Proposition 54K3271

Projet de loi modifiant diverses dispositions relatives à la réglementation concernant l'enfant sans vie.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Sept. 19, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

surname descendant civil register civil status child

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit LE ∉ Open Vld N-VA MR PP

Voted to reject

PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Kristof Calvo (Groen) 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 ¶

Dec. 13, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs Özlem Özen and Gilles Foret refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the initiatives and legislative proposals on unborn children have already been accompanied by several legislatures. In 2014, this theme was included for the first time in the government agreement of the previous government. This new legislation on the name and registration of the lifeless-born child supports us hopefully, especially after decades of requests for humanization with respect to parents facing such a loss.

Even now, however, it did not appear to be obvious to come to an arrangement. We already held hearings at the beginning of the legislature, in 2014 and 2015, and last summer we finally reached a compromise.

The proposal aims to maintain existing regulations on mandatory registration from 180 days of pregnancy, but also offers parents the possibility to give the child a surname. And that is new. In addition, a completely new possibility is also created, namely that one can give the child a first name from 140 days of pregnancy. This is not an obligation, but a possibility.

That is a step in the right direction, but like in the committee and through other channels, we repeat — we never put it under chairs or banks — that it should have gone further for us. It is a good thing that the existing scheme is extended, there was a long demand for it, but that the link is made between the declaration and the viability is in our opinion not correct. The limit of 140 days is arbitrary. For our group, it is not the viability that matters in the matter, but the sorrow under which the parents go. The loss of a deadborn child help process and support during the mourning process is for us the main concern. In short, we find the duration of pregnancy subordinate to the sorrow of the parents.

The sadness of parents does not begin at 180 days, nor does it begin at 140 days. After all, parents long before pregnancy look forward to the new life that will perfect their family.

At that moment there is nothing worse than the unexpected interruption of pregnancy or the birth of a lifeless child. Being affected by such sorrow is irrelevant. The sorrow for that loss will forever have a place within that family, within that family.

For us, as I said, the process of mourning is central. One parent may have a need for grief, while for another parent this will be less the case. Parents in need must be supported as much as possible; that is our job. Freedom of choice remains essential. The freedom of choice, from 140 days, is therefore included in the preceding text. A mourning process is an individual process and we must leave it to the people to make a choice in it.

Positively, a transitional period is provided to accommodate all parents who have ever faced such a loss.

We will support the bill, as it is presented. However, you have understood that we hope that the regulation can be expanded at a later stage. However, we have given our word and, in view of holding a serene debate, we do not wish to throw any mess in the food today.

I would like to conclude with a quote from Mrs. Marleen Vertommen, who has been committed to the VZW With Empty Hands for years and days: "A deadborn child has no life, but forever an existence, which can be respected and honored by an official recognition."

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, so many women and so many men have experienced this suffering: a pregnancy that abruptly interrupts, a hope that flies away. When the child is desired, the shock is rough, difficult to cope with. We feel empty, we feel empty. What to do? What to do in the face of this cruelty of destiny?

The answer is simple: we do what we can. Each and every one in their own way, with their weapons, with family, friendly aid, but also with the extraordinary contribution of most medical teams - doctors, nurses, psychologists, social workers. These professionals stretch out the hand, support the mother, accompany the couple in the process of mourning.

For some, it will be photos, footprints or fingerprints, memories that will be proposed. It will be the cemetery of the stars. For others, traces only accentuate the feeling of failure. Parents first and foremost need psychological support in order to reboot themselves otherwise.

But who are we here to codify this pain? This bill organizes the official recognition of an unviable fetus and the registration of it in a civil status register. A few-week-old fetus will become a child by the magic of a law. But what are we really looking for? Helping a struggling family or making regressive ideology?

This project does not happen at any time. It is coupled with the decisions that have been made on the re-criminalization of abortion. The Women’s Council speaks of a “funest trilogy”. February 2017: prenatal recognition of the child to be born by an unmarried parent from the beginning of pregnancy; October 15, 2018: unacceptable maintenance of prison sentences for IVG more than twelve weeks. We will remember in this regard the statements of Minister Geens to the newspaper La Libre Belgique: "I am humanly hit by abortion." Today, third act: the possible recognition of a status for an unviable fetus from the 140th day following conception. It creates the confusion between the conception of an embryo and the birth of a child.

Recognizing a status to an embryo, even in a limited way, conflicts with the very idea of abortion, not to mention the question of medical research. Fem & Law invites us, like the Women’s Council, like the CAL (Centre of Laic Action), like so many other field professionals, to avoid this sliding slope on which this government has settled. It invites us to respect the rights of women, especially when it comes to prenatal life.

Cherry on the cake, not satisfied with coding the pain and giving a status to an unviable fetus, you take the risk of crushing the peace of households. Indeed, a declaration of a child without life can be made without the consent of the mother, the one who suffers in her flesh from not being able to become a mother this time. A dictate of the father or companion may be imposed against the opinion of the mother. I am submitting an amendment so that at least every time the consent of the mother is required for this inscription. I hope that at least this amendment, ladies and gentlemen, will be able to make its way in this homicide this afternoon.

