Vanessa D’Ambrosio on Pdl Ivg
Yesterday in the United States a draft opinion (published in Politico) of the American Supreme Court was leaked indicating a substantial reversal of the historic 1973 ruling, Roe v. Wade, who legalized abortion nationwide. If the Court, which – it should be remembered – at this moment has a conservative majority, overturns the Roe v. Wade, the individual states authorized already authorized to ban abortion and, in an instant – due to the published statutes and the “trigger” laws designed for such eventuality – abortion would be illegal in 22 states. Access to safe abortion would be illegal. As too often, women’s rights are questioned and the yardstick to measure these bodies is always played on theirs, on their integrity and self-determination. What is happening in the United States is yet another global wave of questioning of women’s acts, of denial, of limited and forcefully brings us back to the urgency of having a good law that clearly regulates disruption. voluntary pregnancy and ensuring the right to access a safe IVG for all women. A week ago, the first reading discussion in the Great and General Council of the bill signed by three Secretariats of State (Justice, Interior, Health) and the doubts, both on the general level of the interventions and on the text of the law, are many . Doubts about the real will to make an adequate, solid and above all applicable law. Doubts because, if from a popular initiative law one can expect a text that is not fully developed or complete, this is a minimal and strongly desired articulation if the project in question is from the State Secretariats (three, it can be approved for the initiative ‘ opportunity): in this case there is a total lack of respect for citizenship. The text of the draft law, which will now see the phase of amendments in Commission IV (or Health), is skimpy, limited only to the transposition of the referendum question, without taking into account not only the debate but all the occasions in which the promoters of the referendums met and provided high-level moments of in-depth analysis. That text, so minimal, represents the desire to delegate to others the burden of constructing an acceptable text of the law. It seems the umpteenth attempt by the conservative not to want to admit a right, recognized internationally and in the fora in which San Marino is present (and attentive for this). Writing a law – proposed by three Secretariats of State, it is always good to keep this aspect in mind – attributing fully qualified and constructive value to the amendments alone means risking not to have a good law, because the terrain of changes is not based on competence or on competence responsibility, but on the agreement between parties and council groups. Compromises almost always to the downside, in spite of those 11,119 people who voted “yes” in the referendum on 26 September. My hope is that before the Commission there is a real and concrete confrontation, which deals consistently with all those aspects that in the project are either only sketched out or have been completely ignored but on which the effective application capacity of the law is played: privacy, conscientious objection, the duty to guarantee access to the IVG in the State Hospital at any time (an issue that is closely linked to conscientious objection, in this Italian cases there teach a lot), counseling centers, the protection of motherhood, sexual and emotional education, contraception. The time to be pro or con ended on September 26, 2221, that debate – which unfortunately we will hear from the Commission and at second reading – is over. Now is the time to make a complete, advanced and truly enforceable law. It is time to leave out the border – – the retrograde winds that want not only to deny access to a finally secure IVG, but to impose once again a distorted view of women as a human being with the right to self-determination.
Vanessa D’Ambrosio
p. Democratic Area