Proposition 54K3216

Projet de loi relative à l'interruption volontaire de grossesse, abrogeant les articles 350 et 351 du Code pénal et modifiant les articles 352 et 383 du même Code et modifiant diverses dispositions législatives.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Els Van Hoof
MR David Clarinval
N-VA Valerie Van Peel
Open Vld Carina Van Cauter

Submission date

July 4, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

abortion offence criminal law

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Gautier Calomne (MR) abstained from voting.
• Kattrin Jadin (MR) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Oct. 4, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs, Ms. Brotcorne and Calomne and Ms. Onkelinx, refer to their written report.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, at the time I speak to you, abortion is a crime recalled in the Criminal Code under a title, which is, moreover, quite inappropriate: “A crime against the order of the families and against public morality.” It appears in the same section as rape or corruption of youth and is described as follows: "Anyone who, by food, drinking, medication or by any other means, has made an abortion a woman who has consented to it will be condemned."

Since 1990, this offence is no longer punishable if it is committed in compliance with the various conditions stipulated. However, abortion remains an offence due to a difficultly achieved compromise at the time, at the cost of a serious institutional crisis. Indeed, while this debate undoubtedly concerned the right of women to dispose of their bodies, it was also, for many of our fellow citizens, a very sensitive ethical debate.

Tomorrow, thanks to our bill, abortion will become a right that will be taken back into an autonomous and clear law. Thus, a pregnant woman will be able to ask a doctor to interrupt her pregnancy if different conditions are met. Tomorrow, abortion, practiced in compliance with the legal framework, will be completely decriminalized, and the woman will no longer have to justify a state of distress - which was very stigmatizing. This reform represents a further and necessary step towards women’s rights and individual autonomy.

This is not just a symbolic text, as some would like to add, but the result of a completely different approach to abortion. This progress enables women who use it, for whatever reason, to no longer feel stigmatized or guilty. Abortion thus becomes a personal choice, an individual freedom.

During the many committee debates we had the pleasure of participating in, some colleagues felt that the measure was not going far enough. Others, who have less right to speak in the media, thought it was going too far. This intermediate step is, in any case, definitively achieved, although, since 1990, nothing had moved.

Nothing has moved since 1990. Unfortunately, I cannot keep silent what I have already said in the committee, given the attacks we have suffered from some members of the opposition.

Under the Verhofstadt II government, did the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice make progress on this issue? and no. Under the government of Leterme I, Van Rompuy and Leterme II, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Health made things go ahead? and no. Under the Di Rupo government, did the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Health make things go ahead? Neither also .

We were attacked massively. Therefore, it seemed normal for me to respond in this regard. You can tell me that you have dealt with other ethical issues. We were in the majority and we also contributed.

Today, however, it is under the Michel government that an advance is made in the field of abortion. This dossier was not buried, as many accused us of wanting to do so. As in all ethical matters, whether it is the rights of homosexuals (marriage, adoption) or the right to euthanasia (adults, then children), step by step, in order to respect the evolution of society, the legislation on abortion is liberalized.

I am optimistic and firmly believe that, later, we will be able to resume discussions, in particular regarding the extension of the deadlines. In the meantime, what is achieved is achieved. Abortion becomes a right, which must be exercised within a legal framework.

There has been a lot of discussion about sanctions. Currently, it is impossible not to provide for a criminal sanction for both the doctor and the patient in the event of non-compliance with the legal framework. Otherwise, it would open the field to illegal abortions performed in bad conditions, or after the legal deadline. Providing sanctions only for doctors, as proposed by the text of the Socialist Party in particular, also seems to me hypocritical. There is no reason not to put on the same foot the woman who asks for an abortion, outside the legal framework – I insist – and the doctor who agrees to practice it.

I would also like to recall the other important advances that are present in the proposal. In fact, various measures guarantee that the woman who wishes to use the IVG will be able to practically exercise this right within the legal time limit. The doctor who does not wish to practice an IVG should, in addition to informing the patient from the first visit, direct her to a colleague, center or hospital practicing the IVG.

Another advance is that the offence of obstruction is incriminated. The provisions of the Criminal Code, which incriminate the advertising, sale or manufacture of any means to practice abortion, are repealed.

There are also various provisions that regulate the six-day reflection period. From now on, the doctor will be able to shorten or remove it for urgent medical reasons. This urgent medical reason may be physical or psychological; no specification is given in the proposal. This opens up different possibilities to adapt the time period to the life of each patient. It is obviously in the singular caucus between the patient and the doctor that this decision will be made. This period shall also no longer be included in the period of twelve weeks within which the IVG must be performed. Therefore, in practice, the period of the IVG is extended by one week.

Ladies and gentlemen, as far as I am concerned, I will vote in favour of this text because it is synonymous with undeniable advances in a delicate matter. In the MR, we have the freedom to vote on ethical files, I recall. We have often been accused of not being able to withstand this, but that is the truth. Of course, I cannot speak on behalf of all my colleagues in the MR, since everyone will vote in their soul and conscience. But I know that the vast majority of the group is for this decriminalization of abortion.

This document concretizes this decriminalization, which has been expected since 1990. Abortion is no longer a crime, it is now a right. It represents what is called a good step forward. This is the strategy of small steps and, therefore, I am ⁇ proud to say that we will vote for this small step forward.

Mr. Clarinval, I have a question about the freedom of vote of the members, especially those of Mr. Clarinval. What does this freedom mean? That there is no voting order, for example on the amendments that are made to your bill? Does this mean that they will not all vote, as a single block, against these amendments?

It is true that for a Stalinist party, this is difficult to understand. It is not in your habits. We have the freedom to vote. I know that you are obliged to vote as one man, as the great leader told you. This is not the same, Mr. Van Hees. You will see, maybe one day you will understand the difference.

We will see! As my colleague said, we are only two in the PTB group. We will see what it is and if this freedom is real.

Sorry, but I respect the order of the parties in terms of number.

I think this proposal is very balanced. I have regretted several times in the committee that the debate could not always be held as serene. I think there was too much demagogy. If one attempted to bring forward certain comments, one was quite quickly pushed into the corner of the difficult conservative.

I noticed this especially when it came to the psychosocial framework and guidance, which in my opinion can be very important just for women in vulnerable situations. Even this was called stigmatizing by some parties. I then have the impression that the slinger swings a little too far, which I often notice in ethical debates.

If one says that an abortion should be treated approximately in the same way as an appointment for whitening the teeth, then one is, in my opinion, to the woman in question as harmful as if one would defend that she has no right to abortion in certain situations. Indeed, it is more common that slingers first go too far in one direction and then again in the other direction. Women who experience abortion do not get better.

Therefore, I support the agreement of the majority, which has managed to maintain the balance. Indeed, it has sufficient attention to the value of things. I think it is not useful to summarize everything again; colleague Clarinval has done this very well.

I think it is important that the term of 12 weeks be ⁇ ined, even though it is removed from the Criminal Code. Also the maintenance of the waiting period of 6 days, which may not be counted for the deadline, carries away our approval. In fact, many testimony showed that women were not aware of this in advance. They went to the center in time, but could not get an abortion because of the legally mandatory waiting time. It is certain to defend that this is now being resolved. This also applies to the fact that a doctor is obliged to refer. As a result of many legal decisions, this was already the case de facto.

Furthermore, I still find it important that with the legislation the psychosocial transformation is still possible. Finally, I would ⁇ like to ask the colleagues on the Wallish side to pay attention to prevention, which they did not like to hear in the committee. This is a competence of the Communities. In Flanders there is a very strong commitment to this, which is also seen in the abortion rates, which are much lower than in Wallonia.

You said in the committee that it is absolutely not a priority for you to get those figures down, but I always find it a better scenario when we can save women from making that choice ever, than when one is happy about rising numbers thanks to a legislative change. In this regard, I will be an ambitious conservative.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen, allow me to begin my speech with a small literary turnaround.

It is not exaggerated to say that, this year, the literary return is truly placed under the sign of the woman; under the sign of the woman novelist, when one thinks of our young talents whether they are from the North or the South, such as, for example, Adeline Dieudonné whose first novel The True Life is selected for the Goncourt Prize and the Renaudot Prize; under the sign of the woman outraged, harassed and raped, when one thinks that, this year, the biggest literary event of the return will not take place. In the wake of the Me Too movement, its revelations, its implications around the world, the Nobel Prize in Literature will not be awarded. Finally, this literary return is to be placed under the sign of the woman object, the woman object of feminism, the woman object of communication when the French release of the book of a liberal deputy prime minister becomes the pretext for a governmental communication exercise to defend women and feminism. It is a ⁇ stomaching exercise that Mr. Michel and De Croo engaged to present the century of women, how feminism also liberates men.

