A Complex Balance of Rights and Autonomy

The UN committee’s report, published after its September session, questions how Belgium and the Netherlands approach prenatal testing and counseling. The committee cited what it perceives as discriminatory attitudes embedded in healthcare systems, where individuals with Down syndrome or other disabilities are sometimes seen as “less valuable.” Such perceptions, the committee warns, have influenced healthcare practices, potentially leading parents to feel pressured toward selective abortion after a diagnosis of disability.

The Netherlands faced particular scrutiny for reportedly allowing healthcare providers to recommend termination based on the presence of Down syndrome. Similar concerns were expressed in previous assessments of Sweden and Turkey, where the committee observed an approach it labeled “extinction-minded” regarding certain intellectual disabilities.

Disability Advocates: Cautious Approval Amid Contradictions

Disability advocates, particularly those who argue for stronger protections against selective abortion, have cautiously welcomed the committee’s stance. Pro-life bioethicists point to this critique as a vital acknowledgment that the rights of disabled individuals should begin at conception. However, they argue that the committee’s position remains inconsistent, as it does not oppose abortion on the grounds of disability in general, only when it involves external pressures on parents.

Indeed, the CRPD committee maintains a firm stance supporting abortion rights, advocating for the decriminalization of abortion “under all circumstances.” The committee’s apparent disapproval of selective abortion arises only when parents feel coerced, not when they choose to abort based on fetal disability. This nuanced stance reveals a contradiction: while condemning societal pressures that devalue disabled lives, the committee simultaneously reinforces the autonomy of women to make their own reproductive choices, including the decision to abort following a diagnosis of Down syndrome or other disabilities.

Western Europe’s Policy Ambiguities

The dilemma becomes particularly stark when examining Iceland’s recent history with Down syndrome cases. Known for its notably low birth rates of children with Down syndrome due to selective abortion, Iceland has come under similar scrutiny from the UN committee. However, the country’s response was not to restrict selective abortion practices but instead to extend the permissible period for all abortions, essentially reinforcing the choice to terminate a pregnancy well into the second trimester.

As Iceland’s next CRPD review looms, advocates wonder whether this approach aligns with the committee’s intent to respect and protect the dignity of all persons, including the unborn with disabilities. However, the committee’s position remains clear: it does not legally challenge the existence of selective abortion but rather seeks to ensure that parental choice is free from societal bias against disabilities.

What Lies Ahead for Disability Rights and Reproductive Autonomy?

The UN committee’s critique, though nonbinding, carries significant weight as its opinions often influence legal standards and practices in various jurisdictions. Lawyers, policymakers, and judges frequently look to such recommendations to inform legislative changes, particularly in the realm of human rights and disability protections. As the debate continues, some see the committee’s stance as an opening to foster greater inclusivity and nondiscrimination in prenatal counseling practices, while others remain skeptical, noting that the committee’s support for abortion access could ultimately undermine its aim to defend the dignity of individuals with disabilities.

This complex issue, where disability rights and reproductive autonomy intersect, challenges societies to confront uncomfortable questions about the value placed on disabled lives. The conversation is far from over as nations grapple with implementing policies that honor both the rights of women and the intrinsic worth of all individuals, born or unborn.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post UN Committee Challenges Selective Abortion Policies, Sparking Debate on Disability Rights appeared first on ZENIT - English.

In South Dakota, voters rejected Amendment G, which proposed abortion access up to birth when a physician deems it necessary for the mother’s health. This measure, which opponents called «radical,» was soundly defeated with close to 60% voting «no.» Pro-life advocates raised concerns that the amendment would override parental consent laws and force medical professionals to perform abortions regardless of conscience protections. Notably, South Dakota was one of the few states where pro-life groups outspent pro-choice activists, with organizations like Life Defense Fund doubling the resources of pro-abortion advocacy group Dakotans for Health.

«We are thankful to the people of South Dakota for standing up to protect mothers and children,” Life Defense Fund co-chairs Leslee Unruh and Jon Hansen said in a statement. The campaign to oppose Amendment G faced hostility, with reports of harassment and threats against pro-life volunteers from some amendment supporters. Yet, despite these challenges, pro-life advocates celebrated the outcome as a victory for parental rights and medical ethics.

