003, the European Parliament and the Council, express their concerns on the state of “reproductive and sexual health conditions of women and men (…) in developing countries”, due in part to “the lack of a full range of safe and reliable reproductive and sexual health care and services, supplies and information” ((1), 2003). Furthermore, in the4 same regulation, the EU commits to “provide financial assistance and appropriate expertise with a view to promoting a holistic approach to, and the recognition of, reproductive and sexual health and rights as defined in the ICPD Programme of Action” to the poorest countries in the developing world (article 1 (2),
2003). The Regulation underlines, as did the ICPD and the Estrela report, that abortion is not a method of contraception ((16), 2003).
In 2017, Member of Parliament (MP), Louis Michel, asked a parliamentary question on “the right to abortion in developing countries”.4 Indeed, as President Trump decided to cut financial aid to international NGOs helping women to receive abortion care, the European MP was wondering how the Commission would “compensate for this shortfall”5. On this, the Commission responded that it was dedicated to SRHR and trying to assess how to “mobilize additional funding” due to the American financial cut.6
Moreover, when it comes to financial aid, In 2017 the “Annual Report on the implementation of the European Union's instruments for financing external actions in 2016”, stated that the EU institutions had spent 33 million Euros to African, Caribbean, and Pacific states on “population policies/programs and reproductive health” (Countdown2030 2018).
Conclusion
To conclude, one can notice a clear distinction between the EU’s role within its borders and its actions outside its borders when it comes to SRHR. Indeed, within its borders, the EU institutions claim that reproductive health and rights are a competence of the member states and do not wish to interfere in national politics. On the other hands, in developing countries, the EU does not only promote SRHR, but also offers financial help. The reasons mentioned for this intervention are gender equality and human rights.
4 Parliamentary questions: “Question for written answer E-001401-17 to the Commission Rule 130.”
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2017-001401_EN.html.
5 Idem.
6 Parliamentary questions: “Answer given by Mr. Mimica on behalf of the Commission, Question reference:
The European Court of Human Rights
The European Court of Human rights (ECtHR) is an international Court which controls appeals made by states or individuals concerning the violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the same convention mentioned by the Treaty of Maastricht of the EU. The ECHR does not guarantee the right to abortion, but some articles are often invoked in this context: article 2 on the “right to life”, article 8 on “the right to respect for private and family life” and article 14 on the “prohibition of discrimination” (ECHR). The following section will analyze two landmark cases on abortion which were presented to the Court.
Tysiąc v. Poland
In 2000, Alicja Tysiąc, a Polish citizen, got pregnant. However, there was a risk that the pregnancy could lead to the complete loss of her eyesight, therefore, she sought an abortion in her country. The risk was also observed by three ophthalmologists, however, they refused to hand her a certificate that would made her eligible for abortion care on medical grounds. Finally, she found one medical provider who issued her a certificate on therapeutic grounds. However, when Ms. Tysiąc arrived at the clinic for the abortion procedure, the gynecologist did not recognize any medical reason to conduct an abortion.
The ECtHR considers that under article 8 of the Convention, states have to respect the bodily integrity of pregnant women and as abortion is allowed for medical reasons in Poland, the country should ensure that women have the accessibility of abortion care in these cases. Secondly, the Court issued that Poland had to find a solution in case of disagreement between medical providers and patients. Finally, the court found that the Polish Sate had not protected Ms. Tysiąc’s private life and had breached article 8 of the convention (ECtHR) by not guaranteeing the complainant safe abortion in an instance where it was legal (ECtHR).
A, B, C vs. Ireland
In A, B, C vs. Ireland, two Irish women and one Lithuanian woman complained before the Courts, because abortion was illegal in Ireland, and they had to travel abroad to receive safe and legal abortion care. At their return, the three women complained of medical complications due to
the abortion procedure. The complainants affirmed that traveling abroad was a humiliating, and traumatic experience and therefore breached article 2 on “right to life” and article 8 on “the right to private life” of the Convention. Furthermore, the plaintiffs asserted that travelling abroad was expensive (especially for low-income women) and “excessive”. The three women also invoked article 14, “prohibition of discrimination”, as they claimed that this was a burden they had to bear because of their sex.
