Gestational Surrogacy is insidiously arriving in France

by | May 15, 2015 | Bioethics, Medically Assisted Procreation

 
Wednesday May 13, 2015 the High Court in Nantes, France, sided with three families by ordering the State Prosecutor to transcribe the birth certificates of three children born of surrogate gestation abroad, in Ukraine, India and in the United-States onto the civil registrars.
Until this point, the Attorney General in Nantes had rejected these transcriptions, on the basis that “by using GS abroad, we are violating the rules of the French Civil Code applicable to all French citizens.” Let us recall that the practice of GS is prohibited on French territory. In criminal legislation, it is even condemned, constituting an offence punishable by three years’ imprisonment and a fine of 45.000€ (article 227-13 of penal Law)
This judgment follows two previous decisions in June 2014 by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which condemned France (who did not appeal the decision) in two cases of refusal  to transcribe the civil status for children born to surrogate mothers in the United-States.
Let’s face the reality: Gestational Surrogacy is progressively imposing itself in France.
Yet we remember, only last year, on October 2, 2014 the position purported by French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, a few days prior to a huge demonstration against Gestational Surrogacy, claiming “that it is out of the question for France to authorize automatic transcription of foreign acts, because this would be the equivalent of accepting Gestational Surrogacy.”
However, this is precisely what is happening before our eyes, starting with the decision of the judges in Nantes. The High Court even ordered the district attorney to reimburse the claimants 1,000 € for lawyers’ fees.
This decision weakens our laws in favor of protecting women and children’s interest.  If the practice of using surrogate mothers is illegal on our territory, it is of course due to the serious ethical questions that it raises. How can one pretend to prohibit this practice, while at the same time validating its consequences?  How can one discourage people from going abroad to “order” a baby, when nothing seems to be preventing them?
Validating the transcription of civil acts is an insidious way to trivialize the violation of French law, which is against children’s interests, for whom the prohibition of gestational surrogacy was established in the first place.
With full knowledge of their acts, the “parents” purchasers of GS, seriously wound a child’s rights by deliberately decreeing his abandonment, by denying the maternal bond between the child and the woman who carries him in her womb, by making him an object of a contract, whether or not it involves money. It is a true case of ill treatment and abuse.
Manuel Valls words must be translated into actions.
    Alliance VITA supports the call “No Maternity Traffic” for the International Abolition of Gestational Surrogacy. Launched on November 20, 2014 on Universal Children’s Day, the petition, which can signed on-line, will be submitted to the Council of Europe.
 
 

Demonstration held by No Maternity Traffic in Brussels

by | May 5, 2015 | Bioethics, Medically Assisted Procreation

 
No Maternity Traffic, the organization which regroups several associations of which Alliance VITA is an active member, demonstrated in Brussels on Saturday May 3rd to protest against the conference organized by “Men Having Babies” in favor of promoting Gestational Surrogacy (GS).
This conference promoting GS was attended by approximately one hundred potential “clients” and several American firms were present proposing services to homosexuals desiring to become parents via surrogate mothers, for prices ranging from $77 000 up to $171 000.
This was quite obviously a “Surrogate Mother Trade Fare” which Belgium deputy, Karin Jiroflée, denounced unhesitatingly as “Human Trafficking.”
Several dozens sentinels from No Maternity Traffic were gathered together in a rally which was authorized by the authorities, in order to call public attention to the reality of this practice. Their presence has fuelled the debate in the Belgian press, about the ethical issues at stake thereby forcing politicians to voice an opinion.
No Maternity Traffic reiterates the necessity of a world-wide ban on GS in order to protect women and children from all kinds of commercial trafficking and asks the European Council to give their commitment to effectively prohibit all forms of GS.
To sign the petition: www.maternitytraffic.eu
To go further: Broadcast story RTBF : “Surrogate mothers’ Fair” 

The European Council debates Gestational Surrogacy

by | April 24, 2015 | Bioethics, Medically Assisted Procreation

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE, representing 47 member states and 820 million inhabitants) has just decided to include on their agenda a proposition for a resolution concerning “Human Rights and ethical questions concerning gestational surrogacy.”
The proposal (Doc. 13562) was brought forward on July 1, 2014 by 23 parliamentarians from 11 different countries. The proposal notes that the practice of gestational surrogacy “poses complex problems for the fundamental rights of the women and children concerned” as it “affects the Human Dignity of the pregnant woman,” as well as “the rights and human dignity of the child,” thus transforming them into “goods destined to be bought and sold.” The proposition for a resolution urges the parliamentary Assembly to “reflect on means to treat this issue.” If adopted, the resolution will be an important contribution to the current debate on the rapid worldwide development of the GS market.
This decision occurs simultaneously with the controversial debate regarding gestational surrogacy in France. Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, stated on October 2, in the French daily newspaper, La Croix (The Cross) “GS is, and will remain prohibited in France,” as it is “an intolerable practice of human trafficking and of merchandising of women’s bodies.” He pledged that France would “promote a coordinated international effort” aimed at limitating the practice of GS, without going so far as seeking a total ban.
However, many voices in France, including Alliance VITA, La Manif Pour Tous, as well as many public figures and deputies from the left wing, contest the French Government’s decision for not appealing ECHR’s decision on Gestational Surrogacy. In two judgments made public on June 26, this court, which reports to the Council of Europe, sanctioned France for having refused to register the parentage of children born to surrogate mothers abroad, onto French civil records.