Meanwhile, Nebraska became the first state to embed pro-life language directly into its constitution with the «Protect Women & Children» measure. Previously, Nebraska limited abortions after 12 weeks with exceptions for medical emergencies, sexual assault, and incest. The approved measure enshrines these protections constitutionally, aligning with current state law while emphasizing a stance against later-term abortion except under strict conditions.

In contrast, Arizona voters approved an amendment establishing a “fundamental right to abortion” in the state constitution, even in cases beyond fetal viability. Proponents framed the amendment as essential to safeguarding the health of pregnant individuals, citing both physical and mental well-being as grounds for late-term abortion when deemed necessary. Arizona’s pro-choice lobby outspent the pro-life faction by a staggering 26 to 1, underscoring the resources committed to ensuring the amendment’s passage.

Other states leaned similarly. In Colorado, a ballot measure repealed a previous restriction preventing Medicaid and state insurance funds from covering abortion costs. Montana and Missouri also passed constitutional amendments supporting abortion rights, with pro-choice advocates outspending pro-life opponents by as much as 86 to 1 and 103 to 1, respectively. Missouri’s amendment, titled the «Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative,» allows the legislature to regulate abortion post-viability while prohibiting restrictions if deemed necessary for the mother’s health.

New York joined in with an overwhelming 72.9% of votes in favor of expanding anti-discrimination protections within its «Equality Rights Amendment» to include abortion. Pro-choice supporters lauded the amendment as a protective measure against any future anti-abortion initiatives. Similarly, in Maryland, Question 1 passed, reinforcing an already strong pro-choice stance in the state, which has long permitted late-term abortion under health-related exceptions.

In Florida, however, pro-life advocates celebrated a key victory as voters fell short of the 60% supermajority required to pass Amendment 4, which would have legalized abortion up to birth when deemed essential to the mother’s health. Governor Ron DeSantis and other pro-life leaders, like Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America’s Kelsey Pritchard, noted that the pro-life message resonated despite mainstream media hostility. Allegations of fraudulent signature-gathering practices surrounding the pro-choice campaign added further tension to Florida’s contentious debate.

This year’s ballot measures reflect the deep divide in American public opinion and law regarding reproductive rights. Each amendment, pro-life or pro-choice, includes broad “health” clauses—stemming from the Supreme Court’s 1973 “Doe v. Bolton” ruling—that define maternal health in terms of physical, emotional, and psychological factors. These provisions leave significant discretion to medical professionals, making state-level restrictions on abortion less enforceable.

Despite the financial dominance of pro-choice campaigns in most states, the varied outcomes reveal complex public attitudes, suggesting that Americans’ views on reproductive rights

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Elections USA 2024: 3 states voted against and 7 in favor of abortion appeared first on ZENIT - English.

A Look at States Leaning Pro-Abortion

Five states — Colorado, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, and New York — are considering constitutional amendments that would cement abortion as a fundamental right, essentially removing barriers for late-term abortions and limiting legislative power to impose restrictions. These states already have few, if any, abortion restrictions in place, and the upcoming votes could take these policies further by making it nearly impossible to implement common-sense health and safety standards for abortion providers.

For instance, Colorado’s measure would prevent future legislation from banning abortion coverage in state Medicaid programs or restricting abortions based on gestational age. Meanwhile, New York’s proposed “Equality Rights Amendment” could serve as a barrier to future pro-life legislation, expanding anti-discrimination protections to include abortion.

Pro-Life Push in Conservative States

In states like Arizona, Florida, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota, the stakes are just as high. Arizona and Nebraska voters face dual proposals — one aiming to protect abortion rights until viability, the other proposing restrictions in the later trimesters of pregnancy. Florida, where current law restricts abortions after fetal heartbeat detection, is also weighing a proposal that would redefine state abortion laws by enshrining a constitutional right to abortion until viability. Meanwhile, South Dakota and Missouri have the most restrictive abortion laws on the table, and pro-life advocates warn that loosening them could have lasting implications.