The Court decided that article 2 was not breached, because even though travelling abroad was expensive for some women, there was no legal obstacle to do so. Furthermore, the complications due to the abortion procedures were not life-threatening. Then, the Court stated that article 8 of the Convention did not guarantee a right to abortion care and consequently, the national Irish law prevailed. Therefore, the request of applicants A and B was refused. However, the Court judged that the Irish law breached article 8 for the third applicant. Indeed, applicant C was scarred her cancer would reappear as a consequence of her pregnancy, but she had no access on information to know whether she was eligible for legal abortion or not in Ireland (ECtHR). The Court decided the Irish state had failed to ensure the accessibility of relevant information.
Conclusion
As illustrated in these two examples, the ECHR does not guarantee the right to legal abortion. Moreover, the ECtHR does not promote the liberalization of abortion care nor does it condemn member states for prohibiting the termination of pregnancy. However, once states legalize abortion, the Court requests the countries to ensure women’s access to abortion services. Indeed, as seen in Tysiąc v. Poland, the Court condemned Poland as the complainant was refused abortion care on medical grounds, even though it is legal in this instance. On the other hand, in the case, A, B, C vs. Ireland, the Court refused the complain of the complainants as abortion on request was (at that time) illegal in Ireland.
Moreover, as we have seen previously, SRHR has not become a competence of the EU Consequently, every member state can decide its own legislation on the availability of abortion care. Therefore, there are no harmonized abortion laws in the EU. Hence, in the following section, I will analyze the different abortion laws in Europe and their history. I will start with Scandinavian
countries, followed by Western and Southern European countries to finally finish with Central/Eastern European states.
5.2 Abortion laws in Europe
Scandinavia
SwedenSweden has had a long history of abortion politics. The first abortion act came out in 1938 and allowed abortion on “humanitarian grounds” which meant in case of rape, incest or hereditary diseases (Knudsen et al. 2003). Throughout the years the act has been revised and grounds such as fetal anomality and socio-economic grounds were added. The latter could be invoked if a woman was too young or too poor to have child (1960s) (Knudsen et al. 2003). At that time this law became one of the most liberal and women from abroad (USA) travelled to Sweden to receive abortion care (Radio Sweden 2015). The current legislation is based on the Abortion Act 1975, which allows women to access abortion on request until the 18th week of pregnancy (Knudsen et al. 2003).
Denmark
In Denmark abortion was authorized in 1939 for medical reasons or in case of rape. The 1970 Abortion Act allowed women who were at least 38 years old and who had at least four kids to have an abortion on request until the 12th week of pregnancy (Knudsen et al. 2003). The 1973 Abortion Act, which is still in place today introduced abortion on request for all women over the age of 18 during the first trimester (Knudsen et al. 2003).
Western Europe
LuxembourgIn Luxembourg abortion on request was only made available in 2014. This law, now included in the Public Health Code, decriminalized the act of termination of pregnancy and allows women to have an abortion until the 12th week of pregnancy (Loi du 17 décembre 2014). Moreover, it has overhauled the 2012 law, which permitted abortion services only on grounds of distress, and the1978 law. The latter prohibited medical providers to conduct abortions and women to receive abortion care, unless the pregnancy represented a danger to the health of the woman (loi du 15 novembre 1978).
Germany
The German Criminal Code was written in 1871, and the paragraph on abortion was then characterized by a total prohibition of abortion. In 1926, the socialists and communists tried to legalize abortion during the 3 first months of pregnancy, as they claimed that the complete prohibition was mostly affecting working- class women who did not have the financial resources for safe backstreet abortions (Pro Familia 2017). Therefore, in 1927, abortion was allowed if the health of the mother was in danger. Later, in Nazi Germany, abortions were conducted on grounds of eugenics, specifically on Jewish women. After WWII, abortion laws were decriminalized and allowed abortion on broad socio-economic grounds in Eastern Germany governed by a Communist govergovernment (Pro Familia 2017).
