Keep in mind that it's not the right to abortion that has been added to the constitution. It's the freedom to abort for women. Massive difference. It doesn't guarantee access to abortion, it says nothing about the delay to get an abortion and it leaves out trans men. Still a victory, but with pretty big nuances.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Constitutionally, it means that they're to be given the freedom to abort. Which means that if it's their choice, the state has to provide the means. Interestingly, it also means that a doctor claiming exemption because it's legally allowed c1n fuck off because the constitution is the first law.

(So, yeah, what you said but backwards)

[–] RenardDesMers@lemmy.ml 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

This is not true, a doctor still has the right to refuse to perform an abortion but has the obligation to redirect to another practitioner who would perform it. Just like today

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's not completely obvious. The constitution supersedes the fact that he's allowed to refuse. Someone would be in their right to sue him.

[–] RenardDesMers@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago

https://piaille.fr/@malauss/112045942102612011 see number 14.

[–] RenardDesMers@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Right and freedom are similar. Even the conseil ~~constitutionnel~~ d'Etat confirmed it. So no, it's not a massive difference but a trick added by a senator to delay and create doubt on the law. https://piaille.fr/@malauss/112045942102612011