Ladies and gentlemen, the PS has proposed another path: that of public health and concrete support for women, couples, professionals. At present, almost nothing is in place to allow parents to benefit from such an accompaniment. Nothing is planned to value the work of gynecologists-obstetricians, neonatologists, midwives, psychologists, social workers as part of this handling of perinatal mourning. This is time-consuming and personal work if accompanying is performed correctly.

Today, the specific consultations conducted in this context are in fact similar to the traditional prenatal or postnatal consultations during a pregnancy that goes well. The nomenclature thus makes the impasse on the time and personnel needed to respond to these specific situations, to try to help digest such a drama, to help restore meaning to these couples. Medical personnel are thus forced to exceed the time and theoretically planned sessions with families to show themselves simply human. At this level, I emphasize, no progress is proposed by the government. We have submitted proposals. They will be reviewed by the Public Health Committee of the House. I sincerely hope that we will be able to find solutions for helping and accompanying these couples.

Ladies and gentlemen, you are going to vote on a text that not only limits the right of women to dispose of their bodies, but that will also put a crazy pressure on couples, even unintentionally, even if it is not formally mandatory, by imposing a pain management in accordance with your ideology.

Do I have to register it in the civil status? What kind of parent am I? What kind of parent would I have been if I did not civically identify him as my child? What name would we have given him? These are the questions that parents will ask themselves.

Heenen-Wolff, psychoanalyst at UCL and ULB, said: "The mourning of a project when it is unseen, unformalized is often easier, mitigating by this non-materialization the experience of losing a child on the road. The obligation to deal with the consequences of miscarriage, such as the invitation to choose a first name, can only accentuate the feeling of defeat. Why compel to name and register such a disaster? That some people want to keep more traces than others is a legitimate approach. It should not cover all other ways of getting out of it.”

Everything is said and I will complement with the message so many times analyzed in the commission of Mrs. Anne-Cécile Noël, a social worker at the CHU of Saint-Pierre. She says: “Creating a standard generates psychological effects in parents. How can we not make some people feel guilty? How can medical teams work safely?” To these important questions, there is no answer. Just a stubbornness.

You are simply in this march that I hardly appreciate, which, more and more, in so many countries of Europe in particular, organizes the regression of women’s rights. The PS will never accept this.

Mr. Speaker, I tried to be very respectful and so I didn’t interrupt Mrs. Onkelinx, but I can’t let go of what I just heard.

I agree with Ms. Onkelinx on all the work that has been done at the level of hospital teams. I have already repeatedly asked Minister De Block about the fact that these teams are not supported financially.

Onkelinx, on the other hand, I do not agree with you at all on the rest of your remarks. When you come here to explain, when you try to explain, that a faculty provided in the law would be a so-called obligation, you completely transform the bill!

Furthermore, you explain to us that, in the end, it is a complete questioning of the voluntary interruption of pregnancy, while this has nothing to do with it. You explain to us the right to declare a miscarriage to the municipality without the consent of the woman who lost her pregnancy. Sorry, I find that, in your head, the way you transform the text is truly unacceptable.

Mrs. Onkelinx, the words have a meaning. When you transform words, without nuances, so much that you simplify them in a truncated and erroneous way, this is not acceptable, especially in the head of responsible policymakers. You know as well as me that the rule of registration in the municipality after 180 days is already in force today. We simply transposed the same rule for babies born without life between four and a half months and six months of pregnancy.

You explain here that there will be a declaration of false abortions. Let me tell you that the way you say it is ⁇ disrespectful to the parents concerned. This is a real blunder and, for me, it is even a real intolerance! If it is a faculty, and it is obviously important that it be, it allows each one to live his parental mourning as he hears it. It equally respects parents who do not want to make this statement, and this is ⁇ important.

But this allows above all those who desire that the State recognize this birth, and see themselves recognized, not as nothing, but as parents, to obtain that advance that will participate in helping the process of mourning. If I agree with certain parts of your remarks, I find it really unacceptable the way you conducted your speech, and I find that other parts of your remarks are ⁇ unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, in preparation for this session, I took the effort to recite the many testimonies of professionals, men and women who, on a daily basis, accompany these women in their pain and suffering. I do not, as you do, take a back of the hand, what they and they tell us, namely that a project like this risks increasing their suffering and the difficulty of making their mourning.

It is not enough, Mr. Clarinval, to move your head from side to side to be right. Read what is said! Read what is said!

In my opinion, Mr. Clarinval, you have not read. I can say in any case that we took the time to listen to a lot of professionals who, they, are next to the men and women who are experiencing this pain. Most of them have asked not to continue on this path.

Madame Fonck, you will tell me that you had another proposal that we did not want. But we went to you and said that since you absolutely wanted to move forward, despite our disagreements, we were willing to take steps to try, in this so difficult matter, to find consensus. And we requested that the unviable fetus be not registered in a civil status document, under which it would be recognized as a person. We suggested that it be entered into an ad hoc file.

The [...]

Madame Fonck, calm down! Maybe it’s because I also know this suffering that other parents have experienced. Is this enough for you? Maybe I can talk about it better than others. A bit of decency, okay?

