The president (translation). – We will now hear debate on the report on access to safe and
legal abortion in Europe, presented by Mrs Wurm on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities
for Women and Men, Document 11537 revised, with an opinion presented by Mrs Christine
McCafferty on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, Document 11576.
The replies to the debate and votes on the amendments and draft texts will take place at the
start of this afternoon’s sitting.
On Monday, it was agreed that speaking time in debates this morning would be limited to three minutes. The list of speakers will be interrupted at 12 noon.
I call Mrs Wurm, rapporteur. You have a total of 13 minutes for your contributions to the debate. You may divide that time up as you wish between your initial presentation and your reply to the debate. You have the floor.
Mrs Wurm (Austria) said that women’s ability to bear children was of fundamental importance, but
society had not always made it easy.
In previous centuries, up to two thirds of women had suffered some illnesses during pregnancy, and many women had died in childbirth. Nowadays, such suffering was inconceivable.
At Mexico City in August 2007, Amnesty International had called for the decriminalisation of terminations and for access to medical care for pregnant women. Refusal of such care should be seen as a form of violence against women.
An estimated one third of pregnancies were unplanned.
Approximately one quarter of pregnant women sought a termination, but half those terminations were neither legal nor conducted in safe and hygienic conditions.
This put the health and lives of women in jeopardy. Termination was legal in many Council of Europe countries and current medical practice significantly reduced the risks. The growth in the number of abortions was slowing.
Whether abortion was legal had little influence on women's decisions to terminate.
There were some 800 000 illegal abortions each year in Europe, often conducted under poor conditions.
Abortion had historically been used as a last resort. Education on the most up-to-date methods of contraception was necessary, not just for women, but for boys and men.
A proper strategy for sexual and reproductive health would mean fewer abortions and the number of terminations carried out emphasised the need for that. Abortion should not be a means of family planning and it was certainly not the intention of the report that it should be seen as such.
But there should be freedom from prosecution and the right to access a safe and legal abortion.
Abortion should be available particularly when the life of the mother was in danger; the primary
concern underlying the report was the protection of women.
Legal abortion did not mean that women were forced to abort, but provided freedom for the individual to take control of her own
body.
Prohibiting abortion did not reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
Again, education on contraception was essential.
Back-street abortions traumatised women and jeopardised their health.
Women from countries where abortion was illegal would seek to terminate their pregnancies in
other countries.
Abortion tourism was not entirely a modern phenomenon as women had in the past travelled, for example, to the United Kingdom or the former Yugoslavia or Austria.
There was economic inequality since those who could afford to go abroad did so, while those who could not were forced to seek back-street abortions.
Many resolutions which expressed the view of parliamentarians and the United Nations should
be endorsed.
The objective behind the report was the creation of social conditions that made it possible for women to bear children in conditions of happiness.
This was still an ideal, and not yet a reality. The rights to health, free decisions and physical integrity underpinned the report.
The president (translation). – Thank you, Mrs Wurm. You have three minutes and 22 seconds left
to reply to speakers in the debate.
Mrs McCafferty, you have the floor to present the opinion of the Committee on Social, Health
and Family Affairs.
Mrs McCafferty (United Kingdom). – Abortion is an emotional topic that provokes strong reactions in almost all societies. There seems to be general agreement that women should be patronized when they become pregnant and steered towards the expected outcome of carrying the pregnancy to full term.
People who are not directly involved with the family and with the mother often pontificate on unwanted pregnancies and dominate the public debate.
I believe that they operate on wrong assumptions about how pregnant women should be treated and cared for.
The first misconception is the assumption that keeping abortion illegal is pro-life in some way.
The error in that argument is the exclusive focus on the fetus; the woman is totally ignored as if she does not count.
The low value attached to women’s health was clearly shown in the recent Polish court case in which a woman was forced to become almost blind as a direct result of being denied an abortion.
The sight of a woman had less value than upholding a pregnancy.
Even where abortion is legal to save a woman’s life, it is rarely carried out.
Who knows whether a woman’s life is in danger or can we know only after she is dead?
This position implies that you can protect life by restricting access to abortion or by making it illegal.
However, there is absolutely no evidence that making or keeping abortion illegal reduces the number of abortions.
Comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to effective contraception and safe
abortion services have been proven to reduce the number of abortions.
Consequently, the Netherlands has the lowest abortion rate in the world.
Far from reducing the frequency of unwanted
pregnancies and abortions, keeping abortion illegal forces women to resort to illegal and mostly
unsafe abortions, which endangers their health and their lives and seriously affects their families.
Almost all developed countries legalised abortion in the last century because they could no longer accept the tragic suffering and loss of their female population.
If women have no access to legal abortion, they resort to illegal means. Women will go to any lengths and take any risks to end an unwanted pregnancy.
“Any” means exactly that. Illegal abortion is extremely risky. It is usually performed late, frequently by the woman herself or an untrained person.
The procedure is often done under unsafe conditions, increasing the risk of serious complications.
Women resort to that because they feel that there is no other way to go.
I ask members to support the report because keeping abortion illegal violates the fundamental
rights of women.
It is also an incredible insult to women because, obviously, the pregnant woman herself can make a responsible decision in the best interests of herself, her family and, indeed, the fetus.
Abortion should be a private decision between the patient and her doctor.
The president (translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Acketoft on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Mrs Acketoft (Sweden). – I second every word that has been said so far in the debate. It would have been easy for the Council to turn a blind eye to this topic because it is highly sensitive. I am therefore very proud that we are dealing with the subject today. I hope that our debate will be fruitful.
As the appointed speaker for ALDE, I have promised some of my colleagues to say that they feel that the issue is a matter of conscience and that there are different viewpoints in the group.
I am sure that that applies to every group.
