Position of the European Observatory for Non-Discrimination and Fundamental Rights on the Bill to Strengthen the Right to Abortion

— EONDFR position paper, by Christine Monty, President of EONDFR — 2020

In brief: in 2020, during the examination of the French bill aimed at strengthening the right to abortion, the European Observatory for Non-Discrimination and Fundamental Rights (EONDFR / OENDDF) took the view that, before extending the legal time limit for abortion, women should be given the means not to exceed it. It makes four recommendations: a sexual and reproductive health policy, a pro-natalist policy, shorter waiting times for access to abortion, and the preservation of the conscience clause.

Context

This position paper was drafted by the European Observatory for Non-Discrimination and Fundamental Rights (EONDFR) in 2020, during the examination of the French bill to strengthen the right to abortion, presented on 16 September 2020. It draws in particular on information report No. 3343 of the French National Assembly’s Delegation for Women’s Rights on access to abortion, published the same day.

I. Abortion in France: framework and methods

Voluntary termination of pregnancy (IVG) has been legal in France since 1975. It refers to a termination of pregnancy decided for non-medical reasons, following a personal or family decision. Where the procedure is carried out for medical reasons, it is referred to as a therapeutic or medical termination of pregnancy (ITG / IMG).

There are two types of methods: medication abortion, which does not require hospitalisation but is reserved for early pregnancies (up to five weeks of pregnancy, i.e. seven weeks of amenorrhoea), and surgical methods, used beyond that point and up to the end of the legal time limit. In 2020, Article L2212-1 of the French Public Health Code allowed abortion before the end of the twelfth week of pregnancy, i.e. before the end of the fourteenth week after the first day of the last menstrual period.

II. A deeply divisive social debate

Beyond being a physiological act, abortion has become the symbol of a feminist social struggle: the freedom to dispose of one’s own body and to decide on one’s reproduction. This struggle sets women, who claim the right to dispose of their bodies, against pro-life advocates, who claim the right of embryos to be born and recall the principle of the non-disposability of the human body. Between the two, the medical profession calls for caution and claims the conscience clause.

The debate concerns extending the time limit to 14 weeks of pregnancy, in particular to spare 3,000 to 5,000 women from having to travel abroad for an abortion. Yet at 14 weeks of pregnancy the skull is ossified: the medical procedure is different and carries greater risks for the woman. The bill also removes the notion of a conscience clause specific to abortion, without eliminating it in practice.

III. Two fundamental findings

• Most abortions are medication abortions (69% in 2018), i.e. performed within 1 to 7 weeks; instrumental abortions are steadily declining.
• Public health policies have not significantly reduced recourse to abortion, despite emergency contraceptive pills being available without prescription and free of charge for minors since 2015.

The ethical debate must therefore address the underlying issues, by analysing the factors that lead more than 200,000 women each year to terminate their pregnancy, and those that prevent them from doing so within the time limits set by law. According to DREES, the increase in abortions is part of a broader context of falling birth rates since 2014, often linked to economic considerations.

IV. EONDFR’s four recommendations

• Introduce a sexual and reproductive health policy that reduces recourse to abortion — free, prescription-free access to contraception, notably for minors and women in precarious situations; sex education in schools; better information for teenage girls on emergency contraception.
• Introduce a pro-natalist policy — provide concrete support to women from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds so that they can welcome children if they so wish.
• Reduce waiting times for access to abortion — remote video consultations in family planning centres, more staff in centres performing abortions, free pregnancy tests in pharmacies, and maintaining home medication abortion.
• Do not restrict the conscience clause for ideological reasons — preserve it, while requiring any doctor or midwife who refuses to perform an abortion to refer the patient without delay to a practitioner able to do so (proposed recommendation No. 17).

Conclusion

For EONDFR, the aim is not to “satisfy” the feminist cause, but to act responsibly, respecting women’s physical and mental health on the one hand, and the life they carry on the other. Before extending the time limit for abortion, the additional measures listed above should be put in place to enable women not to exceed the time limit currently set by law.

Sources and references

• French Public Health Code — Articles L2212-1 and L2212-2 (versions in force in 2020). Link.
• French National Assembly — information report No. 2702 by Ms Danielle Bousquet, “Mettre fin au scandale des départs à l’étranger” [Ending the scandal of women travelling abroad], 15 November 2000. Link.
• French National Assembly, Delegation for Women’s Rights — information report No. 3343, “L’accès à l’interruption volontaire de grossesse” [Access to abortion], 16 September 2020. Link.
• DREES — “232 200 interruptions volontaires de grossesse en 2019, un taux de recours qui atteint son plus haut niveau depuis 30 ans” [232,200 abortions in 2019: the highest rate in 30 years], press release, 2020. Link.

Methodological note

This position paper was drafted in 2020, in the context of the bill then under discussion. This is an English translation of the original French text; the data, references and positions are those of the original, and quotations from French sources are unofficial translations. This page presents a summary; the full text is available in the PDF.

📄 Download the full position paper (PDF)

Position paper drafted by Christine Monty, President of the European Observatory for Non-Discrimination and Fundamental Rights (EONDFR / OENDDF) — 2020. Republished September 2026.

Read the French version.

Any partial or full reproduction must credit the source: EONDFR / OENDDF.

Frequently Asked Questions