Coding this pain and thus increasing it, as the professionals say, is more than a bad idea, it is a mistake. Wanting to officially inscribe a non-viable fetus in a civil status act comes to strike certain rights for which women and men have fought for years, including the right to abortion. This text would also allow this inscription against the will of the woman, under the pretext that her partner or husband wants it.

A dictates of a partner or a husband against the will of women! You find this normal, you. And so yes, I’m fighting against that, Mrs. Fonck. Indeed, I fully assume the defense of this file, as I developed it, asking first of all that it be considered as a public health file and not as a codification, as you did, with back-thinking.

and codification. Only this term, in your head, means a lot. I see, Mrs. Onkelinx, that you have blocked this file to the government for ten years.

It provided for what you are proposing today, namely a register specific to the municipality. Even that, you blocked it. That means everything. This means that, in any way and regardless of the content, you have decided, for ideological reasons, not to allow certain parents who desire it and who need it for their mourning journey, to make this statement. No matter the content of the text. And this has been going on for ten years.

Furthermore, I am surprised by your reasoning regarding the registration in the municipality. For you have never worried until after six months of pregnancy, there was already this registration in the municipality, through the same device as the one planned here between four and a half months and six months.

This 'two weight two measures, this way in which, today, you point this finger is amazing. In the last ten years, if you had been less stuck on this matter for ideological reasons, we could have progressed much faster. In terms of registration, I personally felt that it was up to the woman to decide. I was much more feminist than you because, with you, it was officially the couple. From there, you will understand that when it is the couple, the woman can also, within the couple, be under the dictates of the partner or the partner.

I personally suggested the woman. I hear that you are less feminist and I take note of that. Stop thinking that a college is an obligation! You are a lawyer and you know this very well. But for what is essential, namely the concerned parents who want it, this text will be an additional element in their mourning process.

This text allows, through transitional provisions, to recognize a child born without life, even if it dates from several years. There are a lot of people who want to do this and will do it.

I would like to conclude by asking for a little intellectual honesty. Indeed, the opinions that emerge from all the hearings conducted among field experts and health professionals, which I know a little, are not those you have put forward as being so-called majority.

Mr. Speaker, I am always surprised to see how the discourse is delivered when it comes to children born without life.

We have seen many parents expecting a child, weaving all kinds of thoughts around, and then facing the loss of that child, which for them was not a fetus but their baby. This is discussed in this terminology.

I must say that I was incredibly surprised, Mrs. Onkelinx, when at the time of the RTBF hearing I was confronted with a question where I had not stopped yet: what are the consequences for abortion?

This is something we never focused on when we talked about unborn babies. I want to repeat that. For us, these are two completely different situations. I must have determined that this is different in part over the language boundary. We have never experienced this in Flanders. When I talk about it, people look at me very amazed and tell me that facing a child born without life is something quite different than facing whether or not one wants an abortion.

Look at the Netherlands, Mrs. Onkelinx. There are also abortions, but there you can register unborn children from the moment you want to. There is no discussion about it. There is no attack on whether one is for or against abortion.

For us it is two completely different worlds that should not be confused with each other. I’m constantly looking at whether you want to mention it again and again. In fact, I regret it immensely, because the debate is ultimately oriented very differently than it is intended; it is in fact intended to ensure that parents who are faced with this sorrow have another option, namely the registration, to be able to preserve the memory of their child and feel that they are also recognized in their sorrow.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Minister, the regulation that is put to the vote today is a regulation that has been adopted after consultation with many experienced experts, both from the medical world and from interest associations. Parents are also witnesses. We took the time to listen carefully to each of them.

It is not only my group that has submitted a proposal. We have had this proposal since 2004. It aims to extend the existing regulation, which we have known in our civil law since 1999.

It should be said that the hearings have highlighted a number of elements and points of interest in which one does not immediately stand still at first sight.

We all know that pregnancy, a child desire and the birth of a child are usually the finest moments in one’s life. We know that it can go wrong from time to time and that people who experience it, as Ms. Onkelinx rightly stressed, are surrounded by family, friends, the partner, the medical and healthcare sectors. They do everything they can to help those people and teach them to deal with the loss.

We have also heard that some of them want to literally give the loss a written place. This cannot be an obligation if the child is not viable. In our opinion, however, it should be a possibility for a non-viable child from a few weeks, in which we could speak of a child in becoming.

However, we understood it well and listened carefully to those who were concerned about the unintended consequences.

Therefore, it is very explicitly written in the text that a child born non-viable and non-living cannot have legal personality. That provision is explicitly inscribed in the law, in order to avoid unintended consequences – we think about the abortion regulation – and to make an evolution of the legislation impossible. This is literally stated in the text.

We have paid attention to and wanted to take into account parents who wish to give a place to the loss from a pregnancy of 140 days or 20 weeks by having the child registered, without further legal consequences than those specified in the law. For a viable child from 180 days who is born dead, nothing changes.

In order to emphasize this clear distinction between the two situations, namely whether a deceased child was viable or not, in one case only the first name and in the other case the first name and surname can be registered. In other words, in the present regulation, which extends the existing one, it is a possibility for parents to have the loss of a non-viable non-living born child registered, neither more nor less. This question lives with many parents. Registration is not an obligation and ⁇ does not result in granting legal personality to the child in becoming that is not viable and is not born alive.