These ballot measures aren’t just about access. The language used often hides significant consequences. In states where pro-abortion rights measures have been passed, activists have already begun challenging policies that safeguard patient health, arguing that they infringe on abortion access. Recent moves in Michigan and Ohio, where voters approved similar amendments, have led to lawsuits challenging waiting periods, licensing requirements, and prohibitions on telemedicine for abortion pill prescriptions.

A Warning from Ohio and Michigan

Pro-abortion rights victories in Michigan and Ohio highlight potential long-term consequences for voters. After Michigan enshrined abortion rights in its constitution last year, advocates immediately filed lawsuits to roll back health and safety regulations, like mandatory waiting periods and licensed physician requirements. Similarly, Ohio’s recent constitutional change is being leveraged to dismantle essential safeguards, potentially opening the door for unsupervised, mail-order abortion pills.

Pro-life groups argue that these hidden implications are deliberate. The language around viability and health exceptions is vague, allowing room for nearly unrestricted abortion access. Moreover, they warn that enshrining abortion as a “fundamental right” could pave the way for taxpayer-funded abortions — a contentious issue even among moderate voters.

A Turning Point After Roe v. Wade Reversal

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, many states have moved to solidify their stances on abortion. While pro-life states acted quickly to enact protective measures for the unborn, well-funded pro-abortion rights groups have also stepped up, mobilizing to pass initiatives like those on this November’s ballots. The outcomes of these votes will set precedents with far-reaching effects, from state legislatures to federal courts. 

A Call for Informed Voting

For voters heading to the polls on November 5, the decisions made could carry consequences beyond the election itself. The Ohio and Michigan experiences have shown that ballot initiatives presented as moderate can end up dramatically changing a state’s abortion landscape. With high-stakes battles over abortion rights, this election may be a pivotal moment in the post- Roe era.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post The Battle Over Abortion Rights Heats Up in 10 States Ahead of November 5 Election appeared first on ZENIT - English.

Independent TD (Teachta Dála) Michael Healy-Rae, who chairs the Oireachtas Committee on Assisted Dying, voiced his reservations. “I don’t believe lawmakers should hasten this process,” he told RTÉ, underscoring the potential societal risks. Healy-Rae argued that legalizing assisted death, even within defined limits, could erode moral boundaries. “As it stands, assisting someone to end their life is punishable by mandatory prison time,” he pointed out, cautioning that easing this restriction could create a “slippery slope” where increasing numbers of individuals might seek assistance to die for a variety of reasons.

Advocates like Eilís Mulroy from the Pro-Life Campaign warn that this isn’t merely a procedural vote. “This was not a vote on euthanasia or assisted suicide itself,” she stated, “but rather on whether the Dáil should acknowledge the wide-ranging, radical nature of the Committee’s report advocating for assisted death.” Mulroy raised concerns that introducing euthanasia could detract from Ireland’s investment in palliative care, a sector already critical for those with terminal illnesses. “The experience in other countries shows us that legalizing euthanasia can lead vulnerable individuals to feel pressured to end their lives,” she added, noting resistance from groups like the College of Psychiatrists of Ireland and the Irish Association of Palliative Medicine Consultants.

The Irish bishops have also reiterated their opposition, stressing the sanctity of end-of-life care. Their statement from earlier this year suggests that terminal illness, rather than limiting, can provide an opportunity for spiritual and personal growth. “In the final weeks of life, many find a chance to heal old wounds, reconnect with loved ones, and find inner peace,” the bishops noted, championing the importance of holistic, compassionate palliative care. They acknowledged that while the Church doesn’t demand extraordinary measures to prolong life, actively ending it prematurely “removes any potential for healing and represents a loss of hope.”

