by NexDev | April 11, 2017 | Uncategorised
The March 20, 2017 law concerning numerical obstruction to abortion was validated by the Constitutional Council, but with some serious reservations which in retrospect confirms some protests that the text was a deliberate infringement of freedom of expression and information.
On February 16, 2017, the National Assembly passed the final version of the law, via an accelerated procedure launched by the government who absolutely wanted to terminate before the end of the legislative term (at the end of February due to the presidential elections). The content of the initial draft law, the first debates, as well as the legal and ethical issues laid out by this text are discussed in our Decoder N° 48 dated December 6, 2016 “Abortion : the MPs vote on numerical obstruction”.
The essence of the new law (with the additions which were finally voted in black italics)
The article L.2223-2 in the Public Health code reads as follows: « Preventing or attempting to prevent an abortion, hindering access to information on abortion, or hindering the practice of any other act prior to abortion as specified in articles L.2212-3 to L.2212-8 is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment and a € 30,000 fine, including electronic and online means, in particular by broadcasting or transmitting allegations or indications aimed at intentionally misleading people on the characteristics or medical consequences of a voluntary termination of pregnancy”.
« 1° Either by hindering access to the establishments mentioned in article L.2212-2, or hindering the free movement of persons inside the buildings or the work conditions of medical and non-medical personnel.”
« 2° Either by applying psychological or moral pressure, threats or any kind of intimidation towards individuals seeking information on abortion, towards medical and non-medical personnel working in establishments mentioned in the same article L.2212-2 , towards women coming for abortions or those individuals accompanying them.”
In the March 16, 2017 decision rendered by the Constitutional Council, the two reservations cited mainly concern the risk of infringing freedom of expression and communication.
They target a key element pursued in the new text, meaning that the scope of numerical obstruction to abortion is significantly broadened. Previously any pressure, threats or intimidating acts had to be applied in places performing abortions. Now, the offense can be enforced with regard to “anyone looking for information on abortion, regardless of the contact person, the site or the support where the information is made available.”
The 1st reservation noted by the Constitutional Council is as follows: “only broadcasting information to an unspecified audience via any communication tool, especially web sites, will not be considered as constituting pressure, threats, or intimidating acts.”
The 2nd reservation deals with the substance of the new law: “numerical obstruction to abortion (…) will only be considered under two conditions: when soliciting information, and not an opinion; that this information includes describing the conditions whereby abortions are practiced, or its consequences and that it is given by a competent individual or someone pretending to have experience.”
In order to press charges for any offences to this new law, the terminology needs to be well-defined, and have a frame of reference. However, this is not yet the case, especially for the consequences following abortion.
Numerous questions loom. How can one fairly define the difference between a fact and an opinion? When French Health Minister, Mrs. Laurence Rossignol, explains to the National Assembly that abortion does not interrupt a life, is that considered factual information or only her opinion? Will the judge decide on the importance of physical and psychological consequences following abortions? And how will the competence level be evaluated to decide when a person can be condemned? The non-enforcement of this law or trials which will inevitably contest freedom of expression and communication, should therefore be expected.
As a reminder, on February 17, 2017, Alliance VITA filed suit at the administrative court in Paris against the French Health Minister for the inexact and/or biased information published on the government’s official abortion website.
by NexDev | April 11, 2017 | Bioethics
On April 7, 2017 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval to the company “23andMe” to sell genetic screening tests directly to the public.
Anne Wojcicki is the CEO of the company, and married to Sergy Brin, the co-founder of Google. Thus 23andMe is a subsidiary of Google specialized in sequencing the human genome.
23andMe is the first and only company authorized by the FDA to provide personal genetic health risk reports without a prescription or medical advice.
Simply by mailing a saliva sample, and paying $100, clients can receive information on their risk for 10 different conditions: Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Celiac and Gaucher diseases, hereditary conditions of Hemochromatosis and Thrombophilia, deficiencies in Alpha-1 Antitrypsin, Factor XI and Glucose-6-phosphate Dehydrogenase (G6PD), and Muscular Dystonia.