I think that we have taken care of the unintended consequences, but that we also want to take into account the wish of parents to give that sorrow a place. That is why my group will approve the regulation.

We will support the bill. We had submitted a proposal in the same sense. We have never made or intended to make an abortion. For us, these are two completely different situations.

I would like to emphasize three points in the bill, which are especially important for us.

First, we welcome that the draft law leaves parents the choice of whether or not to register the child. Everyone has their own way of mourning, and people must be totally free in whatever way they mourn.

Secondly, we find the clear provision in the draft law that a person born without life does not receive legal personality in this way very important.

Thirdly, we support the amendment of colleague Onkelinx, so that we can even better guarantee that there is no pressure on women.

In short, we find the draft, as it was adjusted at the various committee meetings, good, because it meets the bill we had submitted ourselves. We will therefore support it.

This is a bizarre moment, but we still think it is important that the present draft is discussed today. The desire has long lived with a large number of parents who are facing the loss of a child born without life, to get more recognition for the existence of that child also because of the government.

There is already the obligation to register with the civil status in the case of a pregnancy lasting more than 180 days. A first name can also be given to that child. It is a request from many parents, in support of their mourning process, to acknowledge the existence of their child. We have had a lot of contacts with parents of unborn children. Long before this legislature we already had several proposals to extend the right to register a child, to cases of pregnancies of less than 180 days. These proposals were parallel to the scientific findings. The World Health Organization has lowered the lifespan of children to 140 days.

In addition, we note that both in the Flemish and Wallish decrees and in the Brussels ordinances was recorded that children born without life may be buried or cremated, even in the case of a pregnancy less than 180 days. In Flanders there is no lower limit for a funeral, while in Wallonia and Brussels it is 15 weeks. For this reason, we originally proposed with our amendment to allow for registration in accordance with the regulations in the various regions. We would like to include this in the final text. However, we have participated in the compromise that was found, in which we still offer more parents than today the possibility of recognition through the registration of a child born without life.

I regularly hear references to the statut de l'embryon, but the status of the embryo is not relevant in the present draft law. However, it is about the possibility for parents with great sorrow to register their unborn child if those parents find it important, and not to register if they find it unimportant. In my opinion, this does not create a sense of guilt towards parents who do not want registration or who do not consider registration important. We simply offer an additional opportunity to parents who wish to do so. I just find it a recognition and respect for people who face such sorrow. By the way, in the Netherlands there is already such a regulation and there was no misbehavior about whether that does not interfere with the abortion regulation, which we on the Flemish side do not do either.

After that, we discussed for a moment whether or not to recognize the desire of the man or woman. We have already discussed this in the committee. How should the registration proceed? Well, we have simply adopted the regulation that already applied to unborn babies with a pregnancy longer than 180 days, adopted for unborn babies with a pregnancy of less than 180 days. If partners are married or if parents have agreed on prenatal recognition, registration is also possible. I remember the comment from colleague Van Hecke that the father in the family expects the child as much as the mother. I think that is indeed important too. If there is no recognition or if the partners are unmarried, then the mother can indeed veto. In the case of a marriage or in the case of a prenatal recognition, which also requires the consent of the mother, we believe that both partners should have the opportunity to go to registration individually.

What I would like to emphasize, because I think it is important, is that, as with the previous legislative amendment, a one-year transition period has been provided. In cases of pregnancy lasting more than 180 days, parents will be given the opportunity to give a family name to their child for one year. In a pregnancy between 140 and 180 days, parents will be given the opportunity to give a first name to the child.

We are asking for this legislative change for the sake of a registration. And you are absolutely right, Mrs. Onkelinx, if you say that there is more needed for parents than just the possibility of registration. Like you, I listened to the hearings. And I have great admiration for the way the medical staff – doctors, nurses and also multidisciplinary teams – deal with such situations in hospitals. They accompany the parents so that their sorrow, which will not disappear, becomes tolerable. And like you, I have asked Minister De Block to provide the necessary support for this. There must be guidance, as well as for the parents of young children who die. The same support in their grief should be offered to the parents who face the grief after a child born without life.

We took a lot of time in the committee to discuss the texts. It was a long process with very extensive hearings, two or three years ago. We have heard various actors, people from the medical world, parents and associations who have been working for years to improve the status of the deadborn child.

It is, of course, a difficult and delicate subject. Three years ago, there were a large number of texts that went almost all directions. In the various texts, the deadlines differed sharply. The risk was, among other things, that that period would come close to the abortion deadline. After a very long discussion, the current text has come up.

A dead child is a tragedy for everyone. It is a drama for the mother but also for the father, for the grandmother but also for the grandfather, for the brothers and sisters and the family members. I think every parent will try to give the deceased child a place in his life. Everyone will do it in their own way. At one, it will be absolutely necessary that there is a lot of help from family and friends, from the partner, to handle that difficult period. Other parents will need more.

The question that has lived in society for so long is the desire to be able to give a name to the deceased child, to be able to get recognition, not only if it is born more than 180 days after conception but also for deceased children born earlier than 180 days and after 140 days.

