” Why not “. Then no. Then yes but. Marine Le Pen seems, this time, to have decided on her opinion on the constitutionalization of voluntary termination of pregnancy (IVG). Monday, November 21, three days before the examination in the Hemicycle of a bill from La France insoumise (LFI) intended to engrave in constitutional stone the right to abortion, the leader of the National Rally ( RN) tabled an amendment aimed at enshrining the current provisions – specifically mentioning the maximum period of fourteen weeks of pregnancy for the use of an abortion, a period which it had opposed during the previous legislature, judging that “the act [changeait] completely natural”. With this balance amendment, unveiled by RTL and France Inter, Mme Le Pen hopes to reconcile a group where very different sensitivities coexist with regard to social issues, between supporters of homosexual marriage and “prolife” Catholics.
The texts carried by the LFI and Renaissance groups were adopted in committee and must be examined on November 24 and 28. Responding to the challenges recently observed in the United States and in Europe under pressure from conservative movements, none of these texts has any real chance of succeeding: the Senate is opposed to them, but any constitutional bill must be passed by the two assemblies before being submitted to a referendum. This last step would be avoided if the text was carried by the government. The current debates have, however, a political merit in the eyes of the left and the majority: to highlight the ambiguities of the right and the extreme right on this subject.
By this amendment, signed in her name alone, Marine Le Pen puts an end to a waltz-hesitation, which testifies to her discomfort. In July, questioned by The world on this perspective, she replied: ” Why not “before adding: “But this agitation does not seem justified to me. We are not the United States, and no party plans to change our legislation. » After the summer holidays, when the party returned to Parliament in Cap-d’Agde, she said to herself personally ” versus “, while guaranteeing the freedom of vote to RN deputies. In the Sunday newspaperon November 13, she preferred to dodge the question by saying that she did not understand “to what danger must this request for constitutionalization respond”. Ten years ago, she herself had defended the dereimbursement of abortion by Social Security in order, she said, to dissuade alleged “comfort abortions”.
You have 46.07% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.