This is a worrisome decision because even if the tests are not new, the approval will give clients weighty information directly, without any counseling from a medical professional. And the tests are not foolproof: the FDA noted that there is always a risk of false positives or false negatives. Analyzing the results is a complex task; and could be misinterpreted.
The 23andMe blog specifies: « Not everyone with a risk variant will develop specific health conditions. And for most of these conditions, not having a genetic variant does not eliminate the risk of the health condition.”
For example, the relationship between Alzheimer’s disease and the APOE variant (measured by the genetic test) “is complex and not fully understood” declared Dr. Mary Ganguli, a professor of geriatric psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh. “For one thing, the association is weaker in African-Americans than in whites. For another, the risk fades with age; if you make it beyond age 80 without developing Alzheimer’s; you’re no longer at elevated risk, even if you have the variant.”
The FDA approval comes only a few years after the controversy erupted between the Agency and the California firm selling genetic tests. In 2013, the FDA filed a complaint against 23andMe for false advertising, who claimed their $99 kit could detect over 240 conditions and characteristics specific for recessive genetic diseases. The company pulled the genetic tests off the market, preferring to give their clients raw genetic data.
The FDA’s “turnaround” might seem surprising. However, Dr Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health cautioned clients “to not interpret their test results as to mean they will or won’t ultimately develop a particular disease”. In a press release he stated: “It is important that people understand that genetic risk is just one piece of the bigger puzzle”.
by NexDev | April 7, 2017 | News
On April 3, 2017, the US State Department announced that it is halting funding for the United Nation Population Fund (UNFPA) for the year 2017, because of China’s family planning policies.
The decision to withhold funding of the UNFPA was based on the fact “that China’s family planning policies still involve the use of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization”. According to the French Press Agency (“AFP”), this represents “$32.5 million in funds to be withheld from the UNFPA for the 2017 fiscal year, which the US government will re-allocate to other international health programs. Based on its internet site, the UNFPA received a total of $ 979 million in 2015. “
Nevertheless, the US has not announced any decrease in family planning allocations, estimated at $600 million.
This decision comes after the so-called “Mexico City” Policy was reinstated on January 23, 2017, named for the city where then-President Ronald Reagan first unveiled it during the UN International Population conference in 1984.
At the time, in August 1984, President Reagan had implemented the Mexico Policy by virtue of the 1961 « Foreign Assistance Act” which prohibits non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) from “receiving American tax-payers money for abortions as a method of family planning, or to actively promote or require anyone to practice an abortion.”
This decree passed under Ronald Reagan, the so-called « Mexico City » policy broadens the scope of the “Foreign Assistance Act” by prohibiting USAID financing of NGO’s regardless of whether they actually fund abortion practices to include “carrying out services related to abortion such as informing, counseling, or paying adverts in favor of abortion” or “lobbying foreign governments to legalize or make abortion available for women in their country”. This prohibition on funding also applies to NGO’s who receive funds other than those from USAID to fund abortion-related services, or who receive funds via an agreement with another association benefiting from American funding who then transfers the money to them.
Opponents of the Mexico City policy call it the “Global Gag Rule”. The policy has been rescinded and reinstated by subsequent administrations along party lines: rescinded by President Clinton, and then reinstated without any changes by President Bush, before being rescinded again by President Obama.
Donald Trump’s new decree gives the Mexico City policy new impetus by banning abortion funding from other U.S. global health assistance providers. If NGO’s are not in compliance with the new regulatory directives they will no longer receive USAID funding, nor any other funding from any American global assistance program, no matter which state finances the project.
The scope of the decree is thus extended to NGO’s financed by the UN Population Fund, as the case under President Bush, when the UNFPA had been accused of financing abortions to support the Chinese policy of one single child per household.