This text is a step forward. We have said in the committee that we can mostly agree with it because it contains a number of important principles.

First, the extension to the period between 140 and 179 days is an optional option. It is not an obligation. The law does not impose it. Parents can choose. They have the freedom to register. I think it is very important that this is a free choice.

Second, it is also very clear in the text that the deceased child does not acquire legal personality and that there are no rights associated with recognition, registration, giving a name. This is also essential.

Third, there is the possibility of giving a family name if the child is born after 180 days and a first name if it is born between 140 and 179 days after conception. It is very important for many parents that a photo, or the fingerprint of a hand or foot, can also be a name.

The present text is quite balanced. However, we know that there are still points of discussion, that there are sensitivities about who can take the initiative and who can request registration. We have been debating about this for a long time — one has just referred to me — and the debate was sometimes a little difficult, because there were almost exclusively women present in the Justice Committee at that time. There was no gender balance.

And I understand the importance attached to those points. When a child is born, a father is usually present. A father who wanted that child. We should also try to give the father a place in this process.

All the formulas outlined with regard to the question of who may or may not apply for registration will be associated with advantages and disadvantages, but I think that the current text is quite acceptable. Other formulas, in which the application is done jointly, may also be acceptable, but there is always somewhere a situation possible where there is a problem and we cannot solve all problem situations.

This text raises some ethical questions. For this reason, the members of our group will also vote on it in honour and conscience.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will, of course, shorten my speech. I have already responded to our colleague, Ms. Onkelinx.

It is true that it has been ten years since the CDH wants the adoption of such a bill. Ten years that we wrote the texts almost taken back as in the current project. Ten years that twice or even three times, in the last minute, the project was blocked for unfounded reasons, the so-called one of wanting to violate the law on abortion, while it is ten thousand legs away from our intentions from the beginning. Everyone knows it and I’m glad that some and others have repeated it here in a very clear way. Ten years that we just want to hear the pain of parents who did not have the chance to see the child they carried be born and growing. It is parents who have had this project of birth and who between four and a half months (140 days) and six months (179 days) since the conception of the child, experienced the drama of a child born – because for them this child was born – without life.

This pain is experienced in very different ways by couples, parents. Some want to immediately move on to something else, get back to their life, their work, sometimes resume a new pregnancy and above all talk about it as little as possible. This is their way of living grief and she is deeply respected, and respected by this project. Others, on the other hand, need to live their mourning in a different way, to leave marks, memories, material traces such as footprints, photographs, a burial, a first name and ⁇ a name in a register, in their marriage card, to give the child a place in their life and in fraternity. It is often forgotten, but for brotherhood, it is sometimes as important as for parents.

It seems important to give this child the place he has occupied and this place must be known and recognized. At least that is my conviction. Of course, I repeat it once again, to everyone the total freedom to choose what is best suited to him. Everyone has the opportunity to experience the grief as he hears it. I deeply respect this choice, whatever it is.

In any case, I never wanted – like my group – anything but to offer a possibility and not to impose an obligation.

As many have recalled, for many years, some hospitals have put in place a difficult, but magnificent – I dare the term – accompaniment of parents who have been deprived of their child, through procedures to respect the mourning as well as collection of their memories in medical records – which are sometimes still consulted many years later. The skin flower reaction can indeed sometimes be followed by a parental desire to be able to find traces to progress in the work of mourning.

The task of the medical-psychosocial teams of hospitals is almost voluntary. I have stated this to you, even though this aspect is not within your competence. We have also said this and repeated it to Minister De Block. That is why I dare hope, dear colleagues of the majority or minority government, that together – for example, through budget amendments – we can finally obtain a real recognition – not only symbolic, but also and above all financial – of the work done by these hospital teams.

As you know, this bill contains several transitional provisions, which allow not to be discriminated against parents who have not been able to obtain the recognition of their child born without life. Again, no obligation is imposed; the choice will be theirs and it will be eminently respectable, whatever it is. For us, it was fundamental that the bill contains such transitional provisions for the benefit of parents.

You know how much this text is important to us. It took ten years for it to succeed: it is a famous path. Evidence is therefore provided that the mobilization of Parliament can lead to results, even if it sometimes takes a long time. We are obviously delighted that it is reaching the final stage and that it comes into force as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, although the purpose of this text aimed at supporting the mourning of couples facing an interruption of pregnancy is highly praised, I personally cannot support it as it is presented to us.

Indeed, in so far as it provides that the father who is married or who has made a prenatal recognition may, without the consent of the mother, request that an act of a lifeless child be drawn up, it is not possible for me to follow the majority.

I am obviously delighted that more and more fathers want to be involved in the pregnancy and in the lives of their children. We have made many proposals in this regard. I think in particular of the proposal we submitted less than a month ago regarding the possibility of making paternity leave mandatory and extending it to fifteen days. But this proposal was rejected, like many others.

Personally, I cannot accept that this representation of facts is imposed on the woman who is the only one who has physically experienced the interruption of pregnancy.