Having said that, let us not forget what the topic is all about. Let us not start trench digging and
the warfare to which we are all so accustomed when it comes to discussing abortion. The report is
not pro or anti abortion.
If it is pro anything, it is pro-women’s health and lives. If we start by remembering that it is not pro or anti abortion, we will probably have a better discussion.
The report is also about gender equality.
The right of women to make decisions about their own bodies and to have health and life is at the core of gender equality.
There is also a question of human rights. If the Assembly does not talk about human rights, who should?
It makes me so upset every time the EU grants exemptions from human rights standards, especially this human right, for EU states.
The right to decide for yourself should not depend on which side of a border one lives. In the 1960s, Swedish women went to Poland to get abortions.
Let us remember what the rapporteur said: it does not matter whether abortion is legal or illegal, the number of abortions remains the same.
We are simply considering whether it is legal or illegal, safe or unsafe.
In the 1960s, Swedish women had to go to Poland. Now, I am glad to say that Polish women can come to Sweden.
Women must have the right to make their own decisions about this difficult matter. It is not an
easy question and I have never heard anyone say that they are pro-abortion.
However, in difficult times in life, one has to make difficult choices. If we do not make it possible for women to make those choices about their own lives and health, who should stand up for women?
I am so glad that I can second every word of the report. I hope that the Chamber will be full
this afternoon and that members will vote for health for women, for gender equality and then for all
the other tools that we need to ensure that there are as few unwanted and unplanned pregnancies
as possible.
The president (translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Frahm on behalf of the Group of the
Unified European Left.
Mrs Frahm (Denmark). – I, too, agree with everything that has been said so far. I start by
reminding all my colleagues that all member states of the Council of Europe have ratified the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
Now is the time to move forward in the struggle against the discrimination against women.
On behalf of the group, I support the report. Some of us remember the days when abortion was
illegal in most European countries.
I emphasise that making abortion illegal does not mean that it does not happen.
We remember the stories about miserable women who lost their lives by the hands of some quack who was never found.
We also remember stories about young women who were forced to give away their newborn babies for adoption because they could not handle a child in their current situation.
We also remember the women who killed their babies.
We remember women who, for the rest of their lives, regretted giving away their babies, and the children who were never loved because they were the result of rape or of a one-night stand with an unknown father.
All this happened because some people thought more of possible life after death than the life that we know we have: this life.
Just imagine making so many women and children suffer, even though there were alternatives: abortion was possible, just not legal.
Suffering and misery occurred for the sake
of a moral. Thank God that that is over in most countries.
In most countries today, women have a choice.
However, we see tendencies to narrow the possibilities for women. There is growing engagement by the Catholic Church and other religious groups in trying to take away a woman’s most fundamental right – the right to make decisions about her own body.
Let us not go backwards, but move forward.
The next step is to adopt and develop further
strategies to reduce the number of abortions to a minimum.
We need secure access to contraception at a reasonable cost and compulsory relationship and sex education.
I warmly support the report. Let us move forward and not backwards.
The president (translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Pourgourides on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mr Pourgourides (Cyprus). – Before expressing the views of my group, I would like to inform
the Assembly that there are other opinions in my group. Having clarified that point, my group
believes that the resolution lacks balance between the competing interests of pregnant women who
wish to have an abortion and those of developing human beings. The resolution totally ignores the
rights of the unborn child until birth.
Also, no credit is given to different cultural attitudes in different countries, which are all summoned
in the same way to abolish all remaining restrictions placed on abortions. The draft resolution completely ignores the fact that the existing restrictions in many countries were the product of heated and lengthy debates.
If paragraphs 7.1 to 7.4, which call for the abolition of all legal restrictions on abortion, were to be
taken seriously, it would result in the legalization of abortion until birth, for whatever reason and by
whatever method, as long as it was safe for the woman involved.
That goes far beyond existing law, even in the countries with the most permissive laws. If those proposals are not to be taken seriously, they should be deleted. Otherwise, the Parliamentary Assembly risks no longer being taken seriously on other matters as well.
Abortion is not an unconditional right. Freedom of choice for pregnant women does not prevail
unconditionally over the life of the unborn child. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled in a
number of cases that Article 8.1 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as meaning that pregnancy and its termination are solely a matter for the private life of the woman concerned.
The explanatory memorandum makes reference to the Court’s relevant judgments, but the draft
resolution completely ignores the Court’s rulings. The draft resolution makes numerous references
to legal matters. In fact, its thrust is the abolition of all legal restrictions on abortion, but the report
has not gone to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for an opinion. One cannot help
but wonder why this has not happened. I propose that the report be sent to the Committee on Legal
Affairs and Human Rights for an opinion, if that is in order. If that cannot be done, my group
believes that the report needs to be seriously amended in order to be acceptable.
The request for decriminalisation should be replaced by a provision requesting a legal framework that provides for an appropriate balance between the need to protect human life at all stages of development and the need to protect the health and life of the pregnant woman.
Abortion, when legal, must be safe.
If the draft resolution as presented in its original form is accepted, no government or parliament
would take it seriously. I have been fighting all my life for human rights, for the rights of all the
deprived and for the rights of women and children, not only in my country but all over Europe.
I am sorry to say, however, that I am unable to support the report as it is drafted.
The president (translation). – Thank you, Mr Pourgourides. Regarding your request to refer the
report back to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, I must tell you that the rules
prohibit repeated requests for a referral to committee.
I call Mrs Čurdová, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Mrs Čurdová (Czech Republic). – No one in this room denies the fact that abortion is a sensitive
and delicate issue, as the previous speaker also said.
I do not know any woman who would undergo
an abortion without considering the risks involved or who would abuse taking such a decision.
Abortion can serve only as a last resort for an unsolvable situation. If a woman decides to undergo
an abortion, her decision has to be respected and she must be granted access to a safe abortion
with all appropriate medical care.
