In the previous “pearl” on the amendments we illustrated our proposals to ensure that the choice of women is free, informed and aware. However, there are cases, albeit exceptional, in which this choice must also be assisted, and we refer to cases of underage or interdicted women. If it is true that a parent’s signature is required to authorize a daughter’s one-hour early exit from school, and for some releases, even that of both is required, it is unacceptable, as well as incomprehensible, that for such a radical and irreversible choice such as an abortion, the request expressed by a minor (or a disqualified one) is considered valid even without the “consent of those who exercise parental authority or guardianship over it”. The theme is certainly complex and delicate.We have proposed that there be an entire article (the fifth), so as to insert, together with the principle dictated by family law, two balances:
a) if the parents / guardians refuse consent, the doctor can still perform the IVG with the authorization granted by the Tutelary Judge, who issues an unappealable provision but only after having also listened to the reasons of the parents / guardians;
b) if there are serious and documented reasons, verified by the Minors Service, which prevent or advise against the consultation of one or more parents / guardians, the Tutelary Judge may issue the above provision even on the basis of the woman’s request alone, supported by the report of the gynecologist.
In addition to parents / guardians, there is another fundamental figure, completely forgotten by the bill, which is that of the father of the unborn child. Let me be clear, we are by far preferred that the same be called to give his consent, since children are made in two, woman and man; but since – as we have specified from the beginning – our amendments must be compatible with the referendum outcome, it is the woman who has the final word on the fate of the child she carries in her womb. But we believe that at least one prior information is a duty to the father of the unborn child, considering that, as it is true that the woman is not a “container” (as instrumentally praised by certain feminist propaganda) it is equally true that the man cannot be reduced to a mere “inseminator”, completely unrelated to that pregnancy even though the child that the woman carries in her womb is also his. Of course, here too there are cases (and we have foreseen them) in which the woman can ask the doctor not to summon her father, although known to her, such as those in which she reported him for rape or incest, or in cases in which is known to be a violent man, addicted to alcohol or drug addict. Prior disclosure to the father is not only a protection, albeit minimal, of his fundamental parental rights but it is also an attempt to call him to his responsibilities towards that woman and that child, an attempt which, when successful, could also induce the woman to reconsider his choice, avoiding it being guided only by the state of loneliness and abandonment that he perceives around him. So all the protagonists (the woman, the son and the father) are put at the center, protected and none of them abandoned.
With the same aim of not leaving women alone, we proposed to insert a last paragraph, at the end of article 1 on the principles of the law, which binds the State, the ISS and the solidarity bodies in a subsidiary way (so-called third sector ) to provide every most suitable measure of support to women, so that the choice to abort is not simply due to socio-economic or occupational difficulties and is thus effective, as everyone professed even in the referendum campaign, the extreme ratio.
…………………..….….……………………………………………………….KEEP ON

Press release
One of us