I will not allow myself to comment on this book. I did not read it. I will not allow myself to comment on the almost touching confession of the late discovery of the urgency of feminism by Mr. Alexander De Croo. But I cannot stay without saying anything when woman becomes an object, an object of feminism and an object of communication. Women are no longer the subject of feminism, but the object of communication.

How can one advocate for measures that have not been adopted by the government in which we sit, worse than measures that have been voted against? How can one assume, during a promotion show, that this friend’s book is a plea that sends a strong and inspiring message – I quote the prime minister – when one presides over a government that has not ceased to attack women. I recall the remarks made by my colleague, Fabienne Winckel. Should I recall that in another life, Alexander De Croo was president of the Vld and ordered his troops to vote against the bill that imposed a third of women in the boards of directors?

Today, he pledges, in his book, to impose 30 percent of women in the board of directors. Can I allow myself to recall that the MR – Charles Michel was then a member – did not support this proposal either? Today, however, we find the idea of the inspiring book.

Should I recall that, in another life, Alexander De Croo was Minister of Pensions in the Di Rupo government and that there were, alongside him, two Deputy Prime Ministers? But today, there is no woman in the kern. We need to change the situation. Does Charles Michel find this also an inspiring plea, he who chairs a kern where there are no women, while, since 1999, there have always been women vice prime ministers in the government, whether that of Verhofstadt, Leterme, Van Rompuy or even Di Rupo?

You all understand why I took this tour by presenting a book on feminism before addressing the serious topic of abortion. This is to remind of an obvious thing: there are facts and there is communication. Whether in terms of access to leadership positions, parity within the government or the right to dispose of its own body, liberal communication is modern. It is hype! It can be said. But the reality of their political choice, the reality of their actions remained stuck in the last century.

Look at this photo! I like to show her because she grabbed me, Mr. Clarinval. “Criminalization of abortion, a historic agreement for women.” It looks like an advertising page for a perfume. Here’s another: two young women sharing two bottles of wine while watching a sunset along the railway. Do you really think that women who are going to get abortions are in this situation? Abortion, a historical agreement for women.

The woman, Mr. Clarinval, is not an object of communication. The women’s struggle for their freedom, for their autonomy, for equality does not take place on the backdrop of sunset but must be translated into policies and actions. It is a lack of respect for all women that makes them believe that we are fighting, that we have fought, as you have repeated here, to improve their rights and freedoms.

Ladies and gentlemen, the bill you are submitting to us is not a real decriminalization of abortion and you know it. The bill is not a historic breakthrough for women, Mr. Clarinval. It is not even a small step.

As one editorialist said, abortion deserved better than this lie; a lie you repeated to us on the tribune. Yes, your proposal for decriminalization is a lie. Women as a whole deserve better. Women who want to abort and all those who accompany them in this choice: doctors, nurses, planning centers, psychologists, social workers deserved better.

Take a look at one of the newspapers of March 30, 1990. The Lallemand-Michielsens Act has been passed. This is a historic day for women. It will not be today, Mr. Clarinval. The exaggeration was not indecent. You could have taken this one again and posted it on your website and your social media pages. It had been more honest than these women-object ads on the backdrop of sunset... Because the text you submitted and you are going to vote for is almost a copy-paste of the last century.

Dear colleagues, who here, in the ranks of the MR - obviously Katrin Jadin and Richard Miller are not there, Philippe Goffin leaves the room - or in those of the Open Vld, CD&V or N-VA, claims that this text really decriminalizes abortion?

Yes or no, are there still criminal sanctions for women who abort outside the conditions you specified? Is there still, for example, when the woman forgot to write her will to abort? For doctors who practice abortion outside of conditions or who would not, by forgetting, have specified to a patient that she can resort to adoption? Because the practice of abortion is done at fourteen weeks because a woman was raped or because a paperless woman was pregnant?

Thirty years after the adoption of the Lallemand-Michielsens law, Mr. Clarinval, you maintain the criminal sanctions for a woman who has an abortion after twelve weeks, and who has not written black on white that she wanted to have an abortion. This is the reality of what you are going to vote for today.

There are progressives in this majority, but fewer than we think. They agreed with the conservative forces. Mr. President Bracke, I know that you are not a conservative force, finally, I hope. We will see your vote soon. I can quote Mr. Dewael who is absent, Mrs. Van Cauter, Mrs. Jadin who is also absent. Here is Mr. Miller (...) If it is on these arguments that the debate takes place, Mrs. Fonck...

I have debated for a long time with Mrs. Jadin and with Mr. Clarinval, who were rather in agreement with our position, I like to repeat it. Since Mr. Miller is there, I address him: by voting this law, you will be placed on the bench of the Conservatives, thirty after the Lallemand-Michielsens Act. Thirty years after this law, liberals are telling the judiciary: prosecute, punish and imprison those who abort, and those or those who practice abortion outside the conditions enacted in 1990.

Mr. Verherstraeten is not there either. Mr. Clarinval, yes or no, a woman who appears after a period of twelve weeks and who gets an abortion risks criminal sanctions? Is it always at risk of a prison sentence? And the doctors, too. And the worst thing is that your majority is sending a new signal to the judicial world with the text they will vote tonight. You repeat it: prosecute, punish, imprison.

You know me Hirsch. What does this great criminalist say? "With this law, what would prevent a prosecutor tomorrow from prosecuting again, since the legislator has the will to reaffirm that abortion is a crime? Nothing, of course.” That’s why the lawyer asks you not to vote what could reboot the machine.

She expresses her fear of seeing, for example, a partner prosecute his partner who would have aborted without his consent, finding one or another of the conditions that would not have been met. Me Hirsch is not the only criminalist who has come to the niche to denounce this criminal law. Many other great criminals denounce it. I am speaking in particular of Me Buyle or Me Kennes who said they were shocked by this law, which they call a farce, which they call a shameful lie, and who question the role of the criminal sanction and the meaning of the threat of a prison sentence in this question so sensitive as abortion.

You know these lawyers, Mr. Goffin. One of them is even an expert for Mr. Geens in matters of reform of the Criminal Code. Do you think they are mistaken when they say that this is not a decriminalization, you who are the chairman of the Justice Committee? Do you think the risk of prosecution is anything but zero? Would you prefer to join the analysis of your colleague and group leader who just spoke? He says this: "I think one understands that the legislator's tendency is not to prosecute."He adds: "I put on the common sense of our judges and urge them not to prosecute."

Mr. Goffin, you thus conceive your role as a legislator: I issue a norm and I provide black on white of fines and prison sentences but, if one does not respect it, if a woman or a doctor does not respect it, I say to the judge: "Close your eyes. Do not continue! Do not punish them!” I think that’s not what you think, but you can’t say it.

Do all the parliamentarians who will support this text have so much contempt for their work, do they have so much contempt for the judges to whom they ask not to comply with the law – this is in any case what Mr. Clarinval asks – simply because this law is, and you know it very well, a merchandising that is just a exercise of communication?

Most importantly, do you have so much contempt for women? In 2018, at the request of the Centre for Secular Action, an investigation was conducted by the ULB and the University of Hasselt on the decriminalization of abortion. His conclusions were clear: 75% of Belgians were in favor of a total decriminalization of abortion; 75% wanted to put abortion into a "health law". This investigation comforted us in the choice to have filed a text that totally denounced abortion, you know.

I answer to Mr. Clarinval and Mr. Miller who scream, "You have done nothing for thirty years!"

The [...]

It is not because we are in the opposition that we submitted a text. But rather because, everywhere in the world and also in Europe, conservative movements and churches take power and customs into their hands, attack individual freedoms and threaten what we regarded as achievements, including women’s freedom and the right to abortion.

That is why we have now submitted this text. We wanted to completely decriminalize abortion because we see it as a medical act. And we were afraid - the news gives us right - that some prefer to give abortion a moral sense, put it in a convictive approach. I am not a believer. It concerns only me. I respect all beliefs. I do not see abortion as an attack on life. I see in abortion only the right of the woman to dispose of her body and to control her desire for a child. I respect those who think differently. Everyone has their own beliefs, but I stand up against those who want to take away every woman’s right to freely decide. And that is what you do.

We do not force anyone to abort. We simply guarantee the conditions to allow every woman to exercise her freedom. You refuse them by your law.

We have been asking since May 2016 that this issue be put on the agenda. Our position was clear: no more criminal sanctions against women or against doctors. I will not be insulted by repeating all that has been said in the Justice Committee. The main thing, contrary to what has been said, is that we have had serene discussions and we have been able to hear about twenty experts. These are the statements they made before the Justice Committee that have changed our position. Thus, with DéFI, PTB, Ecolo-Groen and sp.a, we have again filed a bill that took into account the opinions of experts. In fact, on the contrary, Mr. Clarinval, in the new situation, for such sensitive ethical questions, the time was taken to listen and to seek a path on which the greatest number could find themselves.

