In June, the radicals submitted a very important bill to the Court of Cassation: it provides for the gradual overcoming of the famous Law 194, that is, the law that regulates abortion in our country and from which it has suffered for 45 years, with obvious limits of applicability due to the disproportionate large numbers of illegitimate doctors working in hospitals and consultants, the blind, ideological and anti-scientific crusade of the right, and a regulatory system that consistently puts women’s health on the back burner.
The passage of this norm in 1978 marked a very important milestone. “Law 194 had the tremendous merit of decriminalizing abortion in our country,” he explains Rolling Stone Italy Giulia Crivellini, Treasurer of the Radicals. “On the other hand, however, it suffers from a whole host of limitations, starting with the text: the law was in fact the result of very close negotiations and contains a number of gray areas that are being exploited by a conservative button”.
At that time, the parliamentary debate that led to the approval of 194 was very heated and ended in a compromise: the pressure from the Catholic faction in the plenary hall prevailed. The result is “a law that is never about self-determination and the right to abortion,” says Crivellini, “but about protecting motherhood and regulating voluntary abortions.”
In short, in Article 194, the state regards abortion as a concession and an exception without emphasizing choice in relation to reproductive freedom. For this reason, the lax wording of such an important law becomes, in most cases, an argumentative support for the right: “La 194 will not be touched today because it is better not to touch it, especially because of the way it is written is.” , emphasizes Crivellini. “Take Article 1, according to which the state protects human life from the very beginning. This diction, fruit of the influence of the Christian Democrats and the Catholic deputies, is completely out of date: it is not included in our Civil Code, we only find it in the Bible. But this ambiguous formulation offered argumentative support to the reactionary and anti-scientific underworld, which proposed ideological bills such as legal recognition of the fetus as a person and, consequently, equating abortion with voluntary murder.”
But that’s not all: the ambiguity of the text of 194 has enabled one of the most absurd undesirable developments of recent years, namely the funding of Pro-Vita associations by the regions. For example, last year in Piedmont, a resolution gave the green light to the creation of the “Vita Nascente” fund, set up to persuade women to continue their pregnancy by providing economic contributions, and gave these organizations the use of the logo to enable the region for advertising. The year before, the junta had given the go-ahead for the presence of anti-election formations within the advisers. One aspect deserves the greatest attention, since the ideological methods conveyed in the “trainings” offered by these organizations are now well known: an investigation From health newspaper has opened Pandora’s box and shown how volunteers are sent to these facilities to spread a climate of witch hunts and stigmatize anyone seeking an abortion, giving women access not only to voluntary abortion but also to emergency contraception is slowed down. Many techniques are employed, most notably the use of phrases specifically designed to attack women directly (“I understand you are a victim of violence, but if you have an abortion now, you will commit violence yourself” ); Sufficient space is also given to the spread of full-blown anti-scientific lies (“Pregnancy can cure leukemia”, “An abortion makes the partner homosexual”, “An abortion is not possible without the consent of the partner”). “Article 2 tells us that counselors can take advantage of the voluntary collaboration of some social formations,” explains Crivellini, “and the full interpretation of this formulation has allowed to fund the Pro Vita associations and ensure their presence in these structures: the Der governor on duty can emphasize the element of maternity leave, which is broadly the rationale of 194, to justify these types of ideological operations.”
Another element that the radicals’ proposal seeks to eliminate is the so-called “rethinking week”, that is, the principle that seven days must absolutely elapse before proceeding with the intervention. According to Crivellini, “this prediction reflects a very clear cultural imprint: women’s empowerment is completely relegated to the background.” It is also an anti-scientific prediction, as the risks to women’s health increase as gestational age advances.”
And then there’s the elephant in the room: conscientious objection. The proposal envisages its abolition as an expression of an anachronistic and outdated vision. In addition, the possibility of contesting the objection should first have been limited to a clearly defined period of time. “In 1978,” recalls Crivellini, “a radical amendment proposed that conscientious objection be introduced only temporarily.” A perfectly rational change, considering that up until the day before 194 was approved, performing abortions was a crime and it was necessary to enable the medical staff to adapt to the new legal framework. Unfortunately, that option was not accepted, and appeals to the court became the norm, morphing into the libertine-killing tragedy we are witnessing today.”
Following the same spirit of this amendment, the law, if enacted, would protect physicians’ objections for a transitional period: “From a political and cultural point of view, anyone who objects on the basis of a law that allows the waiver of Abortions must be protected. Those who are already objectors must have the opportunity to confirm this choice, also because in the vast majority of cases their professional career is based on this possibility: “We cannot punish people retrospectively, we want to protect their sphere of freedom.” However: “Um To avoid imbalances, we have prepared some corrective measures: the state must intervene more to ensure a relationship between those who refuse and those who don’t decision of the physician to uphold the objection. For this reason, in order to guarantee the service during the transitional period, the percentage of staff in each structure objecting must not be more than 50%.”
The law also provides for a significant extension of the period within which abortion is possible: “In the text, we have chosen to expand the range of options for access to abortion, also on the basis of WHO guidelines: we are expanding .” the limit of 14 weeks to be able to perform an abortion, exceeding the currently existing unreal threshold of 90 days and adapting it to the legislation of other countries such as France, Spain and Romania. In addition, we are expanding the possibility of accessing the IVG to girls from the age of 16: if they can choose to marry, they can also choose to have an abortion without their parents’ consent and protect their health.” The radicals decided to end the administration to specifically mention abortion drugs: “Law 194 was passed when the only option available was the surgical method, and therefore does not take into account the pharmacological method at all.” take the pill.”
A final point concerns an essential and often underestimated element: information. “With this law,” Crivellini emphasizes, “the Ministry of Health will be obliged to record all the structures in which access to abortion is possible.” On average, five or six women contact me every week to find out what I’m doing or to whom I can turn There is a total lack of institutional information from the ministry worthy of the name. The ministry’s website has an obscene photo of a woman looking at the train tracks in the “Women’s Health” section: “Abortion is institutionally stigmatized and is unacceptable.”
