“By August, the abortion law for San Marino”
“Stop delaying: the abortion law is passed by August”. The point of the women’s union of Ammarine goes straight to the point, recalling that the Council Regulations grant the Great and General Council “120 days from the first reading for the legislative process”.
A comparison table
“Nine months have now passed since the referendum, which unequivocally expressed the will of the people and citizens are still waiting for the promulgation of the law; a law that must correspond to the expectations of that 77.3% of “Yes” ». The worst is, Uds complains, that to date the policy has not yet responded “on the timing of the meeting of the permanent council commission that will have to work on the draft law on voluntary termination of pregnancy, which will stop at first reading from April”. In this regard, the Union hopes that “as soon as possible a discussion table between the political forces that supported the” Yes “and those who, while remaining neutral on the issue, have expressed their willingness to respect the referendum outcome”. And they go back to remembering that the “compact and coordinated work of these political forces is fundamental for the implementation of modern law, uniform principles that also form the basis of good legislation on the IVG, principles set out during the referendum campaign and with a clear majority by citizens. “.
Shared amendments
The work, Uds insists, should aim “at shared amendments, leaving out the usual little flag theater” to field “responsibility and speed”. On the other hand, the amendment proposals of the Opposing Committee, today the “Uno di Noi” association, were rejected, «because – they point out from the opposite front – behind the false protection of women there are concrete obstacles, such as the extension of conscientious objection to administrative staff, or the obstacle course for access to abortion “. Translated: “a compulsory with a pro interview-life association, listening to the heartbeat of the embryo and the absurd assignment to the doctor of a moralistic role, forcing him by law to summon the woman’s partner to invite him to” assume the sue “liability”.