I will quote a representative of female life. Women’s Life is not a socialist association, it is close to the CSC. She asks the elected members to overcome the debate for and against the exit of the IVG from the Criminal Code. If the exit is an important symbol, it will not be enough to improve in practice the lives of women affected by abortion. It is essential that the current debates also focus on measures such as shortening the period of reflection and the time for pregnancy or even accompanying women, otherwise this development will be only symbolic and will not change much in the real difficulties facing women.

Carine Vrancken, from LUNA, believed in a committee that removing abortion from the Criminal Code without changing the conditions related to abortion makes no sense. A change in the conditions would affect approximately 20,000 women each year.

We have changed our bill. While the vast majority of women (79 percent) who wish to terminate a pregnancy ask for an abortion to be performed in the first weeks of pregnancy, some women are not aware of their condition so early. Others do not have direct access to the information and support needed to end unwanted pregnancy. As a result, 500,000 women are forced to ask the Netherlands or England to take care of them, which has a considerable cost and is therefore not accessible to all women. As Carine Vrancken pointed out, it is necessary to stop the policy of straw practiced in Belgium and therefore it is appropriate to extend the deadline to allow women who wish to do so to end an unwanted pregnancy in Belgium.

Pascal Borry of KU Leuven considered it important, during the hearings, to offer a care perspective to women who are currently forced to travel abroad.

And to quote the Swedish model, which provides for a period of eighteen weeks. We are talking about KU Leuven, not ULB or VUB. A valid argument in favor of the extension of the deadline would be that it is mostly vulnerable and less privileged women who do not realize in time that they are pregnant and who face the most problems today for abortion in Belgium. Therefore, we asked to extend the deadline to eighteen weeks. Amendments are still on the table.

We had also called for the removal of all laity related to abortion and other possibilities. Indeed, according to us, the woman who makes the decision to abort does so with knowledge of cause and is free to dispose of her body. Furthermore, the head of Flanders’ adoption services, Ariane Van den Berghe, recalled during her hearing that informing women who wish to have an abortion about the possibilities of adopting the unborn child constitutes paternalistic conditions – which you maintain – sometimes out of subject and, in any case, obsolete. Your text is the same.

We then advocated for the application of the patient law to people undergoing IVG. Since abortion constitutes a medical act, the usual information must be communicated to the patient. It was also up to the doctors to ensure that it was determined before the medical act. As Mr Jean-Jacques Amy mentioned during his hearing, IVG falls within the field of public health and must be regulated in the same way as the other components of that field.

As for the reflection time, we continue to propose forty-eight hours. No country — not even Ireland, which just voted for decriminalizing abortion under certain conditions — provides for such a lengthy deadline. There is no consideration period in Ireland. Remember what literature teaches us and what we were told about this in committee. This period has serious consequences for women. It is not me who says it. Mr. Pascal Borry, of the KUL, and Michel Dupuis, of the UCL, speak of therapeutic hardness by referring to the period of reflection, while others still refer to a real suffering.

This is what you continue to inflict on women: a real torture, a therapeutic harshness. And it is the doctors of all the hospitals and plannings who say it. The majority of respondents say that women made their decision when they learned the results of their pregnancy test, that is, before the medical consultation. The six-day deadline is a hard-to-be test, even infantilizing and paternalistic. We have understood that you are and that you remain.

Currently, the law provides that medical interruption of pregnancy can be intervened when it is certain, you know Mrs. Van Cauter, that the unborn child will suffer from a condition of particular gravity, recognized as incurable at the time of diagnosis. The hearings also highlighted the inadequacy of the terminology used. The Supreme Council of Health, itself, considered that the notion of high risk, affection of a particular severity of the unborn child or affection recognized as incurable was more appropriate. Mr. Van Cauter, you have intervened several times in the debate, this is also stated in the report, to highlight this problem. But, unfortunately, you were also unable to convince the conservative majority.

Finally, our bill, as well as our amendments, actually aimed to decriminalize abortion, that is to say, to abolish all criminal sanctions. They still have the same penalties as in 1990. Thirty years later, you are in exactly the same scheme. We had proposed from the outset that there would be no criminal punishment for women, nor for doctors. The proposal we submitted with the progressive opposition provides for sanctions for doctors because it is a consensus.

Madame Van Cauter, I still have a disappointment with you and also with the Open Vld group, which has always been at the forefront of ethical debates.

I must also thank him for being at the forefront of these battles; but not today. I speak of the Open Vld because the MR has always been more mixed in these debates.

Madame Van Cauter, you published with your group leader a white card in De Morgen. You say, “Yes, politics is the art of what is achievable. Sometimes you have to count the heads."You say you chose the Conservative camp to get mini-advances, because you had no alternative. This shows that freedom of vote and conscience is very far away.

Mrs. Van Cauter and Mr. Dewael – you also signed the white card – as I told you in the committee, there is a majority in this assembly to make a real step forward. And you know it properly. To do politics is not to accept merchandise. We saw the trade. We know what is on the agenda of the Justice Committee. It is not accepting merchandise, but rather the art of finding compromises. and a compromise.

We ourselves have found a compromise with the progressive parties of the opposition. We tried to move forward with everyone. We ourselves have tried to tell you that it is still time to give real freedom to everyone.

And today, if we make the accounts, we still have a majority in this Parliament to not vote on the proposal put on the table, or at least to vote on the amendments proposed by the progressive opposition. PS, sp.a, Ecolo-Groen, Défi and the PTB total 52 deputies, if we are all present, which we hope. It would be enough for 24 additional deputies to join the text. Twenty-four votes, I think it would be so easy to find if you had your total freedom. If you dare to free yourself from the conservative carcass of N-VA and CD&V, the total decriminalization of abortion for women could be a reality tomorrow.

The Liberal family has 34 elected members in the House. We know that the whole Open Vld could vote for these amendments, for a real decriminalization of abortion. For having discussed with many people, Mr. Clarinval, and having debated with some who are unfortunately not in the session, many at the MR really wanted a decriminalization. If you let them free, we would have a majority in this Parliament.

As I speak of freedom of vote, it is a pity that the Prime Minister did not stay. But I understand it. When it comes to substantive discussions, there is little there. Charles Michel is deaf or submissive. The N-VA group leader looks at me with intensity. I think Charles Michel is quite submissive. It is up to him to liberate the deputies of his majority from the mental states of certain members of his government, as had done before him Wilfried Martens, Guy Verhofstadt and Elio Di Rupo.

Indeed, since the law on IVG adopted in 1990, from those that frame euthanasia or its extension to minors, through marriage and adoption for homosexual couples, in ethical matters, freedom of vote has always prevailed. Members have always spoken in soul and conscience. In 1990, Mr. Martens, then Prime Minister, shares the position of the bishops who see in the Lallemand-Michielsens proposal an act radically compromising the right to life at the initial stage. But he recalls in his memoirs that, having his government made a question of conscience, every parliamentary should vote in soul and conscience.

The leader of the MR group, at the time, said nothing else when he stated, on the day of the voting in the House, that his party has always not only programmed, but objectively implemented the indispensable necessity of total independence of expression in matters concerning freedom of conscience. Each of the liberal parliamentarians could vote according to their deep convictions.

And every time since, this total freedom has been reaffirmed by the liberal tenors at the beginning of each ethical vote. Charles Michel himself, at the time deputy, before voting against the opening of adoption to homosexual couples, recalled that at the MR, each parliamentary, in his soul and conscience, would individually express through his vote his personal conviction within the framework of the eminently ethical debate. He voted against, and he was free to do so. This is an element that characterizes us and we found it useful to highlight it clearly. What a step back today, Mr. Clarinval! What a step back, Mr. Michael!

It can only be observed that the Michel government has completely cornered the debate, where even Wilfried Martens had left the freedom of conscience. The Verhofstadt I and II and Di Rupo governments had placed ethical files at the heart of parliamentary freedom, while the permanent bonds that Charles Michel must give to the N-VA prevent him from deploying his authority as prime minister and from letting freedom prevail over a political veto emanating from one or more members of his majority, even when it comes to debates whose theme is ethics and individual freedoms.

Today, it is the state of mind of a minority of ministers and parliamentarians of the majority of Charles Michel who, because they are humanly stricken by abortion, as it has been said, prevent a majority of parliamentarians from actually decriminalizing abortion and allowing an expansion of its conditions of practice that meet both the demand of women, doctors and experts.

I read the words of Mr. Geens in La Libre Belgique. He goes straight to the goal and welcomes the agreement of the majority that you will vote for. He is especially pleased that Parliament has not been able to work freely. Indeed, he personally has difficulties with the IVG, just like his party and part of the N-VA.

When, under Verhofstadt and Di Rupo, the ministers Verwilghen and Onkelinx, but also the ministers Verhofstadt and Di Rupo themselves were in favor of same-sex marriage or adoption for same-sex couples, or even the extension of euthanasia to minors, you were pleased that you were not obliged to follow the government.