Furthermore, I do not see how the vote of this law would constitute a victory for couples who have suffered this drama while, at the same time, it opens the door to difficulties and violations of the rights of other women. In fact, we know that things can evolve within a couple. It is shown that domestic violence increases or occurs during pregnancy in 40% of cases. They are also the cause of a voluntary interruption of pregnancy in every five.

Women’s rights must be at the heart of the reflection when it comes to prenatal life and I feel like this has not been the case here.

Assisting people facing a sudden interruption of pregnancy is part of helping physical and psychological health. All experts audited in June 2015 also advocated for reimbursement of psychological consultations by INAMI and the cost related to the accompaniment by the competent services when this type of drama occurs. They also discussed the formation of teams, the fact of delivering clear information on the possibilities of burial and the difficulty of welcoming the personal, philosophical and religious conceptions of families, etc.

But I note that in this text, nothing is planned for these different aspects. The same applies to the various general policy notes that have been examined over the past few months. Instead, it was advanced on the issue of inserting in the civil status the act of child without life. This makes me trouble.

When you look at the context in which you fall, you can see that this government’s project is not to put women’s rights at the centre – which is why I can’t support the text we are examining today.

The February 2017 text on prenatal recognition already anticipated what we see today. There was indeed no limit for the design date, which can already be considered an attack. Then, the saga around the non-depenalization of voluntary interruption of pregnancy, when it was desired by the whole of civil society, is a real failure for this Parliament and for the government.

The fact of systematically limiting the right of women to dispose of their bodies, without interference from their spouse or authorities, drives me to go against it.

To conclude, I recall that three weeks ago, a march for women’s rights gathered 5,000 people in the streets of Brussels to demand to fight against femicides and violence against women, to demand a real decriminalization of voluntary interruption of pregnancy. This is not part of the government’s plans. I invite parliamentarians who wish to move forward on the issue of women’s rights to look at the real demands of the various feminist movements and the demands of women in our country.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I have followed with great attention the debates concerning this bill which aims to facilitate the mourning of parents facing a miscarriage. Who among us does not know a person facing such a test?

The bill follows a praiseworthy intention that adds to the measures already in place to provide moral support to parents who have lost their child prematurely. Cities and municipalities cannot provide in communal cemeteries a place for the burial or cremation of children born without life with a nominal plaque. In the Flemish Region, this possibility exists from conception, and in the Brussels and Walloon regions, from fifteen weeks of pregnancy. In practice, it is observed that these parcels of fetal stars are often abandoned after a few months, it is still that this need for moral support exists and must be heard.

My group was by no means closed to legislation aimed at better accompanying tired parents. But we are not fools either. It was enough for us to read the legislative proposals that followed the government agreement and which set viability thresholds for the legal recognition of fetuses to understand the link of this file with the legislation on abortion and, more generally, the status that this majority intends to entrust to the fetus.

Things became even more obvious when the parties who originated these proposals continued to postpone the debate on the de-criminalization of abortion in the committee to finally vote on a law now of criminal sanctions against women aborting beyond the 12-week deadline: a political deal unworthy of parliamentary freedom on ethical issues and on which we must again rule today.

Like the debate on the decriminalization of abortion, I just regret that the opinion of the experts heard in the committee was not taken into account. While doctors and practitioners who take care of parents facing miscarriage every day have insisted on the uselessness, or even the totally counterproductive nature, of a legal recognition of the lifeless child, the majority has made their forcing refuge behind the government agreement.

You will probably tell me that the text has evolved since its deposit. I note, however, that the most substantial amendment, the substitution of maternity leave by an incapacity for work, was made at the request of the State Council, even though the experts had also requested it, without you finding it useful to respond to it.

For the rest, the bill still contains a lot too many scratches.

Compared to the semantic confusion of this project and its dangers, talking about a child from 140 days of conception, 20 weeks, is not consistent with medical practice. Experts have been constantly reminding us that neonatology teams never resume before 22 weeks of amenorrhea, with the viability threshold starting only at 24 weeks, that is, 168 days. At CHU Saint-Pierre, as well as at ZUZ Gent, no babies are taken care of until 24 weeks.

Contrary to what the majority claims, the bill does not respect the government agreement that intended to legislate on dead-born children - which implies a birth - and not on children from unborn miscarriages taking into account developments in neonatology.

But more fundamentally, this semantic confusion is dangerous in that it challenges IMGs practiced beyond 20 weeks, i.e. medical interruptions of pregnancy practiced when the continuation of pregnancy seriously endangers the woman’s health or when it is certain that the unborn child will suffer from a serious and incurable condition.

Furthermore, it challenges the research practiced on fetal tissues, on embryonic stem cells. It calls into question the freedom of doctors to reanimate or not a fetus that would now be considered a child. It sows the confusion between the concepts of the embryo, the fetus and the child, confusion of which the opponents of the right to abortion feed to consider abortion as an infanticide.

In a commission, the example of other European countries was advanced by the minister to affirm that it was possible to legislate in the matter without questioning the IVG and that these legislations could "coexist harmoniously".

It is, however, scary to see that the majority has taken care to silence the example of France, where the declaration exists from 15 weeks from conception, but where it is voluntary, and whatever the threshold of gestation; where it is made in the death registers when there are special registers for each category of act, and where no family name can be given.