As public debate intensifies, advocates on both sides urge clarity from TDs and election candidates. Mulroy and others argue that voters deserve transparency about lawmakers’ positions on assisted dying before the next general election. With growing public interest in the topic, Ireland is now at a crossroads, questioning the ethical, spiritual, and practical implications of assisted dying in a country deeply rooted in values of life and community.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Irish Parliament Moves Closer to Legalizing Assisted Dying Despite Heated Debate appeared first on ZENIT - English.

One of the mothers, Karen, shared her story: «I was desperate, with no support from anyone to have my daughter. I didn’t know what to do,» she said, because during her pregnancy she didn´t have support from her partner, who did not want children. She was 26 at the time.

However, when she approached what she thought was her only option—an abortion clinic in Madrid—she met several volunteers from the organization “Más Futuro” («More Future»). “They came up to me and told me that abortion was not the solution and that, if I had no support, they would help me.”

Seeing this as another possible way out of her painful situation, she gave them her phone number, and a few days later, they reached out to her. «I thank God for putting those wonderful people in my path who helped me, as my life took a turn for the better,» she shared. What had seemed like a misfortune turned into Karen’s greatest blessing.

“I decided to continue with my pregnancy and have my little girl, who is now two years old. She is my greatest joy, my hope, my life, and the reason I keep going. This Saturday, I am going to baptize her, and I am very excited to take this important step with my daughter,” she confirmed.

For Karen, the solution is clearly not abortion: “My advice to mothers considering abortion who don’t have support from their partners or family is not to do it; a child is a blessing sent by God. No matter how difficult life gets, you must face the situation and move forward. Seek help rather than resorting to abortion.»

Along with Karen, 16 other families celebrated their children’s baptisms. As Bishop Ginés García Beltrán, who led the ceremony, stated, “Today, we are celebrating the feast of life.”

The Bishop of Getafe emphasized, “These children are not here by chance, none of them. I don’t know the circumstances that led to your pregnancies, but what I do know is that God has always loved your children, he had them in mind, they are not just another number; they are someone important.”

Marta Velarde, president of the Más Futuro Association, stated that the journey to the Baptism celebration “has been very challenging, as each mother faces unique difficulties, but saving babies from abortion brings us deep happiness. Despite the especially difficult time, we are rescuing many children.”

The post 17 children saved from abortion are baptized in Spain. appeared first on ZENIT - English.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ changes to rules under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act add unprecedented restrictions on doctors’ ability to report abuse and states’ ability to protect children from abortion and gender transition drugs and surgeries. Without authority from the HIPAA statute, the new rule redefines “person” and “public health” to exclude unborn children, and limits how doctors and law enforcement can protect patients from abuse when it involves so-called reproductive care, meaning abortion, that the Biden-Harris administration favors.

“Doctors and states should be able to protect patients from abuse,” said ADF Senior Counsel Julie Marie Blake. “The Biden-Harris administration’s unlawful rule weaponizes laws about privacy that have nothing to do with abortion or gender identity. The rule undermines state laws that protect mothers and unborn children from the harms of abortion, and vulnerable children from dangerous and sterilizing procedures like puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and life-altering surgeries. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs resoundingly affirmed that states—not unelected bureaucrats—should set abortion policy and be free to protect unborn life.”

In the lawsuit Purl v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Carmen Purl, M.D., a family physician and owner of Dr. Purl’s Fast Care Walk In Clinic in Dumas, Texas, wants to protect her patients by reporting suspected abuse, and to safeguard the health and safety of mothers and children.

The recent HIPAA rule purports to limit the circumstances when HIPAA-covered entities—like Purl and her clinic—can share information with law enforcement and child-welfare agencies in cases of suspected abuse or to protect public health. As ADF attorneys explain in the lawsuit, this is unlawful because the HIPAA statute explicitly preserves state investigative authority and has no language allowing federal bureaucrats to use privacy rules to promote radical policies on abortion or gender ideology.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Texas doctor sues Biden-Harris admin over unlawful changes to federal health privacy laws appeared first on ZENIT - English.