In fact, a majority of the MR did not vote for adoption for homosexual couples. You were pleased to vote a majority against adoption for gay couples. Today I ask you, once again, to give up this freedom. Here, while civil society goes in the diametrically opposite direction to the text on the table, you stand as one man behind the hard wing of the N-VA, behind the CD&V and behind the CDH. Have you heard our colleague, Mr. Lutgen, the Chairman of the CDH, who on Sunday launched on television: "You cannot say like the PS that you abort at eight or seven months and that there will be no prosecution"? What a bad faith! What a contempt for women! But we no longer doubted that.

Finally, the Michel government imposed silence on the freedom of conscience of the MPs of the MR-N-VA majority. The Michel government dared to corroborate a fundamental right of women in a majority agreement. The Michel government kneeled before the refusal to advance by a minority of parliamentarians composed of the Flemish Christian Party and part of the N-VA and thus refused to hear civil society and women in particular. You are lacking courage and freedom, ladies and gentlemen of the liberal family, ladies and gentlemen, members of this majority, and it is the right of women that comes out losing.

Mr. Clarinval, I will finish this and you can speak afterwards. Let me send a message to the Prime Minister. If Charles Michel were a full-powered prime minister, he would not defend the rights of women, he would not be interested in feminism only in book promotion campaigns. If he were a full-time prime minister, he would have allowed Parliament to work freely in soul and conscience and we would have found a large majority, I am sure, to really decriminalize abortion. The women would be winning. I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I listened stoically to Mrs. Lalieux’s remarks and the violence with which she expressed herself. We have heard his ⁇ violent remarks in the committee. I hear “the lies, the farce, the retreat, the contempt,” and I would like to say two things to him.

First, do you think the next six points are jokes, lies, contempt, or a retreat? The removal of the state of distress; the removal or shortening of the period of reflection in the caucus with the doctor; the period of reflection beyond the twelve weeks; the incrimination of the obstacle; the abolition of the incrimination of advertising; the exit of the Criminal Code that makes abortion a right today and no longer a crime.

I ask you to answer without making digressions or caricatures of the text we have presented.

Second, I explained just recently, and I told the press, that the MR group has the freedom to vote. You are constantly making us believe that this is not the case. You did the exegesis, even sometimes the psychoanalysis of liberal deputies. To believe that you have all heard them in singular caucus. I repeat: Liberals in the MR have the freedom to vote. I know it’s not the same with you, and it probably surprises you. But I do not accept that you give us lessons of freedom on this subject! What you say is not true. We have the freedom to vote and I would like you to stop saying the opposite.

Now, I would like you to answer my question: do you consider these six elements to constitute a retreat and a farce, to be of contempt, or to translate a lie?

Mr. Clarinval, first of all, when I speak of farce, of shameful lies...

The [...]

But let me answer!

It is not me who says it. Whenever I used these expressions, they appeared between guillemets. Read the press articles and the criminalists — for example, Me Hirsch — who analyzed your text. Read also the communications of all associations and their good lawyers. These words are not me who invented them.

I think your communication is characterized by a lie. Likewise, this proposal does not constitute an advance. The mere fact of ⁇ ining sanctions against women is a shame. Today, a woman who gets an abortion after twelve weeks - except, ⁇ , under certain conditions - is in the same situation as in 1990. Where do you see the step forward? You will even, and you have kept it, impose the torture of an explanation. But all the experts, Mr. Clarinval, said that talking about adoption and the possibility of adoption for a woman who wanted to abort was inherently scandalous, and that they did not even do it. Doctors told us in the commission that they did not comply with the law. Now you reintroduce these conditions in the law, Mr. Clarinval! It is a shame!

Six days of thought. Let us talk! They are ⁇ ined. You know very well that they will, since the majority of women have an abortion within the first seven weeks. This means that for 97% of them this shameful deadline will be ⁇ ined. You know it very well!

There may be one thing: the right to obstruction. It is true! This has nothing to do with. It was not with this that women had the most problems. There are few obstacles to abortion. You must honestly stop and assume what you have done.

What you did, Mr. Clarinval, with all the liberals, is just repeating and glorifying the 1990 law. Nothing has changed for women. Abortion is no longer included in the Criminal Code. But you have not even reduced prison and fine penalties. It really takes women for idiots!

Compared to the liberals, no, I did not do psychology or psychoanalysis with all of your members. Except that the civil society has been organizing debates for three years and that I have had the chance to debate with Ms. Jadin, with Mr. Calomne and others. And we were side by side. The questions posed by the various associations were very clear. There is even a voice recording. We can make you hear it.

It is clearly stated that they were “reducing the deadline.” They said “increased weeks.” They also said “more punishment for women.” This is also what Ms. Jadin said. If she was present, I think she ⁇ ’t say the opposite. This is also what Mr. Calomne said and, if he were here, he would not say the opposite.

When, on the phone with journalists of the newspaper Le Soir – or then you accuse them of lying – we are told that fifteen members of the MR are in favor of the proposal of increasing the weeks, reducing the deadline, non-criminal sanction for women ... But let them vote, Mr. Clarinval! You can vote for your proposal, you have defended it quite, you are convinced of it. Vote for her! But let your 15 members vote on our amendments. You do not, Mr. Clarinval. We will see soon!

I have reviewed all ethical votes since 1990, including those cited (adoption, same-sex marriage, euthanasia and the extension of euthanasia to minors). The votes of the MR group were the most dispersed votes. There were pro, there were against, there were abstentions. If there is a real freedom of vote, I hope there will be a balance between the for, the abstentions and the against. This is your freedom of vote.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, a few months ago, during the abortion debate in the House, there were in The Standard testimonies of several women who had undergone an abortion. One woman summarized the complexity of such a decision to abortion very well. She said, “The idea of an abortion was against my nature, but it seemed to me too stressful to start a family alone. An abortion is always proposed as the decision of the woman, but that is not at all. If my friend or my parents had promised their support for a pregnancy, I would have kept my baby." Another woman said, “I made the right decision to perform abortion, but I had underestimated its impact.”

Colleagues, those testimonies illustrate what we all intuitively feel: abortion is not weekly, medical treatment. This was also praised by the various experts during the hearings. It is a major decision, which requires the necessary professional support. We all agree on that, I think. Some of them even wanted to expand, try out the submitted amendments. The testimony also shows that women who are unwanted pregnant talk about it with very few people in their surroundings. This makes professional guidance of such difficult choices especially important. We must not banalize abortion. The threshold for seeking help must, of course, be very low, but we should not imagine the choice of abortion as something that is quickly decided, like getting a tooth pulled.

Colleagues, the legislation proposed by the majority is not a black and white story. It is not for or against abortion. It is a balanced proposal, which includes the complexity of the various interests and ⁇ ins a good balance between the protection of unborn life and the right of self-determination of women. The CD&V group supports the proposal for several reasons. First and most important is that women are no longer stigmatized by incorporating abortion into an autonomous law. Another important fact, which is almost not cited here, is that the emergency situation has been removed from the law.

At the same time, we ensure that abortion is not banalized. The penal sanctions, which exist for every legislation, continue to be ⁇ ined. Sanctions are still in place in other countries.

The period of twelve weeks for the voluntary abortion and the abortion for medical reasons after that period shall be ⁇ ined. It is not simply. Mrs. Lalieux recruited an expert, but we spoke with ⁇ 20 experts. Twenty experts gave twenty different opinions. I counted it. Nine experts found that the period should be extended to 14, 16 or 18 weeks. Eight experts did not comment on this. Three experts were radically opposed.

We must be correct. So when one claims that one voted in the committee for the period of 18 weeks, because the experts considered it necessary, it is a misrepresentation of the facts. There is no scientific basis for extending the term to 18 weeks, as the opposition proposed. This was not scientifically supported during the hearings.

There was also much to do about the six-day consideration period. We find it important to ensure that women can make a decision in all serenity and without pressure. This is happening. We must protect the most vulnerable in this area. New is that we allow exceptions for medical and urgent reasons when the 12-week deadline is reached. We are behind it.

In short, we find it a balanced and good proposal, which we will support. That does not mean that we, like Ms. Van Peel, are of the opinion that much more should be invested in prevention. It is aberrant that after 50 years of contraception, 20,000 abortions are performed every year. In other countries this is much less.

Another important aspect is medical follow-up, psychosocial guidance, after a woman has undergone an abortion. Testimonials showed that there is a significant, profound impact on the body.

The body is aware of this intervention. A witness noted that she had a normal cycle only after half a year. Some couples go through a mourning process, suffering from guilt and regret. We must take this into account. Therefore, we would like to break another barrier that affected persons should be able to recur to professional guidance after abortion.

Finally, the National Assessment Committee, after more than six years, finally came together last month. One asks why it took six years to evaluate a very important ethical law. There is no evaluation in the National Assessment Committee. She collects some statistics, she does some monitoring. It relies on data provided by clinics and abortion centers that are actually not entirely reliable.