I must point out that this issue concerns the poor rather than the rich.
Let me make a brief excursion into history to show that even the attitude of the Christian church,
which nowadays represents the major opponent of abortion, was not always so narrow-minded and
determined.
Thomas Aquinas, the philosopher, states in his theory of delayed animation that the rational soul is present only at some later stage of gestation.
For a male fetus, it was 80 days after conception; for a female fetus, it was only 40.
He believed that the fetus had to be prepared for
the time when the rational soul came into the body.
Abortion was not banned at that time; it was a
taboo subject, but it was tolerated.
When we recall Hippocrates and his oath, we remember that this honourable doctor described, in his Corpus Hippocraticum, a series of exercises for women that could help to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
The 20th-century scientist, George Devereux, after examining 350 primitive, ancient societies,
concluded that abortion was a universal phenomenon and that it was impossible to find or create a social structure in which it would not exist.
Returning to our present-day society, let me mention some current data. Every minute, a woman dies due to pregnancy or childbirth.
About 100 women undergo an abortion every minute, but only 40% of those abortions are carried out in safe conditions, and about 70 000 women die every year as a consequence of an unprofessional
abortion.
It is our task, as politicians, to ensure that women can exercise control over their own lives.
However, that seems to be the main eyesore for religious institutions.
Women in the 21st century are fully fledged citizens.
If they choose to terminate a pregnancy, it is necessary to ensure that they have access to legal and safe abortion.
Access to safe abortion is the main message of the report presented by Gisela Wurm, and we should support it because its aim is to protect women, mothers and girls. The Socialist Group supports that message.
(Mr Prescott, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr de Puig.)
The president (translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Wilshire to speak on behalf of the European Democratic Group.
Mr Wilshire (United Kingdom). – The European Democratic Group has asked me, as its deputy
leader, simply to make a short statement at the beginning of this debate.
All those in our group understand clearly that abortion is a hugely emotive subject in which fundamental moral and ethical issues come into play. Everyone listening to this debate will instinctively listen to their conscience, rather than to party political persuasion.
The EDG has therefore decided not even to attempt to have a collective view. The group has no policy of any kind on this matter. Every one of us in our
group will simply listen to the debate, listen to our consciences and then make up our minds how
each of us as individuals will vote.
The president (translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Keleş.
Mrs Keleş (Turkey). – I thank Mrs Wurm for preparing such a comprehensive report on such an
important subject, which is a matter of human rights and of gender equality.
Abortion is a nightmare for almost all women, even in the countries where it is decriminalised.
In some of those countries, there are still restrictions that make abortion almost impossible or unsafe in practice.
It is true that abortion should not be considered as a means of family planning and that the right to life
is the most important human right. We should remember, however, that abortion is related not only to the baby’s right to life, but to the mother’s right to life.
If legal and safe abortion is not available, the mother is condemned to take care of a child who will make her remember a very unpleasant experience or a miserable period in her life.
In a way, she is condemned to live with miserable memories for the rest of her life. The pregnancy may have arisen from a wrong decision that she has made, or a mistaken assessment made when she was inexperienced and young.
In other cases, however, abortion becomes a necessity after an experience imposed on a woman by force and with no contribution from her.
Pregnancy resulting from rape is an example of that. In such cases, the mother has, or should have, the right to live without remembering that unfortunate and miserable experience, and in order to benefit from that right, she should have access to safe and legal abortion.
Moreover, safe and legal abortion should be accessible not only to well-informed and well-to-do women, but to every woman who needs an
abortion for physical or psychological reasons.
Safe and legal abortion should be within the reach of women with limited financial means.
We should also bear it in mind that women usually have deep affection for their children, even during pregnancy. A pregnant woman will not opt for an abortion lightly: she will not make the decision unless she is obliged to.
I congratulate Mrs Wurm on her report, and especially on the draft resolution, which invites
member states not only to lift the restrictions that prevent access to safe abortion, but to take the
measures that are necessary to create the appropriate conditions for health, well-being and medical and psychological care, and to offer suitable financial cover.
I hope that male parliamentarians will take a positive approach to this subject, with their daughters, sisters and other female relatives in
mind.
The president (translation). – Thank you. I have received an indication from the rapporteur, Mrs Wurm, that she would like to speak, which the rules allow her to do at this stage.
Mrs Wurm (Austria) said that it had never been the intention of the report that abortion would
be carried out in the eighth or ninth month. It should be carried out within given timelines.
The president (translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Branger.
Mr Branger (France) said that he wanted to pay tribute to the rapporteur because the report
was controversial but it was courageous.
It was important to recognise that the choice was not between authorization of abortion and
encouragement of family planning, but between safe and unsafe abortion, such as back-street
abortions.
He said that about 180 000 were carried out every year in Poland.
Contraception and abortion were not opposites, and there was not a precise correlation between increasing one and decreasing the other.
It was important to ensure that family planning doctors got across the message that abortion was not a form of contraception.
The point of greatest difficulty was the question of access to safe and legal abortion.
After the decriminalisation in France, a study had looked at the rate of women being refused abortions, and had found that about 47% of requests were refused, citing, for example, the availability of beds.
Women often experienced a two to three week wait.
In a country like France, where the limit for abortion was 12 weeks, this was a problem and some women did not get the abortion they
requested.
He said that 3 000 to 5 000 women in France went abroad for an abortion every year.
Doctors also refused to carry out abortions on the basis of conscience, sometimes because they felt
that carrying out abortions was not lucrative enough, and justified their choice by falsely citing
conscience.
Access to safe and legal abortion was a crucial part of freedom.
The president (translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Rigoni.