Although in the past the Bishops and the Dioceses contributed significant resources to confront these initiatives, in 2024 the Church’s financial contributions diminished considerably. Up to now, the Catholic Dioceses have raised approximately one million dollars in total, barely a third of what the Archdiocese of Kansas invested in 2022, to try to approve a measure that was finally rejected. In Ohio, the State’s Catholic Conference also experienced defeat after investing US$1.7 million in a campaign against a pro-abortion measure that voters supported. Given these antecedents, in many States the Prelates are being more cautious and realistic about their probabilities of success.

Florida is an outstanding case as it is the only State where the Bishops have invested significantly, almost one million dollars, in a coordinated effort to oppose Amendment 4. However, in other key States, such as Arizona, Nevada, and Maryland, where polls suggest strong support for the right to abortion, the Bishops have either reduced their economic contributions or opted for alternative methods of influence. For instance, in Nevada, the Archdiocese of Las Vegas produced a video against the pro-abortion measure and exhibited it in all its parishes, whereas in Missouri, the faithful were asked to pray and fast as part of a spiritual campaign of opposition.

A notable difference this year is the change of focus in the narrative. Instead of focusing on traditional arguments of the Catechism, the Bishops have begun to highlight other specific aspects of the local initiatives, labelling them as “deceitful” and “extreme” in their consequences, particularly for women’s health and safety. This is part of an effort to connect with Catholics that, according to Pew’s 2023 poll, 61% support the right to abortion in the majority of cases.

Moreover, in an attempt to maximize their influence, some ecclesial leaders have established alliances with other religious denominations. In Nevada, Archbishop George Leo Thomas of Las Vegas has called for an inter-religious coalition with Evangelical and Mormon groups to create a more solid opposition to the initiative. “I have no problem facing difficult debates, but it’s crucial to have partners in this fight,” said Archbishop Thomas, betting on the strength of a united front to have an impact on the electorate.

These efforts notwithstanding, the Bishops acknowledge the difficulty of the challenge. Jamie Morris, of Missouri’s Catholic Conference, admitted that the pro-life community has not had success recently in the ballot box. Even so, the Prelates continue exploring various tactics, including support to legal actions. In Missouri and Nebraska, Catholic groups supported the intervention of the Thomas More Society, a Catholic legal group, in lawsuits to prevent certain pro-abortion measures from reaching the ballot, although both actions failed.

The tone of this new campaign reflects a less combative but more strategic focus, which recognizes the complexities of the debate on abortion in present-day American society and adapts to a reality where support for this right is increasingly common, including in the Catholic community.

The post USA: Bishops Reduce Investments in Campaigns Against Abortion Before the 2024 Elections appeared first on ZENIT - English.

In 2019, 2021, and 2022, Sage published research in one of its medical journals, Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology, written by 10 authors. Dr. James Studnicki served as lead author of the articles and as a member of the journal’s editorial board. After a federal court cited one of the articles in a ruling challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for its reckless removal of safety standards for abortion drugs, a pro-abortion advocate complained to Sage, which subsequently retracted the three articles and removed Studnicki from his position on the editorial board. The attorneys representing Studnicki and the other researchers explain in the petition that Sage has violated its contract by delaying arbitration in the case, Studnicki v. Sage Publications.

“Politics should never sway science, especially when that science is vital for saving and protecting lives,” said ADF Senior Counsel Phil Sechler. “Sage punished these highly respected and credentialed scientists simply because they believe in preserving life from conception to natural death. These actions have caused irreparable harm to the authors of these articles, and we are urging Sage to come to the arbitration table—as it is legally bound to do—rescind the retractions and remedy the reputational damage the researchers have suffered at the hands of abortion lobbyists.”

In the petition to compel arbitration, the attorneys note that the three articles underwent a rigorous review process, including a double-blind peer review. All three articles were accepted for publication, and the medical journal’s editor-in-chief particularly praised the 2021 and 2022 articles as a “fine contribution” to the journal.

However, after the articles were cited in a federal case related to the dangers of abortion drugs, a professor at South University anonymously filed a complaint that the researchers were affiliated with the Charlotte Lozier Institute, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Elliot Institute—all of which was disclosed during the review process of the articles. Sage officially retracted the articles on February 5, using inflammatory language by saying the articles were “misleading” and “demonstrate[d] a lack of scientific rigor.” Sage even called its own peer review process “compromised.”