What our group advocates is that a five-year review, which is scientific, should take place. This would allow for a more solid debate today, which would improve the quality of the legislation.

In short, we hope that if the debate ever repeats, we can speak on the basis of scientific data and not on the basis of abdominal feelings or ideological inputs.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, today the House will decide that abortion is partially removed from the criminal law. This seems to be a good thing, of course. I put the emphasis on the word seems.

28 years old is the abortion law in our country. In 1990 abortion was partially decentralized, as a compromise, I always say. There were a number of conditions described under which abortion is not a crime and therefore not punishable.

Considered on the head, this is about guidelines and procedures for the assistance and possible treatment of unwanted pregnant women. And no, that does not belong in the criminal law. The right of women to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy must today be explicitly disconnected from the concept of crime and the associated moral concept of guilt and ⁇ guilt.

Nevertheless, this depenalization in its present form in the current bill is only a cloth for bleeding, an attempt to stop the discussion, which has been ongoing for several years now, by a symbolic act, in the hope that the mind will then remain in the bottle for a while. This is a historically missed opportunity. A missed opportunity, for example, to reduce the reflection time to 48 hours, instead of the current six days.

Before they approach an abortion center, women have already thought about it. They may have already spoken to their doctor, any partner, family or faithful. They may have already made the consideration a few hundred times. With the current legislation, we obligate them, after there was also in the abortion center an extensive exchange of thoughts and everything was overcome, yet to wait six more days.

An unnecessary stretching of a ⁇ difficult period in a woman’s life. Let women decide for themselves how much time they need after that important step to the abortion center and bring the minimum time back to 48 hours.

The other opportunity we leave behind here is to provide a solution for women in an extremely vulnerable situation. Every year, the centers see about 500 women who, for any reason, have waited too long to seek help. The reasons for this are diverse. Almost all of them have in common that they are in a very vulnerable situation. It is often about women who are faced with enormous difficulties and this often at a time when everything and something goes wrong in their lives.

These vulnerable women are now sent to the Netherlands where they are undergoing an abortion. Often – fortunately not always – this happens without psychosocial guidance and without reimbursement of their medical costs.

Like those who need us the most, we send away and let go. We could solve this by extending the period within which abortion can happen to 18 weeks, though in our opinion it is in a specialized center, where women receive additional medical and psychosocial guidance and extra support.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Belgium has roughly the lowest rates on abortion, among other things because we pay attention to a good knowledge of contraception. Experts confirm that this would continue to be the case with our proposals. With our proposals, we would just make it easier for women in a difficult situation to call for help. If abortion is properly regulated, the number decreases. This is demonstrated everywhere by the figures.

In our country, on the other hand, we opt for a half-bad solution, which is not a solution. Here in our country, apparently, it is chosen to impose the ideology of one group.

I would like to talk about that for a moment. In the hemisphere it has been a tradition for years to be able to vote freely and in honour and conscience on ethical issues and to freely follow our own conscience.

What is happening suddenly after this abortion file? I would like to add that all the progressive legislation we have about euthanasia, holebi, and so on, is due to that tradition of letting parliamentarians vote in honour and conscience. What is happening now suddenly following the current debate on abortion? There is no substantive discussion and no serene debate. A social vision of one group is imposed here. The vision of women’s personal integrity is imposed by a particular group and ideology. The so important discussion on personal choices and on physical and mental integrity can no longer take place openly and freely here in Parliament. The abortion debate is degraded to a game of majority against opposition.

Colleagues, I am ashamed because I have to play against my will in this game. How low can we fall? Each of us should be ashamed of figuring in the flat-floor Welles-Nieß-Spiel in which this debate has been distorted.

Finally, for us, women’s self-determination over their own bodies is fundamental. The government’s duty to provide quality preventive and curative health care for all is equally fundamental. These principles, however, are far to be sought in this debate. Therefore, we will vote against this proposal. We do that with pain in the heart because we could have written history. However, you, people of the majority, have chosen not to do so. Actually, I hope you are awake tonight.

The question arises who benefits from disagreement. I am fundamentally convinced that what binds us socially allows us to take steps forward. Ethical progress has always been achieved in our country through progressive steps.

I mean the struggle for women’s rights. This was accompanied by steady successes, progress and sometimes disadvantages, but also with the courage to persist. Before the same-sex marriage, there was legal coexistence for gay and lesbian. After the same-sex marriage, there was the right to adopt for persons of the same sex. Then we had the law on euthanasia. Also that right was then extended to everyone who is judgmental to decide, thus also minors.

Step by step, our country has obtained the most liberal laws that fully respect the right of self-determination of the individual.

The Flemish liberals – mostly female – have made efforts for this emancipation. I am aware that this has not gone by itself.

When I recall the law on abortion, which came into effect thanks to a proposal from Ms. Lucienne Herman-Michielsens, I am convinced that she too must have shown a lot of patience. For more than 12 years, it has had to build, over several legislatures, on consensus and majorities over deep ideological differences.

She was there, like us, reinforced by organizations and people, who, even more than us, stood on the barricades for feminist values, for equal treatment and for freedom of thought and action, with man at the center.

I am aware that it takes courage to put what is often unachievable on the table and thus make a little possible. This is a pioneering role that we often have to fulfill.

As liberals, therefore, we have not hesitated to put on the table, outside the government agreement, and I would like to confidently acknowledge that to the colleagues of the majority, a thoughtful proposal that provided for further liberalization of the right to abortion.

This proposal gave rise to engaging hearings, which generally called for further modernization of the abortion law. Experts from universities, of which we did not expect it, such as from the KUL, held unwavering a plea for a longer term.

The social and scientific demand for enlargement sounded clearly in Parliament, but as I said in the committee, politics is often the art of the feasible. We chose a solution that realises an important intermediate step.

It, by the way, glorifies the colleagues of the majority parties that they have sat around the table on our question to produce a proposal expressly recognising abortion as a right: the right of the woman, whose abortion is completely removed from the criminal sphere.

The bill is a step forward in many aspects. The woman no longer needs to endorse that she is in an emergency situation in order to practice abortion. Completed with answers why; the well-considered will of the woman is sufficient. The condition of the emergency is once and for all past time.

Regarding the six-day reflection period, I hear colleagues say that this was not considered and that no steps forward were taken. However, I would like to emphasize that the reflection time is completely eliminated if there are medical reasons for it. If, under certain circumstances, it is unbearable and unachievable for a woman to wait further before undergoing the interruption, then she can be assisted immediately. In addition, those six days are added to the period of twelve weeks, so that the de facto deadline for abortion is thirteen weeks. In this way, we offer help to those who leave a doctor to consult. They will also be able to be helped.

I hear some here on the tribune say that this is a cloth for bleeding and does not mean real progress. However, in 25 % of cases, women who are not able to do so today in our country will be able to receive assistance in the future. As many as 25% of women who are not helped today are in a situation where they effectively consult a doctor. In the future, this will be 25%.

We also implement the duty of referral. If a doctor does not want to perform an abortion — we do not want to force or compel anyone — then he must refer to a doctor who will or can do it. There is even a punishment for the one who prevents the woman from going to the place where an abortion can be legally performed. What was once a crime, now becomes a law-guaranteed right and guaranteed freedom. And that, my colleagues, is real progress.

Some argue to the boredom, even today, that the depenalization is only apparent because the bill still provides for criminal provisions. We do not follow this reasoning and do not agree with this criticism. Until today, abortion is still included in our Criminal Code and there is a penalty-excluding compensation basis for those who meet the legal conditions. In the future, this will no longer be the case, in the sense that those who meet the legal criteria will no longer have to invoke any penalty-excluding justification but will indeed have the right to undergo an abortion. Completed with culpabilization. Guilt is now the past.

That there are still sanctions against those who go beyond the legal conditions is quite normal. After all, without sanctions, we would take a step back and go back to situations where thousands, tens of thousands of women died because they underwent abortion in an unsafe way. This is a risk that we do not want to take. Furthermore, without sanctions, we would allow abortion to take place far beyond the viable term, and we cannot tolerate that.

I come to the evaluation. Is it a cloth for bleeding? Is it a punitive step in the right direction? Is it the most liberal law we will vote on today? I leave it in the middle.

Colleagues, I am positive because this proposal, in any case, makes abortion a right for women and is no longer included in the Criminal Code, and because the legislation is being modernised in many other areas. Removing abortion from the Criminal Code makes it possible to take steps forward in the future.

We also in the committee have disconnected our bill from what we will approve and approve today. A step in the right direction, away from the criminal connotation.

We never let go of our ideas. It is therefore well-conscious and very conscious that we — I think I can speak for my whole group — as a progressive party are ready to take another step in the right direction in the next period, a step that will further protect the rights of women.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mrs. Van Cauter for her honesty and sincerity. I did not analyze the law in the same way it did and our bill did not go beyond the threshold of viability.