Mr Rigoni (Italy) said that the report represented a radical change in the position of the Assembly by referring to women’s right to have access to abortion. Abortion involved a child never
seeing the light of day. In Italy, abortion was legal, but he felt that one must not talk about an
absolute right to an abortion. There was an ethical question which had to be resolved in an
appropriate legal format. The Assembly should concentrate on the ethical question first, focusing on the health of women and of foetuses. Women might need assistance, including counselling, after an abortion or after carrying a baby to full term.
Making a legal statement at the supranational level
was over-hasty, and the sovereignty of states should not be encroached upon. The Assembly was faced with a highly sensitive issue, and it was impossible to find a legal instrument to deal with that issue at the international level. Discussions should continue. One of the fundamental values of a civil society was life, above all else.
The president (translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Ferić-Vac.
Mrs Ferić-Vac (Croatia). – Mr President, dear colleagues and friends, I thank both rapporteurs
for the report. I will use these precious three minutes to address only a few points.
I want to say now that I will support the report and sincerely hope that the Assembly will accept it, too.
I very much support the intention of the report to clarify once more the positions of the 'prolifers'
and pro-choicers, and to advocate the right of a woman to decide about, and be the mistress,
of her own body. That is a human right and part of gender equality.
To guarantee safe abortion, states and governments are required to invest in education to
ensure that the younger generation know the dangers and risks of their sexual lives.
Investment in health means not only accessible and affordable contraceptives but access to hospitals and doctors.
Our experience in Croatia was that during the privatization of the health system, numerous doctors declared their objection of conscience so that abortion could not be performed in hospitals at which they worked.
Nevertheless, the private sector is booming. That is questionable in a democracy.
Hypocrisy is the last thing that we need today.
I shall not address questions of unwanted pregnancy in conflict situations. Investment in social services would provide assistance.
Women who have had an abortion should not be let down and left alone.
The argument is made in many countries that have the problem of an ageing population that abortion should be restricted because the country requires
more children, the nation is in danger, and having more children would create a better demographic
situation.
Dear colleagues, the bells of the past sound. That would be a monstrous approach.
According to figures in Croatia, a high percentage of women who had an abortion last year already had two children. Abortion should not be a family planning matter.
There are other questions relating to living standards, the economy and a decent life for all. We cannot simply hide behind the situation.
Restrictions open up space for the rich, whereas the less privileged will undertake any risk – I mean any risk – to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Colleagues and friends, the deaths of 70 000 women in the past year require us to treat
women’s right to decide about abortion as an integral part of their human rights.
We should never forget that women’s human rights are written on the finest parts of our bodies.
The president (translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Volozhinskaya.
Mrs Volozhinskaya (Russian Federation) congratulated Mrs Wurm, and said that she fully
supported the report.
When a woman took a decision on abortion, she should be in full cognisance of the facts and of the effects of an abortion on her health. She should enjoy access to a safe and legal abortion and, vitally, to full information.
It was necessary to organise work to ensure that
women got the information they needed. Information should be made available as broadly as
possible, to men as well as women. Men sometimes prevented women from taking contraception, so it was very important that information was made available to all.
The younger generation needed to be brought up knowing all the facts about abortion. Bad habits were often passed down between generations.
Abortion was fundamentally a socio-economic problem, as women often made abortion
decisions based on their living conditions.
It was important to ensure the conditions were created where it was possible to look at issues on a case-by-case basis to ensure that women did not do things that they would later regret.
Some religions made women feel sinful about abortion. The issue was not about having an easy
moral slogan. Such slogans should not be imposed on women in that situation. In this regard, a
natural instinct was involved for both men and women. It was important to talk about men, as men
were crucial in governments and often refused to accept their obligation to help women in difficult
situations.
The president (translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Jonker.
Mrs Jonker (Netherlands) said that abortion was legal in many European countries, including
the Netherlands.
The Netherlands had one of the lowest rates of abortion in the world, although that should not be celebrated as abortions often had a tragic history behind them.
The low rate was due to careful practice in the Netherlands, where the law was based on the protection of the child and on the rights of women. A balance was found between autonomy and the need to protect life.
In the Netherlands, clear rules applied: there was a 24-week time limit on abortions, and a special licence was required.
There were rules for emergency situations; whether the situation was considered an emergency was determined by the woman concerned.
The policy was aimed at reducing abortions, but also at reducing unwanted pregnancies. The law said that there must be a period of reflection of at least five days. In practice, this was often much longer. The woman was informed about the alternatives and consequences and doctors were trained in counselling techniques.
The prevention of pregnancy and provision of good information started in schools, through sex education and contraception, especially for high-risk groups.
She wanted to show the importance of a policy directed at an integrated package of measures,
including for emergencies. It was important to see abortion not in isolation, but in a carefully
balanced way.
The report contained something close to that integrated package.
The president (translation). – I must ask the lady to bring her remarks to a close.
Mrs Jonker (Netherlands) (translation). – I just wanted to say two more sentences. Thank
you, Mr President.
(The speaker continued in Dutch) There were a few questions for the rapporteur: whether the
report supported unconditional decriminalization, what was a reasonable time limit and whether a
period of reflection was desirable.
The president (translation). – I realize that this is a sensitive debate, but every time I allow someone an extra half-minute I am cutting off the time for someone else who wishes to speak in the debate. I
hope that colleagues will understand that. I call Ms Gjul.
Ms Gjul (Norway). – Thank you, Mr President. The issue is not about whether one is pro or against abortion.
It is about who should take the decision – the woman herself or a restrictive legal framework.
Having an abortion is not an easy solution. For women who end up in that situation, it is
probably the most difficult decision that they will ever have to make, but I still believe that it should
be up to each woman to decide.
Abortion will not disappear even if we prohibit it.
Irish women travel to Great Britain to have
abortions, and in Poland it is estimated that 180 000 clandestine abortions are carried out each
year.
Restrictive abortion legislation will, first and foremost, put women who do not wish to be
pregnant in an even more problematic situation.
The situation is most difficult for young and poor
women.