“[T]he Authors have had new research proposals inexplicably turned away by other journals that now fear associating with them,” the petition explains. “The Authors have years—even decades—of fruitful research ahead of them, but they are now being treated as pariahs.”

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post USA publisher sued: refused to publish scientific articles because they were anti-abortion appeared first on ZENIT - English.

On abortion and immigration, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris seem to hold opposing positions: the former is against abortion and supports draconian measures against illegal immigrants, the latter is for abortion and a policy of greater openness towards immigrants. But is this really the case?

To understand the subject of the current abortion debate in the United States, it is necessary to take a step back. On June 24, 2022, the Federal Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, which stated that the U.S.

Constitution recognizes the right to abortion even in the absence of health problems of the woman or fetus and in the absence of circumstances other than the woman’s free choice. The 2022 ruling de facto rejected the right to abortion at the federal level and returned the issue to state legislatures. Trump, on the one hand, cites the fact that he appointed three Supreme Court justices who were part of the majority of the court that voted in 2022 to abolish the constitutional right to abortion, and on the other hand, he says he wants to leave the decision on this to individual states.

«My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation, or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land», he said. In the controversy with the Democratic candidate, who accused him during the September 10 TV debate that Trump would «sign a national abortion ban» if re-elected, the former president responded: «That’s a lie. I’m not signing a ban, and there’s no reason to sign a ban, because we’ve gotten what everybody wanted, Democrats, Republicans and everybody else, and every legal scholar wanted it to be brought back into the states.» When asked by moderator Linsey Davis whether he would veto a national ban, he replied: «I don’t have to,» but did not say that he would veto a national abortion ban if it were passed by Congress.

But then he stressed, «Everyone knows that I would not support a federal ban on abortion under any circumstances, and I would even veto it because it is up to the states to decide based on the will of their voters.» Trump also wrote this in an all-caps message posted on social media when his vice presidential candidate JD Vance (R-Ohio) was asked about the issue during the vice presidential debate. The former president, meanwhile, also criticized some of the state’s more restrictive abortion laws, particularly Florida’s six-week clause, and said he favors exceptions in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger.

Trump called the Florida ban a «terrible thing and a terrible mistake.» In an interview with NBC News in September, he reiterated that six weeks is «too short» and said he would «vote that we need more than six weeks.» Because of these comments, Trump was criticized by the most conservative part of his electorate for supporting a referendum to approve an amendment to Florida’s constitution, scheduled for November. The constitutional amendment proposed by Florida’s reproductive rights advocates does not specify the number of weeks within which an abortion can be performed, but provides that access to abortion in the state is available until the fetus is viable, i.e., approximately 23-25 weeks of pregnancy. Trump quickly backtracked, saying he would vote «no» on the abortion amendment, meaning that if it is rejected in November, Florida’s six-week ban would remain in place.

Trump’s wife has since publicly stated that she supports women’s freedom of choice. «Without a doubt, there is no room for compromise when it comes to this essential right that all women possess from birth, individual freedom. What does ‘my body, my choice’ really mean?» she said in a video posted on social media. Democratic candidate Kamala Harris said at a campaign event in Savannah that her fight was «a fight for the future and it is a fight for freedom, like the freedom of a woman to make decisions about her own body and not have her government tell her what to do.» On her campaign website, Harris promises that if elected president, she will «never allow a national abortion ban to become law.» And «when Congress passes a bill to restore reproductive freedom nationwide, she will sign it». Specifically, she supports the passage by Congress of a federal law to protect abortion rights, to counteract the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision that overturned the historic Roe v. Wade ruling recognizing the constitutional right to abortion.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post US Presidential election: Trump and Harris’ positions on abortion appeared first on ZENIT - English.

This law extends Italy’s existing ban on surrogacy, which has already prohibited the practice domestically, to international ventures—a phenomenon often referred to as “fertility tourism.” With a vote of 84 in favor and 58 against, the measure has ignited fierce reactions, especially among LGBTQ+ advocates, as surrogacy is one of the few options for same-sex couples seeking to have biological children. 

