Region: Europe
Year: 1975
Court: Conseil constitutionnel [Constitutional Council]
Health Topics: Health care and health services, Sexual and reproductive health
Human Rights: Right to health, Right to liberty and security of person, Right to life
Tags: Abortion, Access to health care, Access to treatment, Late-term abortion, Termination of pregnancy, Therapeutic abortion
Please note: This opinion is unusual as it does not include the factual background. These facts listed below are developed from alternative sources.
Before the promulgation of the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy Act, 88 senators made a referral to the French constitutional court challenging the constitutionality of the new bill according to article 61 of the French Constitution.
They contested the conformity of abortion to the principle of freedom of choice set out in article 2 of the Declaration of human and civil rights. They also consider that it contravene to the guarantee of children’s health care by the State. The Constitutional court held that the right to abort does not contravene to these two principles as long as it is only authorized in case of mental distress or for therapeutic reasons.
The deputies base their referral on procedural provisions. First, on article 61 of the Constitution which allows them to challenge the conformity of the law to the Constitution in front of the Constitutional court. They then base their referral on article 55 of the Constitution establishing a control of the conformity of French laws to international instruments. They also refer to the Declaration of human and civil rights which recognizes the freedom of choice, article 2. Lastly they cite the preamble of the 1946 French Constitution which guarantees children health care (this preamble is included in the current French Constitution).
The Constitutional court held that article 55 of the Constitution did not confer to itself the right to determine the conformity of a bill to an international instrument, but only the right to determine the constitutionality of a statute. It thus refused to operate both a control of constitutionality and of conventionality.
The Constitutional court held that the bill had not violated the freedom of choice given that it preserves the right for people to decide to abort or not, be it for reasons of distress or for therapeutic requirements. The Constitutional court held that the bill did not create an obligation to abort but a mere possibility.
The Constitutional court held that the nation would still guarantee health care to children. Indeed no disposition of the bill contained any contravention to this principle.
8. Considérant, en second lieu, que la loi relative à l'interruption volontaire de la grossesse respecte la liberté des personnes appelées à recourir ou à participer à une interruption de grossesse, qu'il s'agisse d'une situation de détresse ou d'un motif thérapeutique ; que, dès lors, elle ne porte pas atteinte au principe de liberté posé à l'article 2 de la Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen ;
§8. “Secondly, the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy Act respects the freedom of persons who resort to or take part in a termination of pregnancy, whether for reasons of distress or on therapeutic grounds; consequently, the Act does not conflict with the principle of freedom set out in Article 2 of the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights;”
9. Considérant que la loi déférée au Conseil constitutionnel n'admet qu'il soit porté atteinte au principe du respect de tout être humain dès le commencement de la vie, rappelé dans son article 1er, qu'en cas de nécessité et selon les conditions et limitations qu'elles définit ;
§9. “The Act referred to the Constitutional Council does not allow any departure from the principle of respect for all human beings from the inception of life – a principle referred to in section 1 of the Act – except in case of need and on the terms and subject to the restrictions contained therein;”
10. Considérant qu'aucune des dérogations prévues par cette loi n'est, en l'état, contraire à l'un des principes fondamentaux reconnus par les lois de la République ni ne méconnaît le principe énoncé dans le préambule de la Constitution du 27 octobre 1946, selon lequel la nation garantit à l'enfant la protection de la santé, non plus qu'aucune des autres dispositions ayant valeur constitutionnelle édictées par le même texte ;
§10. “None of the exceptions allowed by the statute is, as matters stand, inconsistent with any of the fundamental principles recognised by the laws of the Republic, nor with the principle set out in the preamble to the Constitution of 27 October 1946 whereby the nation guarantees health care to all children, nor with any of the other principles of constitutional status established by that text;”