They rarely have the money to go abroad or to carry out the abortion in an expensive private clinic.
To them, the solution will be illegal abortions in back-street clinics.
Rich women with resources will always have access to abortion, no matter how strict the legislation is in their country.
At the end of the 1970s all Nordic countries introduced liberal abortion legislation. With the
exception of Iceland, the number of abortions decreased in all those countries after the introduction of that law.
The Nordic countries serve as examples to show that easier access to abortion has not resulted in more abortions; rather, the opposite is true.
At the same time as legislation was being
liberalized, preventive measures against unwanted pregnancies were being introduced in those
countries.
Obligatory sex education was introduced in schools and measures were taken to improve
access to contraceptives.
We know that the experience of the Nordic countries is not unique; Belgium and the Netherlands have had the same experience.
From society’s perspective, we wish European women to have many children. European
countries should therefore have child-friendly policies. Good welfare systems, with paid maternity leave, kindergartens and economic support for parents with small children, are important.
Through good parental leave schemes, we can encourage women who did not wish to become pregnant to go through with the pregnancy. Those are measures that we can agree on regardless of our view of abortion.
The president (translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Stuligrosz.
Mr Stuligrosz (Poland). – Thank you, Mr President. The final report presented by the
committee reflects the real social situation in most European countries. Fortunately, unlimited
permission for abortion procedures is not common, but for many years it has been one of the
biggest social problems of the modern world. Abortion is not only a women’s problem. We are all
responsible for the medical and legal effects of this controversial act.
Unfortunately, the final report does not take into account the many legal regulations governing
abortion’s permissibility in the countries that make up the Council of Europe.
In some countries abortion is fully legal; in others it is limited to some cases or is totally prohibited. That is why, although I may agree with the estimation of the source of the problem, I cannot accept the final proposals and arrangements.
I regret that during the last committee session in Paris the amendment to paragraph 7 was not
accepted.
It is a difficult task to guarantee women the right to an abortion in a country where abortion is prohibited or significantly limited. If we do not take into account that important issue, we cannot understand the specific situation of countries in which anti-abortion acts are the result of a
hard compromise. I would like to quote the arguments made in discussion during the committee session that are, from
my point of view, worth remembering. First, the family is the basis of society. In a family, especially a multigenerational one, where relations are strong and lasting, it is easier to discuss conscious family planning.
Women cannot be left alone with the problem, and responsibility for pregnancy should be equally shared by men and women.
Secondly, the sexual education given to young people, at different educational levels, should emphasis the health and social effects of early sexual activity and should not refer only to techniques and ways of protecting against pregnancy.
Thirdly, the culture and sensitivities of European societies must be directed to tolerance and acceptance of pregnant women. In Poland we say that they are in a blessed state. I think that I will be well understood when I say that I would prefer the Council of Europe to prepare a report on the means, condition and ways of supporting pregnant women, rather than a report on abortion.
The president (translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Leyden.
Mr Leyden (Ireland). – Mr President and colleagues, I wish to speak against the proposed
resolution in “Access to safe and legal abortion in Europe”. It is important to recall today that as far
back as 1994 there was international agreement at the Cairo Conference on Population and
Development on the issue of abortion.
The programme of action states that in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning. Priority was given to the need to prevent
unwanted pregnancies and eliminate the need for abortion, and to provide access to reliable
information and compassionate counselling. While the Cairo text acknowledges the sexual and
reproductive rights of women, these rights are qualified by the need to respect national legislative
processes when considering the issue of abortion.
That concept has informed discussions and decisions on reproductive health and services in all
official international forums since 1994. The draft resolution before us today, however, seems to
abandon that consensus position completely. It seeks to invite governments to ignore their national
democratic, constitutional and legal processes by introducing a set of measures that would clearly
be against the will of the majority of people in a number of member states, including Ireland.
The report that provides underpinning for this draft has been composed on the basis of consultations with a very partisan and one-sided group of organisations. It draws conclusions based
on extremely weak data and, in certain instances, flawed logic. Moreover, only a minority of
members of the full Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men were present when the draft resolution was adopted in Paris. I was present on that occasion and I fought against the resolution.
One aspect that particularly concerns me is that it alleges that in countries where the provision of abortion services is illegal, that leads to clandestine and dangerous abortions. In
Ireland, there is no evidence whatever that that is the case. In fact, our statistics for infant and
maternal mortality are among the lowest in Europe. While abortion on demand is not available, the
Irish Constitution, since a referendum in 1983, “acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and
with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect and as far
as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right”.
In addition, the Crisis Pregnancy Agency, which was set up by the Irish Government in 2001,
has the triple mandate of reducing the number of crisis pregnancies through the provision of
education, advice and contraceptive services, achieving a reduction in the number of women with
crisis pregnancies who opt for abortion by offering services and support that make other options
more attractive and providing counselling, medical and other health services after crisis
pregnancies. It works with the full range of state and voluntary agencies to provide free counselling
services throughout the country.
The agency was able to report in 2007 a drop for the sixth year in a row in the number of women giving Irish addresses at United Kingdom abortion clinics.
There has also been a steady decline in the number of teenage pregnancies.
The president (translation). – In order to be consistent, I must stop you at this stage.
Mr Leyden (Ireland). – It is 16 years since I spoke here, so I am sure you can allow me one
more minute.
The president – I must be fair to everyone and ask you to sit down. Please help the chair.
No one can hear you as the microphones are not on.
Mr Leyden (Ireland). – I urge colleagues to reject the proposed resolution.
The president – I think we have picked up the point. Thank you. I now call Mrs Durrieu.
Mrs Durrieu (France) disagreed with the arguments put by the speakers from Poland, Cyprus, Italy and Ireland. Respect for privacy was essential. Existential questions of life and death could be answered only by the individuals concerned.