The majority also obviously did not cite the example of Hungary, which is, however, the most eloquent. While IVG was decriminalized there in 1956, the constitutional recognition of life from conception in 2012 had the effect of making abortions impossible, at least those practiced in all legality and safety. In 2016, some subsidies were withdrawn from clinics practicing abortion.

So I am afraid, and it is a fear that the Council of French-speaking women of Belgium shares, that the step taken by your bill is too much in challenging the right to abortion. This right has already been attacked by your law allowing the prenatal recognition of the child by an unmarried parent from the beginning of the pregnancy, or even that now of criminal sanctions against women abortion outside the legal deadline, as well as their doctor.

What guarantees can you give us today so that this law is not the one that will hypothesize the debates concerning the extension of the legal period of the IVG and the period of reflection?

As regards the registration of the act of child without life in the registers of the civil status, the registration of a child from a miscarriage calls into question the reason of being of the civil status, namely to authentically establish proof of the status of a person in society. The state of persons is of public order. It is therefore misleading the public opinion by asserting the facultative character of the act of child without life for the period between 140 and 179 days. Whether you like it or not, the act of a child without life will be a civil state act.

Things are all the more clear as the bill will come into force on March 31 next year, at the same time as the law of modernization of the registers of the civil status, so that the act of a lifeless child will be registered in the bank of acts of the civil status. From that date, there will no longer be a specific register. I therefore regret that you refused to initiate any reflection regarding the establishment of an ad hoc register outside of the civil status registers, and this simultaneously with the discussion about the law on the modernization of the civil status registers.

More fundamentally, the obligation to establish this act from 180 days of conception seems incomprehensible to us. In the explanation of the reasons for the bill, it is explained that the bill aims to "appropriately respond to the existing needs of parents of a child without life, in order to give this child a place in their lives and help them to make their mourning." Furthermore, the exposition of motives already refutes this commitment by making a well-misguided generality that the registration of a lifeless child is perceived as an important step in the process of family mourning.

The explanations of the experts, however, were clear, namely that in the face of the very different profiles and needs of parents, forcing them to declare a child lost at 180 days to the municipality, forcing them to personalize their fetus, to project themselves into a family life that they will never have can prove extremely heavy and ultimately totally counterproductive in matters of mourning. How can one imagine that women who do not wish to see, name, or inhumate their fetus do not feel raped and crushed by a law that would dictate them how to live their mourning? As with abortion, your government thus imposes the entire moral conception of a few. Here it’s about telling all these couples that they haven’t lost their little bean but a child, a person, with all the psychological consequences that this entails!

As for the assignment of a surname from 180 days, the Minister has repeatedly repeated in a committee that the assignment of a surname to the child would not have legal effects, that there would not be recognition of a legal personality. It is still that it is derogated from this principle both in the wording of the project ("unless permitted by law") and in the possibility of attributing this surname. It is false to claim that the child declared will not have legal personality from the moment he has the fundamental attributes of the legal personality (name, surname) legally recognized through his surname, not to mention that this declaration is made with the civil status officer.

As we said in the committee, if the government undertakes not to provide for legal effects arising from this act, it should then remove the phrase "unless the law allows it" to remain on the principle of the absence of recognition of legal personality and its effects.

Finally, regarding the optional nature of the act of a lifeless child from 140 days, as we have said, imposing such an act at 140 days of conception is unacceptable! At this stage of gestation, a fetus is not viable so declaring it in an official administrative act strictly makes no sense.

By recognizing a deadborn baby at 140 days of gestation, one falsifies reality by telling parents that they have lost a child while it is not a child. But even leaving it to the free judgment of the parents from 180 days of gestation, this act remains unacceptable.

Imagine a couple facing a crap. Imagine that they want to forget this painful episode as soon as possible and move on to something else to rebuild themselves. It is precisely at that time that the caring staff will offer them to register their baby with an identity and a surname in a civil status document. According to experts, whether it is Anne-Cécile Noël, a social worker at CHU Saint-Pierre, or Prof Yvon Englert, this proposal risks to result in guilt or even incitement in the head of parents.

Beyond this blaming, parents would be confronted again, and only because the legislator has decided so, with the family life they had imagined and that they will eventually not have. As explained by Julie Belhomme, Assistant Clinical Head of the Department of Obstetric Gynecology at CHU Saint-Pierre, giving parents the opportunity that the civil status recognizes their loss can be a good thing for some but not for all. The lowering of the threshold from 180 to 140 days would put practitioners in a serious difficulty compared to what will have to be said to those concerned. How to tell someone, on the one hand, that the child is not viable and that pregnancy is interrupted for medical reasons and, on the other hand, that the child should be ⁇ to the civil state officer? The birth certificate should be made only from the threshold of viability.

As regards the patriarchal vision of this project, the last point I would like to emphasize is the article 4, paragraph 2, which provides for the authorization of the mother for the establishment of the act of lifeless child only when the father or co-parent is not married to the mother and has not recognized the conceived child. For all other cases, i.e. the most frequent, the act may be drawn up even without the request of the person who has experienced the pregnancy and who is, therefore, the one who should in all cases have his word to say regarding the follow-up of his miscarriage, whether this is administrative or psychological.

