An outstanding book, "L’affaire Jane Roe,
histoire d’une manipulation" 1, tells the story of how a
women who was, in spite of herself, at the origin of the abortion in USA,
became one of the most famous representative of pro-life.
The Roe vs. Wade judgment
At 21 years old, Norma McCorvey, pregnant with its third child, poor and
confused, became the complainant, alias Jane Roe, in the case leading to the
Roe vs. Wade judgment. Rendered by the Supreme Court on 22nd January 1973,
this decision, by declaring as void the current legislation against abortion
in the State of Texas, legalised abortion. Abortion is now recognised as a
fundamental "right", induced by the Constitution, and this new
constitutional "right" has force of law in all states that, until now, were
sovereign on the subject.
Lies and manipulations
Norma McCorvey tells how she was used by the pro-abortion lobby, she who
never experienced abortion or even less rape, contrary to what her attorneys
asked her to tell, in order to arouse the pity of the judges. "Sarah
Weddington [her attorney, editor’s note] let me clearly understand, on many
occasions, that I was no more than a name in a judicial action. Only Jane
Roe counted for Sarah; the real Norma McCorvey had no interest."
In an abortion clinic
After the case, Jane Roe became marketing manager of an abortion clinic, in
charge of "selling abortions". Here too, lies are common practice, with
regard to patients, about the time limits (the more delayed is the pregnancy,
the more expensive is the act) and the reality of abortion. "We assured
them they made the good choice and that, of course it was not really a baby;
it was just delayed menstruation." The clinic staff also fools to itself
to survive in "a company dehumanising by nature". They seek refuge in
alcohol and drugs which allow them to escape from their acts: "you see
cut limbs, you hear women crying. Impossible to carry on fooling to yourself,
at least not without artificial stimulation. That is why drugs, alcohol and
unsubtle jokes are so current in these clinics. If we remain sober and if we
do not laugh at ourselves, we could see us as abominable monsters
considering little babies as a prey".
From death to life
Whereas the cause of abortion is her only reason to live ("I live, eat,
breath and think abortion"), the neighbouring installation of what she
calls the pro-life "terrorists" marks the beginning of an inner and
spiritual adventure which will lead Norma McCorvey to become the
representative of the American pro-life movement. Its interview with the
daughter of one of the militants of Operation Rescue, who nearly was aborted,
deeply moved her. "it was the first time abortion was personalized. I did
not think about abortion as a practical mean to treat "the products of
conception" or "delayed menstruation". Instead of that, abortion
represented the "legal right" to put an end to the life of a so
precious child like Emilie. This beautiful little girl could have been
legally killed without any penalty, I thought – and all that was my fault."
Without forgetting all what she did to obtain and preserve the legalisation
of abortion, then she commits in the struggle for life.
By changing sides, Norma McCorvey measures the force of the hate. Thus she
notes the difference of behaviour of Medias with regard to her: "before
when I was Jane Roe, complainant in Roe vs. Wade case, in a way I was the
Medias’ favourite.. (…) Now I am "Norma McCorvey, Christian
extremist", the enemy".
Doe vs. Bolton Judgement
Promulgated on the same day as the Roe vs. Wade judgement, the Doe vs.
Bolton judgement, by vaguely defining the health of the woman, levied the
rare minor restrictions in Roe. "Overnight, abortion was legalised
everywhere, during the nine months of pregnancy – for nearly whatever reason
– thanks to Jane Roe and to Mary Doe." Complainant in the case leading
to the Doe vs. Bolton judgement, Sandra Cano has a quite similar path to
that of Norma McCorvey: she was also manipulated and never wanted to abort.
On 23rd March 1997, both publicly disclaimed their role in "the tragedy
of abortion". Together, they are fighting to quash the judgements which
have their name. "Our manner to make it is to show that life and women
rights did not have progressed, or increased, but at the contrary that they
were destroyed by the abortion on request. We gather accounts aimed at being
brought to court, from women who was wounded by abortion, from women who are
convinced that the real feminism is pro-life, and from professionals who
know that Roe weakened the moral tissue of the legal and medical world."
Today, only one change of the test of strength within the Supreme Court will
give back to the States, ad minima, the faculty to legislate on
abortion. Several states are preparing to challenge this jurisprudence by
promulgating laws restricting or prohibiting abortion, in a manner the
Supreme Court, seized by individuals or pro-choice associations contesting
these laws, may render a decision contrary to that of 1973.