No one else could, or should, decide such things.
Only the individuals concerned should determine whether a child was born. Individuals should be able to control their own bodies.
Abortion should be legally available.
In France, as recently as 1920, it had been punishable by death, and it was only comparatively recently that legal rights in that area had been recognized.
Arguments could be made on when an abortion was appropriate – at 12 weeks, for example, or at
16. It was at 12 weeks that an embryo became a fetus and organs began to develop. Most
abortions in fact happened at between five and eight weeks.
Pregnancy, where wanted, was a blessing, but a huge number of women were forced to carry
children they did not want.
Each individual case was a physical and psychological tragedy.
Delegates ought to ensure that their daughters and wives, and the daughters and wives of others, should not have to suffer such a tragedy.
The president (translation). – Thank you. I now call Mr Bender.
Mr Bender (Poland). – The idea that the Council of Europe, whose main purpose from its very
inception in 1949 has been the protection of human rights, should pass a resolution that calls for its
sovereign member states to decide that some of their citizens can freely be killed is totally unthinkable. Unborn children have arms, legs, brains and hearts. They are human beings. No
political party, no industrial lobby and no philosophical speculation can change that.
In the past, socialists – both national and international – and communists made mistakes that caused the suffering of millions. The socialists of today want to force their views on countries that
hold to the simple principle that a human being is a human being. When discussing the most
important matters of life and death, we have to remain calm, weigh the arguments and prudently
foresee the impact of our decisions on future generations.
We should also try to be humble and look towards the greatest moral authorities, whose
understanding of such matters is generally accepted. The 20th century was ravaged by the
devastation brought about by the two most evil, death-worshipping regimes – German national
socialism and Soviet communism – and it knew two such persons who were shining lights of
humanity in difficult times: John Paul II and Mother Teresa. Both testified throughout their lives that
human life is sacred – from conception to natural death. The Council of Europe should heed their
voice. Colleagues, please vote for life and not for the resolution proposed by Mrs Wurm of the
Committee for Equal Opportunities for Women and Men.
The president (translation). – Thank you. I now call Mr Rossi.
Mr Rossi (San Marino) thanked the rapporteur for her work. An ideological battle was being
waged in many countries between those who were 'pro-life' and those who were pro-choice. He allied
himself with those who argued that abortion was a personal and private matter.
Where countries did not allow abortion, many women went abroad to terminate their pregnancies.
Unwanted pregnancy caused great suffering. The argument should be not about whether one was pro or anti-abortion but about women’s health.
An abortion should be chosen only as a last resort and each woman in that extreme situation needed support. Procedures should be hygienic and safe. If they were not, more victims would be sacrificed on the altar of ideology.
The president (translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Brincat.
Mr Brincat (Malta). – It is common knowledge that, over the years, the political scene in Malta
has offered an interesting study in contrasts on various issues. However, one unifying factor among
the parties represented in our country’s parliament is that Malta has always spoken with one voice
in its stand against abortion.
As for my party – the Malta Labour Party, which represents a fraction less than the relative majority that the governing party currently enjoys - there are no ifs or buts on this issue. The Malta Labour Party always was, is and will remain against abortion. The issue does not feature on our agenda. Our position is unequivocal, and that is solely the result of our deep commitment to the rights of the unborn child rather than to political opportunism. During our recent election campaign, we were never canvassed by any potential voters to consider seriously introducing abortion in the country’s legislative programme. Our party’s interpretation of the issue remains consistent with our national legislation, which considers the termination of pregnancy through induced abortion to be illegal. It is our strong belief that it is morally and politically impossible for Malta to legalize abortion, which is and will remain a criminal offence.
We strongly support the stand taken by the authorities in Malta in the not-too-distant past when
they expressed reservations about both the Beijing Declaration, which emanated from the
Conference on Women held in China, and the Cairo programme of action, which emanated from the
Conference on Population and Development. We firmly believe that it was right to express those
reservations to safeguard Malta’s commitment against abortion.
The Socialist Group respects the fact that the majority of member states of the Council of
Europe allow legalized abortion. However, for us Maltese, abortion is a non-issue. It does not
feature on our political agenda or calendar.
The president (translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Papadopoulos.
Mrs Papadopoulos (Cyprus). – Abortion is a highly sensitive and emotional issue. It has
sparked endless debates between 'pro-life' and pro-choice activists. However, it is no use igniting the
arguments for or against it again today. The rapporteur has produced a well-focused report, which supports the right of women to have
equitable access to safe and legal abortions throughout Europe to avoid dangerous, traumatic and clandestine abortions. Throughout the report, it is stressed that abortion should be avoided as much as possible and should not be considered as a contraceptive method. It also emphasises that
women’s access to safe and legal abortions is not reflected in the national law of all Council of
Europe member states.
The facts show that, in countries where abortion is legal, equal access to health care facilities is
not always assured.
On the other hand, in countries where abortion is restricted by law, women often terminate their pregnancies in unsafe circumstances, putting their lives in danger.
I fully understand the need to safeguard reproductive choices, sexual autonomy and access to safe abortion services. However, it is extremely difficult to convince all member states to have a
uniform policy because the issue is intrinsically linked to religious, cultural, race, freedom and
gender issues.
For example, in patriarchal societies it is still considered a murderous act.
Ideally, a woman would never be faced with the dilemma of whether to have an abortion. The
decision to proceed with an abortion is never easy. Psychological stress, emotional anxiety and
feelings of guilt will accompany women, especially teenagers, for the rest of their lives. However, I
support the right of victims of war, rape or incest to access abortion. The same should apply to
pregnant women whose lives are threatened for health reasons.
Moreover, I strongly believe that emphasis should be placed on the prevention of unwanted
pregnancies and that member states should examine in detail all their gender policies and
objectives. I urge them to strengthen comprehensive sex education in all the curriculums in their education systems. Teenagers must be taught respect and to protect themselves and others, and their rights to reproductive choices must also be safeguarded. Healthy relationships should be encouraged from a young age.