She said what Mr. Clarinval hasn’t said for weeks. She said that was what was feasible and feasible within the framework of that majority and that we did not want a vote with an alternative majority, as has been the case, for example, for the extension of euthanasia to minors or for the adoption of gay couples.

For this, Mrs Van Cauter, I really thank you. You have always been an honest woman.

Mrs. Lalieux, I think you only partially understood me. When I said that we have sought what was most achievable today, I mean that, when it comes to ethical issues, we must ensure a broad consensus conducted socially and that it is not up to the majority to impose its will on a minority. Many colleagues in the hemisphere would like to go far beyond the current bill, but we are confident that this proposal will be widely supported, ⁇ even by the 150 members who will vote. We will at least have realized that, we will at least have made a law that will also be carried out outside the hemisphere by a wide layer of the population, and that was our goal.

Madame Van Cauter, you know that there is a social majority on this subject while this is not the case with regard to the extension of euthanasia to minors. Eighty percent of the Belgian population wanted a health law and more sanctions for women. Eighty forty percent! That’s much more than all the ethical votes we’ve done. You know it very well! For adoptions for homosexual couples, this percentage has not been reached either.

Experts all agreed on the 18 weeks. There is a social consensus. But the majority wanted to be united on this issue. You are going to vote, and I am sorry. In fact, it will take 30 years to overcome the twelve weeks. This is unacceptable for women. This is a disregard for them. Today, women are really losers!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, what is put to the vote here today is a missed opportunity for us. It is a missed opportunity to provide better care guidance to women in need. None of the women makes a light-minded choice for abortion. They are the most vulnerable and disadvantaged women who would benefit most from improvements and adjustments to the law.

The many hearings have shown that there is a large support from experts and civil society organisations to support a number of proposals from the Ecolo-Groen bill. I think, for example, of extending to 16 weeks instead of the current 12 weeks, with the possibility of still switching to abortion after this period if the psychosocial state of the woman constitutes a serious obstacle to the continuation of the pregnancy. Another example is the reduction of the reflection time to 48 hours instead of 6 days. Or even, limiting the punishment to doctors in case of non-compliance with the conditions and not targeting the women themselves.

We can only call this a missed opportunity. The present legislative proposal by the majority does not bring a number of essential improvements.

However, we also see some cautiously positive steps. What deserves our consent? First, the proposal removes the current articles of the Criminal Code relating to voluntary abortion and converts them into a special law. That is positive. Here you have listened to what came out of the hearings.

Secondly, the proposal – though somewhat “chiefly” – is key to the reflection time if the woman is encouraged to the 12 week term. Let me call this a mouse step forward.

Also the information obligation, included separately and not in the Patient Rights Act, is a step forward.

Finally, does this bill respond to what women who need an abortion and care providers expect? No to. Is it a first step in the right direction? Yes, but it remains a missed opportunity for women in need, especially for the most vulnerable. That is why I will remember. This is an ethical issue. Each member of our group can decide how he or she will vote. We will therefore vote mixed, but know that Ecolo-Groen will surely return to this in the next legislature. It can be better.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I did not want to interrupt the debates just recently, but, having listened to what both have said, I allow myself to remind myself here, out of respect for the persons concerned, that among the experts heard in the committee and more broadly among the actors of civil society, there is no single and common position on how to make this specific law on voluntary abortion. There is no common and unified position on how to remove the IVG from the Criminal Code.

As you know, we have submitted a bill on this subject. We are in favor of leaving the Criminal Code of voluntary interruption of pregnancy because considering it as the same as rape or murder makes a heavy sense. Including voluntary interruption of pregnancy in the Criminal Code in crimes and crimes against the family order and public morality is also ⁇ meaningful.

From the beginning, we have been in favor of a separate and specific law separate from the Criminal Code. Furthermore, we reiterated that we absolutely want to maintain strict labels and conditions on this specific law concerning voluntary abortion. Among these conditions, there is this period of 12 weeks which seems to us to be a reasonable period. The majority of IVGs occur well before 12 weeks (97% in the first 12 weeks and 89% in the first 8 weeks).

Another tag seems important to us: these are the reasons why an interruption of pregnancy could occur after 12 weeks.

You know, dear colleagues, medical interruptions of pregnancy, for serious medical reasons affecting either the woman or the fetus, are permitted today at any stage of pregnancy, even to the very end of pregnancy. This is something for us that is important to maintain, and that is the case. Whether in our bill or in the bill we are discussing now, medical abortions of pregnancy, for serious medical reasons concerning either the woman or the fetus, will be permitted at any stage of pregnancy.

Maintaining clear labels also means giving yourself the means to ensure that these labels are respected. In this case, we are not in favour of making abortion an unconditional right of the woman – I am not talking about the first 12 weeks of pregnancy – by allowing voluntary interruption of pregnancy, without medical reasons, at any time of pregnancy. To comply with this, it is important to maintain criminal sanctions for voluntary interruption of pregnancy without medical reason after 12 weeks.

For those who consider that it would be disrespectful to women to maintain criminal sanctions after 12 weeks, I would like to remind that in a whole series of legislations (they are extremely numerous), when the law provides for obligations or prohibitions, it makes them comply with criminal sanctions. It is so in all areas of life, and even elsewhere of privacy, whether in the areas that affect families, whether in the field of security, social law, and I pass.

Making it a women’s unconditional right, removing criminal sanctions when conditions are not met – when an IVG occurs after 12 weeks without medical reasons – is opening the door to voluntary abortion at any time. We are not in favor. Interruption of pregnancy is not a medical act like any other. We do not regard it as a medical act like any other.

I will not return to the discussions that have already taken place. As far as I am concerned, I have always been careful to stay on the underlying argument. I find some types of debates that give the impression that one no longer has the right to express a different stance from his or her interlocutor in pain of being treated as retrograde, obscurantist, and I pass. It’s easy to lock one or the other in a reducing label rather than answering backward arguments.

Two points still deserve attention. First, when a voluntary interruption of pregnancy occurs, whether voluntary or medical, it is important that psychosocial support, before, during and after, in addition to medical support, be at the disposal of the woman or the families concerned, so that the abortion can be done in the best possible conditions. Secondly, I would like to address the majority and regret that even today, in terms of intervening as early as possible, to guarantee the real right of women – access to contraception – the difficulties continue to be significant.

We had the debate not in the Justice Committee but in the Public Health Committee. Do you find it normal, dear colleagues of the majority, that the morning afternoon pill is not accessible in an extremely simplified way for young people, for the less young and for women in general? I think this is not acceptable.

In this matter, it is a matter that remains extremely important today, first of all for the freedom of the woman, because the freedom of the woman begins before pregnancy and with access to contraception, including the morning afternoon pill. This is also, I think, an important challenge to avoid unwanted pregnancies and avoid having to in the end resort to voluntary abortions of pregnancy.

I allow myself, dear female and male colleagues of the majority, to turn to you, to the government and in this case to the Minister of Health so that we can really move forward in contraception where, today, there are still shortcomings for which you have not agreed to move forward. I regret it.

I dare hope that one day or another, one will be able to settle once and for all this access to the next day pill but also to other contraceptive means that are ⁇ more recent, which actually have a certain cost but which will guarantee, in a more important way, the freedom of choice of the woman and the control of contraception in order to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would like to first return briefly to how the work on these texts has been done, on a topic as important as that which is truly related to the rights of women and which is fundamental. One of the women’s rights is the right to dispose of their body.

What was the purpose of the bills that were on the table? They aimed at improving a right, a right that exists, that is recognized, that must be respected since 1990. I really had the feeling, in the discussions we had, that some regarded this right as a bad right and that at the limit, some would have preferred that it never existed.

Nobody dared to say that abortion would be abolished in Belgium. Nevertheless, this opinion existed: the act of abortion, which is a right, is bad. Honestly, I thought that parliamentary work on this subject could have been fruitful. In fact, various legislative proposals were made, with complementary positioning. These proposals came from the majority and the opposition. So we could work together with auditions and build a collective text. We had auditions of rare quality. They really brought us something more every time and questioned us. Each proposal author recalled from these hearings that he had to improve an element in his original text. We did so, unfortunately only between opposition parties, while we had invited the majority parties to participate in this collective work. The fact is that the majority brings a closed, different text, which does not have the same amplitude, and with a speech tending to say that the best is still the strategy of the small step: "Since the previous governments have done nothing, there is nothing to do about this!"

We have a right that needs to be improved. You come with political speeches and quarrels. “You didn’t do this, you don’t have the right to criticize; we do this, we take small steps and that’s what matters.” Frankly, through this vision and this contempt for parliamentary work, it is ultimately a contempt for women and their rights.