1- Norma McCorvey, L’affaire Jane Roe, histoire
d’une manipulation, éd. de l’Homme Nouveau, octobre 2008
|
|
On last 9th January, the first British baby
selected by pre-implantation diagnosis (PID) for breast cancer
predisposition was born. Its mother, 27 years old, decided to resort to PID
so that her child does not carry BRCA1 gene which could have increased by
50% to 80% the risks she/he develops breast cancer. A few days before, the
newspaper La Croix spread this first British birth of a "child
whose genetic inheritance has been selected to avoid she/he develops such
disease, which is generally successfully cured if it is diagnosed early
enough".
Prenatal selection, where to go?
Initially, the PID was used to "prevent" serious and incurable diseases, or
rather not to implant embryos carrying these diseases. But, since 2006, date
at which the PID was used in USA to "prevent" a colon cancer predisposition,
the question about the extension of the field of application of the PID
comes up in a concrete manner. And this question is particularly worrying
given that, according to British scientists, the future parents could, from
now to next year, have a genetic test, the genetic MoT, which enables
them to select in vitro their embryos free from any known genetic
diseases or predispositions to cancers, diabetes, to some cardiovascular or
neurodegenerative diseases. In theory, the genetic MoT could also
enable selecting embryos according to the eye colours or other genetic
criteria determining the size, the weight…, but the Human Fertilisation and
Embryology Authority (HFEA), to which the test has to be submitted, should
prohibit such use.
Still in Great Britain, associations of deaf people claim the "right" to
give birth to deaf children via the PID. And this demand would not be
isolated: 3% of American fertility clinics would have already resorted to
PID to select and re-implant embryos carrying genetic anomalies.
Situation in France
French law in force stipulates that the PID can only concern "particularly
serious" and "incurable" diseases at the time of the diagnosis.
But a French team, managed by Pr. Stéphane Viville, director of the
Institute of Genetics and Molecular and Cellular Biology of Strasbourg,
recognised, in 2006, he practices the DPI to identify the embryos carrying
genes predisposing to some cancers. According to him, the law did not list
the pathologies concerned by the PID, "there is no need of change (…)
to (…) treat the predisposition to some cancers". In those
days, the director of the Agency of Biomedicine, Carine Camby, declared that,
if "the law of bioethics had to be extensively construed", this could
not be "the fact of a single centre" and called for a public debate.
In lieu of public debate, on 9th April 2008, the mission directed by Dr
Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet in which participated Pr Viville, concluded that "no
modification of the law of bioethics" was "necessary so that this
practice may continue". And, on last 26th December, the Agency of
Biomedicine wanted to remind, with a press release, that the selection of
embryos by PID in some cases of cancers was authorised in France. According
to her, 22 PID associated to a risk of cancer were performed between January
2000 and June 2007, leading to the birth of 6 children free from inherited
forms of cancers or associated diseases researched 1.
Nevertheless, the question should be treated during the next revision of the
law of bioethics.
1- Bilan d’application de la loi de bioéthique du 6 août 2004, Agence
de la biomédecine, octobre 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
On 2nd December 2008, the Grand-Duke of
Luxembourg announced that he will not promulgate law legalising euthanasia.
Legislative process
Introduced in 2001, this bill aiming at decriminalising euthanasia in
Luxembourg was adopted, a first time, by the deputies, with a short majority
of 30 votes out of 59, on 19th February 2008. Before being definitely
ratified by the Parliament, the text had to pass a second reading. On last
18th December, deputies pronounced again on this bill: 31 votes in favour
and 26 against.
Revision of the Constitution
But, faced with the refusal, announced before the second reading, of Henri
II of Luxembourg to promulgate this law, his Prime Minister, Jean-Claude
Juncker, initiated a reform of the Constitution. Today, the Grand-Duke can
at the same time "promulgate" and "sanction" the laws. The constitutional
revision foresees to erase this provision, this way significantly reducing
the powers of the sovereign. On last 11th December, the project of
constitutional revision was approved with 56 votes out of 60. Nevertheless,
before entering into effect, the text will be submitted to a second vote -
scheduled in the course of March 2009.
Popular Initiative
In order to invalidate this accelerated constitutional reform and to
maintain the powers of the Grand-Duke, a committee of popular initiative
filed a referendum petition. In order this may occur, the committee must
collect 25,000 signatures. Moreover, according to this Constitution, such
referendum cannot take place within three months before or after an election.
Nevertheless, a legislative election being foreseen in the duchy on next 7th
June, the referendum could only take place before 7th March or after 7th
September.
The debate on legalisation of euthanasia in Luxembourg is not yet decided,
particularly as it is not impossible that a law adopted under a
constitutional regime cannot be promulgated under another one. Thus,
deputies could have to start the legislative process from scratch.
Whatever may happen, the political courage of the Grand-Duke has permitted
that a debate on end of life in Europe sets up.
|