It is vital for countries to have a national plan for family planning, a national statistics archive
on abortions and national awareness campaigns to enlighten and provide guidance and appropriate
sex education at all levels of schooling.
The president (translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Rouquet.
Mr Rouquet (France) welcomed the draft resolution and congratulated Mrs Wurm on her
report, which took on a particular importance for the Assembly because for the first time it called on
member states to decriminalise abortion and guarantee the right of women to safe abortion, access to contraception and sex education. The report also called for the removal of obstacles to safe and legal abortions which all too often had left too many women exposed to clandestine abortions in dangerous situations.
The debate dealt with a number of sensitive issues and combined social, medical, legal and ethical considerations. Giving women the ability to control their own reproductive choices was to be aspired to by all. However, geographical disparities between European countries, as well as legislative inequalities, persisted.
For example, although abortion was legally recognized in a number of countries, it was at times inaccessible owing to social and medical restrictions.
It was important to preserve the physical integrity of women because regressive moves on abortion would inevitably lead to an increase in the number of clandestine abortions.
The report, which had merit in overcoming divisions between countries and in promoting women’s right to choose, asked the Assembly to consider Amnesty International’s position on abortion in the context of its “Stop violence against women campaign”, which recognised the human rights of women to be free of fear, threat and coercion.
The president (translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Malins.
Mr Malins (United Kingdom). – Abortion is, and always will be, an issue of conscience. However, I, along with many others here today, am unhappy with the report’s central message. That message is not, as we have been led to believe, that there should be access to safe abortion – we would all agree with that principle.
No, we are asked to invite all member states to decriminalize abortion, which means taking it out of the criminal law completely.
I believe that that is a step too far. The vast number of letters that we have all received clearly proves that millions of people and many countries find, for religious or other reasons, the concept of decriminalizing abortion unacceptable. We insult those people if we try to impose on them one moral judgment that is acceptable to some, but manifestly not to all.
If the report’s recommendations were implemented, it would permit a doctor and a woman, without any criminal sanction whatever hanging over them, to
abort, at any stage of the pregnancy, simply because the woman chose to do so, a perfectly healthy child who would be entirely capable of leading a full and fulfilling life.
Where in the report do we see concern for the rights of the unborn child, who deserves legal
protection before as well as after birth? Where do we see reference to the rights and hopes of the
father and the wider family? Where do we see reference to the feelings and sensitivities of the
medical profession? Where do we see those matters in the report? Nowhere! That is not good
enough. In the 40 years since the United Kingdom passed the Abortion Act – which permits abortion
only in tightly defined circumstances – and despite advances in contraception, there have been
more than 5.5 million abortions, and the figure is increasing all the time. More than 200 000 take
place each year. There have been very few criminal prosecutions, but I believe that if we were to
remove abortion completely from the criminal law, the figures would rise further. The presence of
the criminal law sends a signal that, although we understand the need for safe and speedy abortion
in limited cases, we nevertheless recognize the sanctity of human life and the rights of those who
are unable to speak for themselves.
The president. – Thank you. I call Ms Duesund.
Ms Duesund (Norway). – My political party and I are against abortion. That is because we believe
that life starts at conception. For me, it is wrong to say that life does not start until 12 weeks,
before moving or being born. We believe that the embryo is not just a part of the woman’s body; it
is an individual with the right to live and to develop.
In Norway, women have had the right to legal abortion for 30 years. But even though we have
different views on the abortion law, there has been political agreement on the fact that it is
important to avoid unwanted pregnancies, so that the number of abortions can be reduced.
Norway hands out free contraceptives to young people from 16 to 19 years of age, and educational material entitled “I have a choice” has contributed to giving young people sexual safety and ethical, reflected choices. This has had a positive effect. The number of abortions among young people has been reduced.
The Minister of Health has also taken positive steps to expand the distribution of free contraceptives to young people aged between 19 and 24 – the period when most of them are
students and searching for a partner.
My country, like most of Europe, has a need for more children in the future. It is therefore
important to give good advice and information to those who get pregnant. They need advice on
parental leave, on the welfare system and especially on financial rights, because a good economy will help them to keep the baby.
In recent years, research has shown that some women have an emotional reaction after an
abortion. Studies in Norway show that one in five women have a depressive reaction five years after
having an abortion. These are relatively new figures, and they show us that these women must be
followed up in a better way. It is important to have a stronger focus on this issue in every country.
This information needs to be made available before the abortion takes place, so that the people
involved fully realise what the consequences of their choice will be. Good information can enable a
woman to keep the child she is expecting, even though the pregnancy might not have been planned
from the beginning.
The president. – Thank you. I call Mrs de Melo.
Mrs de Melo (Portugal) extended her congratulations to the rapporteur on her report and
confirmed that she supported the report.
In Portugal major steps had been taken in respect to abortion. It was estimated that 18 000 to 20 000 women resorted to illegal abortions every year,
meaning that up to 20 000 women were considered criminals and could be sentenced for up to
three years imprisonment.
A proposal to change the law during the previous year on grounds of public health had meant that women had been less exposed to dangerous back-street abortions, sometimes resulting in maternal and infant death.
That meant that the poorest and less educated
mothers, who traditionally resorted more often to illegal abortions, were now on an equal footing
with other women in the eyes of the law.
In Portugal, women now had access to free operations under the national health system guaranteed for under 10 weeks gestation, and in the process women were also educated on ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies in future; that would not have happened in the case of illegal abortions.
She wanted an end to the hypocrisy surrounding the legalization of abortion. Women need not give
birth to children who would be brought up in difficult circumstances.
The Assembly should ensure that women were happy to be mothers and concluded by stating that the defence of life was in the good hands of women themselves.