It is also a form of contempt and a lack of consideration for children. The right to abortion is infringed as a result of a request from a woman who considers that she is not in a position to have a child at that point in her life when she is told, “It would still be better if you kept it.” Will someone be forced to love a child? Thus a child is forced to suffer an unenvyable fate, that of not having been desired, of having a mother who is not in a position to raise him. He will have to take that on. It is not the member who is here.

This is also a lack of respect for doctors. They have been fighting since 1990. Remember Dr. Peers and others. They came to tell us that they wanted to properly exercise this right to abortion.

The current practice, the reality of women, makes us no longer know how to apply it properly in compliance with the law. The law needs to be improved. That’s why I regret the way we worked, not just because we fought between majority and opposition, but also because it involves and covers all those realities.

I would also like to reassure the members of the Parliament. Who is targeted by this bill? They are those who need it most, who are in socio-economic, socio-cultural conditions or in life dramas that make it too late when they make their request. It is to them that this right must be opened and confirmed. No one has ever said during the works, or in any text of proposal submitted, that this is a banal act, an unconditional right. Everyone considers it to be an important act, a choice of life, a difficult decision, which is taken at a given moment by a woman who considers that it was the best solution for her.

We know that this will not increase the number of abortions. Because those for whom there is a concern today, either, have money and will get abortion in the Netherlands, or, benefit from the gentleness of some doctors who meet their need. But, in any case, we know that this free access does not increase the number of abortions.

Many in the majority, and also in the opposition, spoke of the need to improve, when necessary, the psychosocial support of these women. This is part of the tasks of the centers that practice IVG. These preventive missions are also expected from these instances, since the ideal is not to be forced to practice abortion. The ideal is a good use of contraception. Of course, and this is part of the missions of the centers.

But who refused to improve, a few months ago, the ability of planning centers to give greater and easier access to contraception, the morning afternoon pill? Who has refused to take into account the difficulties of some women going directly to the pharmacy and using contraceptive equipment without being directly in contact with the center doctor? It is this majority that comes to tell us that it is necessary to better use contraception and that, thanks to it, there is no need to extend or improve the right to abortion. Well, this is not possible, because it was refused, a few months ago!

A third unacceptable aspect in commission exchanges relates to guilt. Among the reasons that justified this mobilization of women’s associations, doctors and parliamentarians who submitted a proposal was the blaming of the woman, who exercises a right. In committees, the way in which the parliamentarians of the majority expressed their difficulties with regard to the improvement of this right consisted in linking each time with the fault, with the guilt. If one resorted to abortion, it was because one had not been able to be sufficiently responsible for oneself! This is a moral judgment that is ⁇ difficult to accept in our time.

Ecolo-Groen will resubmit a bill that will cover the health sector. We will incorporate one of the advances in the text of the majority, that of removing these articles from the Criminal Code, and we will improve the exercise of this right so as to increase the number of weeks during which it can be exercised, to reduce the time for reflection to 48 hours, and to remove something incomprehensible. For some people, it is difficult to say that we are increasing the number of weeks, but we keep in the bill we are going to adopt today the fact that we will have to have the certainty that the unborn child will be affected by a serious and incurable disease – while we are never certain of anything. When you know that there is a high risk, isn’t that enough to allow medical interruption of pregnancy? You have left these provisions! We will therefore find ourselves with a two-speed access to the exercise of this right that all women should have.

I come to an issue that has been discussed a lot too. During the hearings, all the speakers pointed out the fact that the doctors, the speakers would be obliged to inform the women who came to consult them for an interruption of pregnancy about the abandonment, adoption, the formulas of reception of the child that they should give birth and then entrust it.

I speak here as a woman, as a parliamentary and as a psychologist. A child who is abandoned is a child who is put into a situation of suffering throughout his childhood, throughout his adult life.

Nevertheless, you are saying that it is better for a woman to abandon her child, to entrust it to a third party rather than to assume a voluntary interruption of pregnancy to be pregnant at another time that will be better suited to her and that will allow her to raise and love her child. I really regret you for that. I am sorry to impose this way of doing.

With your bill, you force doctors to lie because, in order to meet the needs of the most difficult women, they will not be able to comply with all the provisions, and you know that. In doing so, you force them to lie. You also force them to punish the woman.

You talk about assessments that you would like to improve. But these are not evaluations. When you hear some members of the majority, it is more about controls. Indeed, you know that your law is not good and that the controls will allow to punish those who practice IVGs. I also regret you for that.

Therefore, you have despised parliamentary work and through it, the rights of women. I also blame you for that.

The advances included in your text should have allowed Ecolo members to abstain from voting, but given what I just mentioned and which arouses the anger of several members of our group, some will only be able to vote against the text you propose us.

I just want to read the article about these famous six days added, this week added to the twelve weeks. If I am a woman, a woman who has not gone to university, who has not studied law, who is not a parliamentary, I try to know what I can do. The article therefore states this: "The doctor shall not be allowed to practice interruption of pregnancy at the earliest six days after the first scheduled consultation, unless there is an urgent medical reason for the pregnant woman to advance the interruption of pregnancy; if this first consultation takes place at least six days before the expiry of the period referred to in the twelve weeks, the period referred to is extended in proportion to the number of days not passed from the period of six days." There too, it is a contempt in the exercise of rights: making laws that one cannot understand. You will understand that I will vote against this bill.

I will make a brief speech simply to thank Ms. Gerkens for all the work done, not only in this case on the decriminalization of abortion, but also in many ethical files. We have been able to work together and I want to thank her for all the work done and for the continued search for a compromise.

I am glad that you were able to be here today. We will miss you in this Parliament, Mrs. Gerkens, because you have common sense.

(Applause from all banks)

Thanks to Mrs Gerkens.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, it is superb that there can be a debate in the Chamber about depenalization of abortion. It simply sounds like that. It should be that we can have a free debate on ethical issues here. This debate should be conducted with respect for everyone’s opinion. Regardless of who is for or against, such debates should be able to take place in the House.

I was surprised at the sudden announcement that a historic agreement had been reached. That historical agreement was not beyond the boundaries of majority and opposition, but an agreement in the majority. It was called a historical agreement because abortion would be removed from criminal law.

But when I faced the text and thus the outcome of that historical agreement, I was not so satisfied; I expected more from that historical agreement. Abortion is punishable if not all conditions are met. There is a special criminal law.

Per ⁇ some parties or some members here to the end of the current legislature absolutely wanted to put a penny on their hat. I respect everyone’s opinion, but for me it’s not a plum, but a fourth. There are indeed steps and no steps forward. I cannot see it as a super agreement. There is no complete revision of the abortion law here, which is a pity. This should have been a free debate over the majority and the opposition. This must be done in ethical matters.

In each party it is said that there is such a thing as freedom of conscience, which allows parliamentarians to vote freely in ethical matters according to honour and conscience. However, I can only conclude that this is not the case, because today not every member of parliament will vote by honour and conscience.

It is unfortunate to note that even in ethical dossiers the particulation prevails. As people’s representatives, as people’s representatives, we should be able to freely express our opinions and vote freely on all ethical issues. We see that this will not be the case today. After all, from the debate we learn that several members wanted to go much further than the text presented today, but nevertheless those members will not support the amendments. In my opinion, everyone should be able to freely decide. I respect everyone’s opinion. I therefore regret that Members, who are known to agree with the content of the amendments, will not approve those amendments. As representatives of the people, we should be able to be completely free in this matter.

I will vote freely; I am very clear about this. In our group, which is not so large, it may become a little easier, but each of us votes freely and makes its own choice.

Some argue that the amendments may go too far. I can argue that the law absolutely does not mandate abortion. The law should only ensure that abortion is removed from criminal law. A woman really will never simply go to abortion; she will make a very thoughtful decision about it. In my view, it is a pity that a woman who still wishes to take the step of abortion beyond a certain deadline is still obliged to eventually move to the Netherlands, so that she can still make her choice, which she thinks is the best and which she does not like so much.

If she has to do so, then she feels tremendously bad, as a wife and ⁇ as a future mother. That is regrettable.

I fully agree that prevention is very important and that it should also be addressed. But please leave that right to the woman and let everyone freely in it. Do not point to anyone with your finger when they make one or the other decision.

Finally, I am very curious whether the co-signature by the King will come, because last time, under King Boudewijn, it was quite difficult. I am therefore very curious about what King Philip will do with the present bill, since he still sees King Boudewin as his spiritual father. Will he sign the text or not?

Let it be clear: never point the finger to a woman who has decided to have an abortion, because she did so because she was in this or that situation. Let women make that choice as freely as possible and please remove abortion entirely from the criminal code. The bill is a small step forward and we will also support it, but for us it could go much further.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, it is true that this debate could have had a completely different dimension. He could have known the extent of what the legislative power had given in 1990 following the initiative of Mr. Lallemand and Mrs. Michielsens which followed other bills filed by a number of parliamentarians very precursors at the time. I think in particular of Marcel Payfa to whom I pay tribute, one of the very first in the Senate to have deposited a bill for the decriminalization of abortion.