Aiming to Protect Traditional Family Values

Meloni, known for her strong stance on conservative family values, has long been an outspoken opponent of surrogacy. During her campaign in 2022, she positioned herself as a defender of the “natural family,” frequently using anti-LGBT rhetoric to underline her belief that children should only be raised by a mother and a father. For her government, this new law is not just about limiting access to surrogacy—it represents a broader defense of traditional family structures against what Meloni sees as modern societal threats.

“Motherhood is irreplaceable. It is the foundation of our civilization,” said Senator Lavinia Mennuni, a member of Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party, during the Senate debate. “We must put an end to surrogacy tourism, which commodifies the gift of life.”

Meloni has described surrogacy as emblematic of what she considers an immoral societal shift—one where individual desires are mistaken for rights, and where life itself becomes subject to market forces. In her words, the practice symbolizes a “monstrous society that confuses desires with rights and replaces God with money.”

Impact on LGBTQ+ Rights and Fertility Equality

Unsurprisingly, the law has provoked outrage among LGBTQ+ activists, who see it as a direct attack on their rights. As same-sex marriage becomes more accepted worldwide, the concept of “fertility equality”—the right to have children regardless of biological limitations—has gained traction among activists. However, under Meloni’s leadership, Italy has taken steps that critics argue are regressive in this area. Earlier this year, the government ordered Milan’s city council to stop registering children born to same-sex couples, further narrowing the legal rights of LGBTQ+ families.

International observers have noted the stark contrast between Italy and other European countries. In neighboring Spain, for example, same-sex couples enjoy broad reproductive rights, including access to assisted reproduction techniques. Italy, by contrast, is aligning itself with countries like Hungary and Poland, where conservative governments have similarly sought to curtail LGBTQ+ rights under the banner of protecting traditional family values.

A Broader Moral and Religious Debate

While Italy’s new law is making headlines for its impact on LGBTQ+ families, the opposition to surrogacy in the country extends beyond the political realm. Pope Francis, without endorsing any specific legislation, has repeatedly condemned surrogacy as a violation of human dignity. In a speech earlier this year, he called the practice “deplorable,” emphasizing that it exploits women, particularly those in vulnerable economic situations, and reduces children to commodities in a market-driven transaction.

“A child is always a gift, never a commercial product,” the Pope said, urging the international community to work toward a global ban on surrogacy.

The ethical arguments against surrogacy are manifold. The Catholic Church, along with other moral voices, contends that the practice fractures the natural process of parenthood, creating complex and often distressing familial dynamics. The child, conceived via in vitro fertilization, might be born from the egg of one woman, carried by another, and then raised by a third—introducing what critics call “parental fragmentation.”

The Global Context and the Future of Surrogacy

Italy’s decision to criminalize international surrogacy aligns with broader efforts across Europe to curb the practice. Last year, the European Parliament listed surrogacy as a form of human trafficking in its discussions on combating the exploitation of women. Many nations, while not going as far as Italy, are grappling with the ethical and legal ramifications of surrogacy in a world where advances in reproductive technology are moving faster than the legislation that governs them.

In countries like the United States, where surrogacy remains legal and increasingly commercialized, the debate is framed differently. Supporters of the practice argue that it allows families to form in ways that would otherwise be impossible, while critics warn that it commodifies both women and children. For Italians, however, the law is now clear: pursuing surrogacy, even abroad, will result in severe legal consequences.

As this law takes effect, its repercussions will likely ripple across Europe, possibly influencing other nations grappling with similar moral questions. Italy’s sharp turn against surrogacy reflects a wider cultural struggle over what defines a family in the modern era, and it is a struggle that shows no sign of abating. The question remains: will this law protect the dignity of women and children as its proponents claim, or will it, as critics suggest, deepen inequalities for those who long to build families of their own?

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Italy passes law banning “renting” surrogate wombs abroad appeared first on ZENIT - English.