Health Legislation Project /Abortion: where is the respect for women?

by | April 9, 2015 | Abortion, Press Releases

Alliance Vita is concerned about the precipitation with which the members cancelled the delay for reflection between two doctor appointments before submitting to an abortion.

For Caroline Roux, who coordinates Alliance Vita help line services, which listen to over 2000 women or couple per year, confronting questions or difficulties surrounding pregnancy: “For 15 years, I’ve accompanied women confronted with this difficult question; I’ve been witness to profound inner questioning that a pending abortion incites. Women well know: it is the life of a human being as well as their own destiny that is at stake. To force these women into a hasty decision is to misunderstand what they are going through during an unplanned pregnancy.

The questions are jostled about in panic, often in solitude. Many women, both young and mature, feel judged and rejected when they reveal that are faced with an unplanned pregnancy.  Many confide resorting to abortion against their own wishes, under pressure from their companion, or by fear for their jobs. Eliminating the delay for reflection is equivalent to endorsing a mistreatment of women, with legal injunction for them to decide. It’s not a shortened delay which will erase suffering due to abortion. Rather the opposite, I realize how women have a right to ambivalence on such an intimate question and to be given an opportunity to reflect on such an important decision. On such a delicate subject, women need to be listened to, and they need time to see things clearly.  They also have a right to be fully informed, including about aid for pregnant women and for young mothers. It is so brutal for them to discover afterwards, that they were not sufficiently supported and that everything happened in a rushed manner…”

For Tugdual Derville, Alliance Vita’s General Delegate: “Increasing trivialisation of abortion does not help women… The pro-choice affirm that quickening abortion avoids one week of needless suffering; but what tragedy if the price of it is regret and pain, which society forbids more and more women to express! The slogan “It’s my choice” condemns many women to secret tears. In fact, this insistence to make abortion an act without any intimate, social, or ethic considerations, constitutes a serious denial of what women feel. More and more pregnant women tell us: “I feel helpless not knowing what to decide”. Today our laws also mandate a minimum delay for reflection on certain medical interventions of importance: two weeks for esthetic surgery, and even one month for medically assisted reproduction. Giving women time protects them from panicking, but also from pressure that could push them reluctantly towards abortion. Since 2001, with the elimination of the information leaflet which informed women about alternatives, abortion has become increasingly imposed as inevitable.”

Alliance VITA is also concerned about the measure voted that authorizes abortions to be performed in health centers, to the detriment of women’s health and sanitary safety. It recalls the urgency for prevention policies to abortion. It should not be limited to “preventing unwanted pregnancies” (as 72% of women having recourse to abortion, were using a so-called reliable method of birth control when they discovered their pregnancy). Incorporating help for women faced with unplanned or difficult pregnancies is essential so that abortion should not be considered inevitable.

Will Organ Donations soon be automatic?

by | March 20, 2015 | Difficult pregnancy, Maternity

 
20An amendment tabled by French MP Jean-Louis Touraine was adopted by the Social Affairs Commission of the French National Assembly, when the health law was examined on March 19, 2015. Previously having passed unnoticed, then voted during the night, this amendment aims at changing the Public Health Code regarding organ donation.
The amendment specifies that “The removal of organs may be carried out on an adult person provided that he/she has not made known his/her objection to such a removal while alive. This objection is to be expressed by entry on an automatic national register provided for this purpose. It is revocable at any time.” In the current Public Health Code this objection can be expressed “by any means”, not just entered on this specified register.
Organ removal will therefore officially concern all deceased persons if they have not previously made their objection explicit on the specified register.
This amendment also specifically aims at excluding families and relatives of the deceased from being consulted beforehand; their consent will no longer be necessary. The article only specifies that “those close to the deceased be informed of the planned organ removal and the purpose intended in this removal.”
The gift of organs is a form of solidarity that allows numerous lives to be saved each year. Even so, a shortage of organs should not cause us to depart from a strictly-regulated framework, insuring free consent (or at least non-objection), the planned therapeutic purpose, the control of the conditions of removal, in particular those of “donors in cardiac arrest” or from patients on whom it has been decided to stop treatment, since the removal of an organ must not be made to the detriment of caring due to incurably ill or very old persons.