This debate in 1990 had begun the reflection on the major ethical subjects concerning the freedom of individual conscience, which are related to life choices, the choices facing death and on the fact that ethical debates in Parliament can only allow a strong evolution of legislation on one condition. And I answer this to Ms. Fonck.

First of all, respect for everyone’s beliefs. I have a deep respect for those who, in these essential choices, may not share my most personal beliefs. I have an appreciation for those who openly and frankly assume more reserved, ⁇ even more critical choices compared to a number of legislative developments. But there is one thing that was at least acquired to this day in our parliamentary assemblies – especially also in the Senate, when the Senate was often the engine of legislative debates – that each parliamentary, each party agreed that this debate be free from any issue related to the government majority, because there can be no legislative progress on these essential issues if the government majority, following the blackmail of even one party, annihilates the autonomy of the legislative power in the search for an indispensable legislative evolution.

What is new today, and here is where I make a severe reproach to the majority parties, is that you have returned to the old and bad tradition of those who consider that the freedom of the legislative power in this matter must be brimmed by the will of the government majority. This is the regression! This is what you have accepted and this is what makes today a terrible brake to a debate that was, however, initiated in committees on the basis of genuine mutual respect and a willingness to dialogue and openness.

This is regrettable. It is a brake. It is simply the abandonment of what the legislative power can do better when it is fully autonomous. I deeply regret it.

The second consideration. What we all had admitted over time in these delicate debates, which obviously do not require simplified answers through slogans, which require time and reflection, is that the law must free itself from the moral precepts wanted by one or the other conviction. It is that the law is not there, in such delicate subjects, to say what is consistent with any beliefs. It is there to enable everyone to assume their convictions in the deepest of what holds them as essential convictions. This is what the legislator wants to allow. It is not that the legislator makes a moral judgment. Who can afford to make a moral judgment on such essential choices?

It is that the law must simply open the field of freedom of conscience in these essential debates. And over time, whatever the convictions of one and the other, this essential evolution was admitted. This was why, for example, in the debates on the decriminalization of abortion in 1990, parliamentarians of Christian religious conviction voted the law on decriminalization.

In my party, André Lagasse, former dean of the UCL Faculty of Law, had made this choice, in respect of the convictions of others. I remember the trouble of one Jean-Louis Thys who, in his own party, had advocated the abstention on this debate by saying: "My convictions, I do not want to impose them on others. I give freedom to everyone.”

This is what we wanted to bring to this important debate.

When we advocated for the release of the voluntary interruption of pregnancy from the Criminal Code, it was not to reinsert it into another criminal law, but to affirm that we wanted to definitively decriminalize it. Do not play with words. Let us not qualify as an advance the release of the provisions of the Criminal Code to take them back almost as they are in a criminal law! A criminal law remains a criminal law – whether it is called “Criminal Code” or “Clarinval Law”.

This was the debate we had to conduct in this assembly. I would like to immediately reject the false argument which would consist of arguing that on the grounds that any criminal provision would be removed, there would be no more tag. Simone Veil’s French law, dating back to 1975: there is no criminal sanction! See the Luxembourg, Dutch and Danish laws. It would be reasoning as if doctors were criminals in power. It’s a bit like doctors ignored their deontology.

I return to the essential. Don’t try to get overwhelmed with details.

It was as if doctors were unlikely to know what competes with the well-being and health of the woman, indeed, in the face of a delicate and difficult choice, but of which it was finally admitted that it is a right. It is a right! The WHO and the European Court of Human Rights have recalled this. This choice is no longer considered to be a criminal act possibly involving reasons for exemption.

The exercise of a right is not repressed. It is respected the right that the woman exercises by her personal choice. This is what we had to talk about. We were ready to discuss how long voluntary interruption of pregnancy can be exercised without moving into the category of medical interruption of pregnancy. We could have talked about the period of reflection. Personally, I even believe that we can completely abolish it.

We could have talked about this, if that was the condition for seeking the broadest majority. But you did not want this debate, in the name of a choice of a government majority, for reasons of balance within the government majority.

This is what I think needs to be said: that is, in the end, it is a confiscated debate. This is a debate where Parliament is denied in the fullness of its powers. This is a debate following which thousands of women will still say that, under certain personal circumstances, calling a doctor in Belgium to proceed with a voluntary abortion of pregnancy may expose themselves to risks of criminal prosecution. Therefore, many women will still make the choice to travel to other countries. However, we could have given the signal of serenity in this debate.

I recognize and respect the opposing views. But what an overwhelming majority of the people who were heard in the committee, and a number of practitioners, sought, was: "Do not subject this medical approach to the risk of penalization. Trust the dialogue, the relationship of trust that must be established between the woman and the doctor.”

It was this, the signal we wanted to give through the definitive and total decriminalization of abortion. This discussion was confiscated. Per ⁇ it will still take the revolt of many doctors like Willy Peers to finally, this debate comes back in this assembly, with the demand of respect, and first of all respect due to women.

This proposal does not change anything substantial about the right to abortion. It is even a regression in this right because it has only one purpose: to evacuate the many proposals of the opposition that, they, defended real advances.

These proposals of what some have called the “progressive opposition” responded to the call of the associative world and to the wishes of a large majority of the population, to ⁇ three objectives: to abolish the criminal sanctions relating to abortion, to remove the abnormal length of the six-day reflection period, and to substantially increase the twelve-week period during which an abortion is possible to approach, for example, the situation in the Netherlands, to which, every year, hundreds of women are forced to turn to abortion.

The majority proposal does not meet any of these three objectives and evacuates those that contained them. Isn’t the worst thing that the majority bases their argument on a word game designed to deceive the population, in order to “fuss the mouth” of women who risk going to prison?

You claim to remove abortion from the Criminal Code, but write explicitly, in the developments of the bill: "Our bill aims to repeal the current articles of the Criminal Code that relate to voluntary abortion and transfer them into a specific law."

You have not even taken the effort to change the text of the Criminal Code. You did a simple copy-paste, for example for the article that provides for imprisonment from one month to one year and a fine of 50 to 200 euros. Needless to say, many lawyers are frankly shocked by this mascarade, by the fact of crushing the laws texts simply for a purely political marketing operation without real substantial changes. This is the case for Laurent Kennes, a member of the Criminal Procedure Reform Commission who says: “We must stop saying that we are decriminalizing. It makes no sense. On a scientific and academic level, this is shocking.” he adds: “We are deceivingly lying to the population.”

It really lies to the public. What does this legislative shift serve other than to deceive people? In what would it be a symbolic achievement, as Mr. Clarinval claims, to remove the IVG from the Criminal Code to put it in another law? In what way is it an achievement to say to a woman that one would be put in prison, because she has aborted: "Madame, reassure yourself, you are in prison but not on the basis of the Criminal Code but on the basis of a specific law"?

I would even say that the risk of going to prison is probably greater with this amendment than before, because the 1990 law, as we know, was the result of a somewhat difficult political agreement. It contained, for the purposes of the cause, flutes and artifices that probably incited the prosecutor's office to be cautious before undertaking prosecutions. Here, with this proposal, we have a clear law with clear conditions and so women or doctors who do not comply with these conditions today are at greater risk than before of being victims of new prosecutions or even new convictions.

Therefore, a historic opportunity is missed to complete the incomplete work begun by the partial decriminalization of 1990. A historic opportunity to disculpate women by granting them a full and complete right to freely dispose of their bodies.

It was a historic opportunity to view abortion as a medical act and not as an act punishable by a prison sentence. It was also a historic occasion in view of the situation in Europe and the rest of the world. Today, in many countries, the right to abortion has either never been achieved or is questioned. In this international context, we would have given a positive signal more than timely. In Latin America, only three countries have allowed abortion: Cuba since 1959, Guyana since 2006, and Uruguay since 2012.

The CD&V, the cdH, a large part of the N-VA are against the decriminalization of abortion. This does not surprise many people. But they do not form a majority in this parliament. Many expected a different attitude from the liberals, given their secular tradition. Is this so surprising on the part of the liberals? Is it surprising that liberals laugh at these issues? Not as much as that! If one sees their policy, it goes in the direction of reducing the rights of the people. There may have been some enlightened liberals in the 19th century, but this era is quite distant.

How can people’s rights be defended when they are attacked by the N-VA and are often tempted, like them, to surf racism? How can people’s rights be defended when we consider searching for people who are in solidarity with migrants? How can people’s rights be defended when they break social rights, when they break the rights of the sick, the unemployed, the retirees – especially the retirees – when they break the right to strike, when they attack the weakest, including women, often in more precarious economic situations?

The right-wing policy is to take away rights from the people. It is not surprising, therefore, that this right now advocates a proposal aimed at putting in prison women who simply want to freely dispose of their bodies!