I am especially surprised that the transitional provisions of the bill, namely those applicable to couples who have had a miscarriage several months or even several years before the entry into force of the new law, provide that the application must be made jointly by both parents. Why not have planned a joint application for couples today facing a miscarriage and in the absence of a woman’s request?

Because contrary to what Ecolo-Groen argued in commission, giving women the power of the last word does not constitute a violation of the Constitution. Bypassing the opinion of women is, on the contrary, a violation of women’s rights, their integrity and our Constitution. These differences in treatment are therefore hardly sustainable, both from a legal and a moral point of view. How can we exceed the opinion of the first person concerned?

If a woman is forced to make a decision without the consent of her or her partner, it is not without reason but rather to preserve her physical and psychological integrity. How can one consider taking away this freedom? As in the debate on abortion, it is again the decision-making autonomy, the self-determination of the woman that is beaten into the breach.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, assisting people facing a brutal interruption of pregnancy is not a modification of the Civil Code, but concrete measures of physical and psychological support, an emergency and specialized reception throughout the territory, a reimbursement by the INAMI of psychological follow-up consultations, better support to civil society and care personnel; which the bill does not provide absolutely.

However, these trails, respecting the rights of everyone and less attacking our acquired rights, should be explored in a health commission and not in a justice commission. The project provides for administrative procedures that will make the steps following the miscarriage even more painful and more costly. As Anne-Cécile Noël, of the social service of CHU Saint-Pierre, has very well summarized, if automatically providing an act to these families seems generous and comprehensive, it will, in many cases, make the situation worse.

Instead of debating in serenity about a question as fundamental and legitimate as the best accompaniment given to the couple facing a miscarriage, you have locked yourself in an agenda disregarding the demands of experts and the public. I would like to remind you that the petition "No to a person status for the fetus" has collected more than 18,500 signatures. As in the debate on the false decriminalization of abortion, which has been the subject of a sinister bargaining, you prefer the execution of your political deal to the search for solutions that really take into account the medical practice and the very different profiles of women and couples you claim to want to help.

I therefore call on you to prioritize trails that are part of a comprehensive health policy and in accordance with the realities of the field, to those of couples, who must remain free to live their mourning as they wish; trails that respect the rights of women, the practice and medical research.

Otherwise, we will not be able to support this bill.

First and foremost, I apologize for the absence of Mr. Van Hees. He is sick and I will speak in his place.

Colleagues, the proposed bill aims to extend the existing regulation for the unborn children. Now it is already possible to register unborn babies from 180 days of pregnancy in the death register.

The main provision of this draft law introduces an act of an unborn child and extends the scheme to fetuses from 140 days, at the request of one of the parents. A first name and surname can be given to children after 180 days.

The aim is to facilitate the process of parents’ mourning. This seems to us to be a very important and legitimate goal. The question is, however, whether this bill will help in this and whether this preconceived goal is the actual goal. There is no better medical, physical or psychological guidance provided in this bill.

Our first problem is that one of the parents, and therefore not only the mother, can apply for this act.

As the Council of French-speaking women of Belgium says: “Women’s autonomy is clearly hindered by this text that provides for the possibility for the partner or husband to declare abortion to the municipality without the consent of the woman who lost the pregnancy.”

The introduction of a new lower limit of 140 days is also problematic for us. One may wonder whether this is even necessary, if the bill is still as innocent as the minister claims. Unless, of course, it is intended that this rule will have consequences, if not legal, or ethical, if not with this law, or ⁇ in the future.

The Minister and the parties of the majority have justified this lower limit by referring to the so-called real viability. In practice, as was confirmed in the hearings, it still lies at 24 weeks. In Belgian law, the limit of viability is fixed at 180 days. Shifting this limit can have consequences for doctors who refuse to keep a fetus alive between 140 and 180 days. Moreover, pregnancies after 20 weeks are still terminated for urgent medical reasons. This can also be endangered. Of course, there is a global context in which this design should be considered. It is therefore our fear that this law should serve what the CAL says.

I would like to quote the Centre of Secular Action: “Grave in the marble the recognition of a form of personification of the fetus.”

In several European countries, such as Hungary, this recognition has already led to a sluggish limitation of women’s right to self-determination and the right to abortion. Fem&Law provides the following.

I quote: “The recognition of a status, even limited, to the embryo that does not reach the threshold of viability came into conflict with the very idea of abortion, whether it is chosen or imposed for medical reasons. Continuing in this direction, it is to be feared that the debate on the extension of the legal period of IVG will be clearly hypothesized by this bill submitted to vote this Thursday in Parliament."

So, dear colleagues, we believe that there are better ways to alleviate the real suffering of those who see a pregnancy broken down against their desire. The PVDA will vote against this bill.

I give the Minister the word.

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Let me say that I am delighted that we have finally been able to complete the difficult theme of recognizing the unborn child without legal consequences. This corresponds to the wishes of many women and men in this country. I thank the majority and opposition MPs who supported this draft and hope that it can soon be approved by a majority.