The 1994 Declaration at the International Population and Development, Conference, where 179 countries participated, stated that “Abortion must never, in any case, be promoted as a method of family planning.”
by NexDev | April 7, 2017 | Bioethics
Alliance VITA is continuing its awareness campaign and distributing flyers throughout France when it has also published an e-reader document taking stock of François Hollande’s 5-year term of office. Alliance VITA lists more than 30 destructive measures, which penalize families and attack every stage of human life. VITA invite individuals to cast their vote for the candidates who promise to commit to repair the damage for defending the life and human dignity of all, especially those who are the most vulnerable.
Tugdual Derville, Alliance VITA’s General Delegate :
“Our volunteers and those who support them in this widespread awareness campaign have been surprised by the obvious disgust by numerous passer-bys for the electoral race. The public was reassured to know that we are not specifically lobbying for one political party, but that can also be a worrisome indication for the process of democratic debate. Our awareness campaign denounces the overall damage burdened on the public during the past five-year term under the current French President’s responsibility.
When French President Hollande was mentioned, we observed a backlash of an unprecedented magnitude. Once the aforementioned objections have been resolved, meaningful conversations between the volunteers and the public citizens took place, as always when Alliance VITA holds awareness campaigns. It is especially important to discuss these “biopolitical” subjects since everyone is intimately concerned.
Motivated by the distribution in over 200 cities of the hundreds of thousands of flyers, among the million printed, the visitors emerged in force to our internet site dealing with the destructive measures in this chaotic 5-year term.
Even if many French voters don’t always agree with our convictions, they report being astonished when they discover that the deconstruction had been carried out in such a systematic manner. As if that should be the priority in the actual socio-economic and strategic difficult context that we are facing.
I want to thank the courageous volunteers, helping to make our society aware of the importance of repairing the damage which penalizes families, welcoming life and protecting the most vulnerable individuals.”
by NexDev | April 6, 2017 | Prenatal diagnosis
This past March 30, 2017, the French administrative court in Limoges examined the case of a couple who gave birth to a child with Down’s syndrome in 2010. The parents accuse the doctor for not diagnosing their child’s handicap.
Pregnant with her third child, a mother had the Down’s syndrome screening test performed at 14 weeks of amenorrhea. She also had a sonogram performed to measure nuchal translucency, as the High Health Authority in France has recommended since 2007. Since these test results demonstrated a fairly high risk of Down’s syndrome, her gynecologist prescribed an amniocentesis at the Limoges hospital.
The doctor in Limoges who cared for the patient, re-calculated the data, and deemed it was unnecessary to have an amniocentesis performed, especially since it is an invasive procedure which could lead to miscarriage in 1% of the cases.
During the hearing last March 30th, the reporting judge suggested to the administrative court to sentence the hospital to pay a fine of: 50,000 € to the mother and 30,000 € to the father, taking into account « the moral suffering of not being prepared for the birth of a handicapped child, added to the lack of choice to abord for the plaintiff. Also mentioned are the problems in the family’s living conditions due to the impact this situation has on their family and social life.”
The health center’s lawyer affirms that « the medical center empathizes with the parents’ suffering; but requests for the incident to not be qualified as gross negligence by the court, but as simple negligence given the debate on the methodological analysis and in the difficulty of the calculation. “
The Court should render its decision within the next 15 days.
Dr. Xavier Mirabel, Alliance VITA’s Medical Advisor :
« At least in this case, the plaintiffs did not evoke ‘the prejudice of being born’ which was especially appalling in the Perruche case.
Of course the birth of a child suffering from a disability weighs heavily on families. French solidarity programs propose many different subsidies. If some people judge that these subsidies are insufficient, the real solution would be to fight to increase subsidies for all those entitled. Nevertheless, isn’t it shocking that, under the assumption that a disability could have been detected in-utero, which could have led to an abortion, these families receive more aid than those with children having disabilities that could not be detected before birth?
As far as « losing the opportunity to abort », how can this not be interpreted as an extremely violent declaration?
