Some 324 MEPs supported this request (155 against, 38 abstentions), while in the United States, this right is no longer guaranteed at the federal level.
Article written by
Published
Update
Reading time : 1 min.
The European Parliament demanded, Thursday, July 7, that the right to abortion be included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU after its challenge in the United States. “Everyone has the right to a safe and legal abortion” : by 324 votes (155 against, 38 abstentions), MEPs, meeting in plenary session in Strasbourg, decided to ask the Council, which represents the Member States, to include this right in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Adopted in 2000, this legally binding charter has the same value as the treaties. Including abortion in fundamental rights, however, requires the unanimity of member countries, according to the current EU treaties. However, this subject of society divides the Twenty-Seven. This is why MEPs have also asked the Council “that it meet to discuss a convention allowing the treaties to be revised” in order to call into question the rule of unanimity.
This request is accompanied by a new firm condemnation by the European Parliament of the “setback in women’s rights and sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States and some member states”.
At the end of June, the European commissioner for the internal market, Thierry Breton, said he was in favor, “personally”to the inclusion of the right to abortion in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The question arises in particular in Poland, where abortion is difficult to access, and in Malta, where theDoctors can face up to four years in prison and a lifetime ban from practicing medicine. At the end of June, the Maltese government announced a review of the application of the abortion ban in the country, after a controversy over a pregnant American tourist who was refused an abortion despite the fetus being condemned. In addition, more than 130 Maltese doctors have filed a legal challenge against the abortion ban, claiming that it prevents doctors from providing “immediate and timely care”.