The president. –– Thank you. I call Mr Marty.
Mr Marty (Switzerland) said that the debate on the access to safe and legal abortion in Europe was
based on choices that were moral, but the consequences were immoral in character.
Often women resorted to back-street abortions and were subjected to great humiliation and injustice.
As defenders of human rights, simply closing our eyes to reality would be very hypocritical indeed.
In his experience, no country which had treated the termination of pregnancy as a crime had ever
reduced the number of abortions.
In Switzerland, a change in the law on the length of the gestation period had resulted in back-street abortions becoming a thing of the past.
He stressed the importance of working together in Europe to create an environment where abortion was not considered a crime, but the only moral and ethical way to deal with this issue was to promote a woman’s right to choose.
The president. – Thank you. I call Mrs Greff.
Mrs Greff (France) thanked Mrs Wurm for her report and said that the draft resolution was
very clear: abortion should never be promoted as family planning and, where it was not illegal,
access to abortion had to be safe. She said that abortion was a serious act that left psychological
consequences. However, if a pregnancy was unwanted, abortion should be available under safe
conditions.
The report said that abortion was legal in most countries of the Council of Europe, but was
sometimes not available. She noted that doctors should not be forced to carry out abortions. She
said that in France there were about 200 000 abortions every year – about one for every three live
births. Most were carried out before eight weeks and the legal maximum was 12. However, there
were regional disparities: nearly half the services in 857 regions carried out almost no abortions,
while the services in about 20 regions carried out about one fifth of all abortions.
Every year, 5 000 French women went abroad for an abortion because they had gone beyond the legal maximum number of weeks.
About half of women who had abortions lived in couples. What influence did the man have on
the decision to abort? It would be interesting to look at that question further.
She said that she would have liked to have heard more on education and free contraception. Abortion was not a right, but a problem, representing a failure of policy on access to contraception.
The president. – Thank you. I call Mrs Hägg.
Mrs Hägg (Sweden). – This is a very well-balanced report. As Gisela Wurm will know, I make it
very clear that I think every woman has the right to make decisions about her own body, and to have access to legal and safe abortion.
However, I realise that Gisela Wurm has heard the views of other Assembly members as well. That is what we must do when we compose reports: we must listen to everyone.
We must also read international documents before making decisions here, in order to learn
about post-abortion care, the Beijing platform and ICPD+5. It has been recommended that where
abortion is legal, health care personnel should be trained and equipped to ensure that it is safe and
accessible.
One of the millennium development goals is to reduce maternal mortality. Studies carried out in my country show that contraception rates are highest and abortion rates lowest in countries where social tolerance of young people’s sexuality is greatest.
We would be able to help young women to make more of their own decisions if we provided sexual education in schools, as many countries already do.
When I listened to some of the other speakers, it seemed to me not only that they had not read
the report, but that they did not even understand where they were.
We are in the hemicycle of the Council of Europe, not in a church. This is not about our beliefs.
We must make decisions that are based on fact and on what we read in international documents.
In many European countries, abortion is legal, but it is illegal or restricted in a number of
others. Women tend to seek abortions in countries outside Europe, or at least outside their own
countries.
I am proud of my initiative which has led to new legislation under which we can welcome women from countries such as Poland, Ireland and Malta to Sweden, where they can have legal and
safe abortions.
It is very important for us to reduce the number of unsafe pregnancies. According to the latest figures that I have, it is estimated that there are 500 000 unsafe abortions in Europe each year. It is possible that the number has risen since that estimate was made.
The president. – Thank you. I call Mr Bocchino.
Mr Bocchino (Italy) said that the Assembly was dealing with a major issue, and the debate
was very important. He said that the attitude of the report needed to be entirely overhauled. Abortion was a central issue in human rights, but the task of the Assembly was to encourage national parliaments to safeguard human rights from the start of life. Not much sensitivity had been
shown to the right to life. The report saw women as victims of their own bodies and of conception.
It was an unacceptable proposal that he could not support, and it needed to be overhauled. It was
necessary to look at time limits, the way that abortion was practised, and the question of
population. Indiscriminate access to abortion would undermine the population of the European
continent.
The report contained no reference to any request for the opinion of the woman’s partner, no reference to the fact that women who chose abortion might repent and not wish to go ahead – abortion left profound feelings in women – and no reference to the right to life. The Assembly might be transforming abortion into a right, almost like a contraceptive measure. The Council should not
make that transformation; the first right was the right to life and therefore to being conceived. Women should have access to abortion only in extreme situations.
The president. – Thank you. I call Mr Azzolini.
Mr Azzolini (Italy) said that, as an EPP, member he wished to refer to the speech made by
Mr Pourgourides. There were different opinions in the Assembly, but Mr Pourgourides had spoken on
behalf of the EPP and Mr Azzolini backed what he had said. He also supported the opinions of
Mr Bocchino. It was important to look at the balance: the Assembly was looking at a nine-page
report and 70 amendments. This was disproportionate. The Assembly had to acknowledge that there were considerable differences in opinions between its different countries. It was also important to bear it in mind that the Assembly was not representing those who had wished to refer the report back to committee. The Assembly represented 800 million citizens, and had to look at its responsibilities. It could not assert any right except the right to life, which did not mean the right to abortion.
The Assembly should not casually pass the report but it had to look at practice. The Assembly had to be responsible and investigate the legal aspects and legal opinion. It needed to look further into the question.
The president. – Thank you. I call Mr Pullicino Orlando.
Mr Pullicino Orlando (Malta). – The draft resolution invites the 47 member states of the
Council of Europe to decriminalize abortion and to “guarantee women’s effective exercise of their
right to abortion”.
It seeks to “lift restrictions which hinder, de jure or de facto, access to safe abortion”. De facto, the draft resolution would call on member states to recognize