In West Germany, the debate started in the 1960s with feminist movements demanding safe and legal abortions (Pro Familia 2017). One major event was an article published by Stern magazine, in which over 350 German women admitted having had an abortion. This showed mainstream media that even though abortion was illegal in the country, women still found a way to have an abortion either illegally in Germany or legally abroad (Pro Familia 2017). In 1974, the social government of Willy Brandt tried to pass a bill that would allow legal abortion on request during the first three months of pregnancy (Kacher 1995). However, the Constitutional Court in
Karlruhe judged this bill unconstitutional in regard to article 2 of the Constitution, which ensures “the right to life (..) including to the unborn” (Kacher 1995, p.149). Finally, the same year, a compromise was found and the Bundestag (Parliament) voted in favor of a “deadline solution” that allowed women to have the right to safe and legal abortion within a determined time frame. After the reunification of Germany, Eastern Germany adhered to the laws of West Germany, even though these were more restrictive (Kacher 1995).
Today, in Germany, the termination of pregnancy is still regulated by the Criminal Code, as it is still considered a crime except on a few instances enumerated in § 218a. Individuals are allowed to get access to abortion care on request until the 12th week of pregnancy (StGB §218a).
France
Abortion was legalized and decriminalized in 1975 in France. Today, women are allowed to have an abortion until the 12th week of their pregnancy, if the procedure is conducted by a medical provider (article L-2212-1). The law was presented and defended by the then minister of health and feminist, Simone Veil, and is today also known as the law Veil. Before the law Veil, the abortion politics were governed by the law of 31st of July1920, which banned “provoked abortion” and “contraceptive propaganda” (Pavard 2014, p.2). The legislation came after years of protests and demands from feminist movements. In this context, the French Movement for Planned Parenthood played a considerable role by trying to promote contraceptives and opening up the debate on abortion in France. The goal was to broaden the grounds on which safe and legal abortions could be requested. The movement started lobbying politicians for a law reform (Pavard 2014). Later then, emerged the Movement for the Liberation of Women which published, like in Germany, an article in which over 340 French women admitted having had an abortion either illegally in France or legally abroad. The whole movement then used the slogan “a child, if I want and when I want”.
The Netherlands
In 1911 a Dutch abortion law passed and qualified the procedure as a “crime against morality” (Ketting and Schnabel 1980, p.385). Then in the 1960s family planning became popular
due to the introduction of the abortion pill in 1964. The new belief was then that if women used the abortion pill, there would be no need for abortion care in the country (Ketting and Schnabel 1980). Nevertheless, medical providers quickly had to realize that even with the use of contraceptives, an unwanted pregnancy was never excluded (Ketting and Schnabel 1980). The first abortion clinic then opened in 1971, there was no clear consensus at the time, but the idea was that an abortion conducted by a medical provider in an appropriate setting “was considered to be medically acceptable” (Ketting and Schnabel 1980, p.387). Many French and German women, who could afford it, then traveled to Netherlands to receive abortion care. However, it took 10 more years for abortion to be legalized as it was necessary to find a consensus between the socialist-led government and the Christian democrats, who opposed second trimester abortions and wanted to close the clinics (Kennedy 2017). However, abortion activists occupied abortion clinics which let the government to pass the Abortion Act of 1981, the law has been into effect since 1984 and allowes abortion until the 24th week on request (Government of the Netherlands). This is to today the longest period to receive abortion care in the EU, but as in Germany, abortion is still inscribed in the Dutch Criminal Code.
Great Britain
Abortion in Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) is governed by the Abortion Act 1967. This legal tradition allows individuals to get access to abortion services until the 24th week of pregnancy on broad socio-economic grounds7 (“if continuance of pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated”) (Abortion Act 1967). The Act came in the 1960s, at a time when extensive “backstreet abortions resulted in significant maternal mortality and morbidity” (Sheldon and Wellings 2019, p.7). As Sheldon and Wellings explain today one in three women in Great Britain will have an abortion and the procedure has been growingly accepted throughout Great Britain (2019). However, contrary to countries such as France, abortion has not
7Countries which allow abortion on broad socio-economic grounds “have laws that are generally interpreted liberally to permit abortion under a broad range of circumstances”, factors such as the environment and “social economic circumstances” are taken into account. (Center for Reproductive Rights) https://reproductiverights.org/law-and-policy-guide-broad-social-or-economic-grounds.
