Law 194, the movement for life, which turns 50 this year, the 1981 referendum, the path made to date and the one to do. There is a piece of our country’s history in the book Right to be born – Law 194, history and prospects (Edizioni Ares, preface by Marco Invernizzi) written by Marina Casini, jurist, professor of bioethics and president of the movement for life, e Chiara Mantovani, Doctor and bioethasticist.
Marina Casini, why was Law 194 a “revolution” from a cultural point of view?
«Law 194 subverted the categories of legal thought, changing the evaluation of the fact: what was previously considered socially reprove, unfair, then became socially accepted and in some cases even dutiful. The law always has a pedagogical effect. The role of the legal rule cannot be underestimated nor for its influence on people’s way of thinking, nor regarding the frequency of abortions. What is legal a little at a time is taken for morality. Consciences are changed. At the level of legal system, law 194 introduced evil, also exceeding the limits placed by the Constitutional Court in 1975. In this sense, we can speak of cultural “revolution”, but it is not a “revolution” that goes in the direction of progress e of civilization; rather the opposite ».
What is the real revolution?
“An increasingly full affirmation of the equal dignity of every human being, especially of the most fragile, from which the conceived cannot be excluded. It is the way of the welcome of the woman and the son he carries on his womb. The real revolution is that which suggests a new planning, which focuses on the exist as first and fundamental value, motherhood during pregnancy as first solidarity; A revolution in which “the precept of not killing and the recognition of the equality of all human beings, solidarity towards mothers and the sharing of their difficulties, should be the basis of the common good”, as Carlo Casini said “.
Can it be said that with the 194 the sixty -eight “closed”?
“The law is complex, it contains more cultural currents, as we tell in the book, including certainly the liberal-radical one that prevailed in the application and interpretation of the norm”.
The book retraces the adventure of the approval of the law, the debate that followed, the 1981 referendum, the arrival of his father in Parliament. Because, after the abortion victory in the referendum, a pro-life culture was consolidated, although of a minority, but operating and operational as shown by the birth of CAVs, gears and manifestations for life and many other initiatives.
«Because the 1981 referendum was not experienced as an episode in itself or as a conclusion of a” challenge “, let alone as the ultimate goal of a commitment. Moreover, the movement for life – the birth of the first life help center is from 1975 – was born before the referendum and certainly did not want to be loosened in that experience. In essence, the referendum was experienced as an opportunity for launch, growth and unity of the people of life, as an opportunity to publicly speak of the right to life and authentic protection of motherhood, as the beginning of a new adventure that involved simple people, disinterested, generous and above all young. And this movement of the people, who has never had interruption and which continues still today, wants to build the civilization of truth and love with confidence and hope beyond the referendum and beyond the same law 194. The commitment is much wider, Enveloping and fascinating: it is a question of growing the culture of life which, a little at a time, will collapse the walls of the mentality of the culture of waste with its indifference, prejudices, contradictions, overwhelming and deceptions ».
Marina Casini with the cover of the book
Today it is stated that law 194 recognizes the right to abortion. Is that so?
«No, he is wrong because in the letter of the law we never speak of the right of abortion, nor of the self -determination of the woman. The law is set on the protection of women’s health and manifests a certain preference for birth. However, the same parties considered “good” are weak, contaminated by a logic that is not properly favorable to the right to be born. The provisions are ambiguous, equivocal, far from clear. The existence of the son in the mother’s womb is not denied, but is totally in the shade. Now this equality, which is part of the agaustice of the law, is the premise of the interpretation and above all of its application which is, precisely, managed as if he sanctioned that abortion is a right. To correct the management of the law, it would therefore be very important to take seriously the parts from which a certain preference is obtained for birth, but also to review the 194 by dissipating ambiguity in favor of a real protection of motherhood that recognizes the son as a son to the end from conception. The point is this: to give up punishing abortion does not mean giving up defending the lives of not yet born children. Depending does not mean transforming abortion from crime to law. The means of protection are one thing, which can be evaluated according to situations, another are the ends, the assets to be protected. A state of law, truly secular, which is based on human rights can only recognize every human being always fine, subject, person and never medium, object, what. This also applies to those who are not yet born ».
Law 194 should be reformed or abolished?
«Every law is by its nature abrogable or revisable. Let’s not forget that the 194 was approved with the promise of revision. However, it has been repeated so far as today as a “mantra” that the “law does not touch”. In fact, in fact, there are several factors that make it very difficult to obtain a correction of the legislative text in a favorable sense to the right to be born. Indeed, every even shy proposal in this sense is immediately blocked or boycotted with irritation. In reality, everything should be rethought on new bases. I emphasize new, because it is not a question of returning to the past, to the regime prior to the law, not absolutely not, but to build a new system that protects the right to be born in collaboration with her mother, together with her. This system has two assumptions. The first is the awareness that in the woman’s womb there is no lump of cells, a potential life, a life project, but a real human being, real, concrete unique and unrepeatable, in short. The second is that the protection of prenatal life must take into account the very special condition of pregnancy: two in one, a unique situation, a human being who lives and grows within another human being. The child cannot be protected in the womb without the collaboration of his mother. It is not at all about preventing abortion with the criminal threat. The point is to share the difficulties of the woman with her, not against her, and to overcome them together in a welcome path that concerns the woman and son who cradles in the breast ».
Marina Casini with her father Carlo, who passed away in 2020
How can it be done concretely?
«First of all, freeing the woman from the conditioning that would push her to abort and return her the freedom to welcome her baby or her little girl. The abortion is also prevented from conception that occurred. It is a question of betting on women, on her welcome ability, if embraced in a solidarity that breaks loneliness. Thus have been operating centers of help to life for fifty years, together with the services “Sos Vita” and “Gemma Project”, and there is no lack of the gratitude of mothers. The proven experience of CAVs can be of help, as many times desired, for a reform of the consultors, for example. In short, these considerations have illuminated some proposals for amendment to 194 presented by the Movement for Life. It is not easy to achieve these objectives and the criterion of graduality must be followed, but in the meantime the parts of the law that open to preference for birth must be taken seriously and we must not tire of repeating that the conceived is one of us and to be next to women which are faced with a problematic or unexpected pregnancy ».
Recently, the European Parliament has asked the Council to include the fundamental rights in the Charter of the Union also that of abortion. How do you judge it?
«Bad, a defeat from Europe. A decision in full contradiction with the authentic culture of human rights that is based on the recognition of the inherent and equal dignity, that is, value, of every human being. The alleged right of abortion is the abortion of the law, the corruption of rights, the expression of an individualistic and anti-lidaristic drift, maximum manifestation of the mentality of the waste, the expulsion from the society of the poorest, helpless, small and fragile of human beings. In short, an incivility passed off for progress. But let’s go on with confidence, without discouragement, guided by hope ».
In recent years, the use of pharmacological abortion has increased. What does this mean? Is the woman more alone in the face of such a dramatic choice?
“Above all, it means trivialization of abortion, as if it were to drink a glass of water, and consequently greater solitude than the woman and detentionalization of society both towards the new human being and towards the same woman. It also means a nice economic savings. A tenacious cultural work is essential, education and awareness at all levels, with frankness and love ».
