“We are told about a law intended to respond to women who suffer from not having children, when the reality is a law intended to satisfy the actors of the procreation market. "
Olivia sarton, scientific director of Child lawyers, just published PMA: what we don't tell you, published by Tequi. In this book, she wanted to shed new light on the debate on the opening of the WFP to all, by highlighting the hidden sides of this project. She agreed to answer questions from Info Chrétienne.
Can you introduce yourself for those of our readers who do not know you?
Former lawyer at the Paris Bar, I began my professional activity by defending minors who were victims of crime, but then quickly specialized in labor law. My years of practice in this field have allowed me to put my finger on the excesses and the deviation of neoliberalism which governs a large part of our world. I came to the conclusion that the defense of the human being, of his dignity, cannot be segmented: promoting the defense of life requires defending the dignity of the human being against the idolatry of money. . The more we accept the iniquity imposed by "collusion capitalism", the more we will see the reification and commodification of man grow from his conception to his death. And in the other direction, the more we accept to trample on the dignity of the weakest, the more we will deny the importance of fraternal, just and generous bonds, and the more we will allow the exploitation of man in the professional sphere.
Since 2019, I joined Juristes pourfance, an association that brings together lawyers or people involved in children who wish to put their expertise at the service of the defense of children's rights.
You just published a book PMA: What we don't tell you, published by Tequi. Can you tell us why you wanted to write such a book?
In July 2019, a bioethics bill was tabled in the National Assembly. The Lawyers for Children association naturally took an interest in this project, which has the characteristic of being in reality very unethical. While working on the subjects which, in this bill, infringe the rights of children, I was struck by the importance of the financial stakes behind many of these subjects and in particular behind that relating to the extension of assisted reproduction. I touched on the extent to which the commodification of the human body could justify ignoring all the excesses and all the “collateral damage”.
Also, I wanted to highlight and denounce this commodification of the human body and of man in general, at work today in the grip of technoscience over the entire human body. This hold is particularly strong in everything that touches on the creation and the definition of man, by the control over his conception.
You talk about the hidden sides of the opening of assisted reproduction to all. What are we hiding in this project?
During the debates around this bioethics bill, whether it be societal public debates or parliamentary debates, attention was deliberately focused on the opening of assisted reproduction to single women or couples. of women. However, that is not the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill is access for the PMA to all. To all, that is to say certainly to couples of women and to single women, but above all to all male-female couples, in particular fertile. Why ? Because in reality the PMA is a gigantic business, with colossal gains (that is to say concretely throughout the world, tens of billions of dollars) and the goal of the actors of this market is today to develop the turnover that can be achieved on French territory. And for that, fertile male-female couples are the best target since they are the most numerous. This is the first aspect that is hidden: we are told about a law intended to respond to women who suffer from not having children, when the reality is a law intended to satisfy the actors of the procreation market: private clinics which carry out assisted reproduction, laboratories which supply the products accompanying the assisted reproduction pathways, industries which equip at great expense the assisted reproduction centers, gamete banks, not to mention the technoscientists drunk with their power over man.
The second aspect that is hidden is all that the recourse to ART involves: aggravated medical disorders for children, significant consequences for the health of women and even couples, risks for gamete suppliers. , stopping the fight against infertility, the cost for Health Insurance (to the detriment of reimbursement of essential care for patients), violations of children's rights ...
Do you speak in your book about the excesses of the assisted reproduction market? What are the risks associated with opening up assisted reproduction to all women?
The bioethics bill, if adopted, would allow even more than today the over-recourse to assisted reproduction, knowing that the objective of the promoters of this market is to disqualify, in the medium term (it is that is, in 20 to 30 years), natural procreation (which does not bring in any turnover) for the benefit of artificial procreation. This would lead to the completion of the process which wants to completely break out of sexuality, conception, gestation, childbirth and parenthood.
The opening of assisted reproduction to single women and female couples has two major consequences:
The first is that it enshrines the primacy of desire over children's rights. If the desire of people who wish to have a child is legitimate, on the other hand the switch which aims to transform this desire into a right is not. Desiring a child does not give the right to a child. However, the bioethics bill aims to enshrine this right. Once this right is open, once this primacy of desire is consecrated, no barrier can be placed on it. Why prohibit widowed women from performing ART with their husbands' frozen sperm? Why forbid a 60-year-old woman to benefit from IVF? Why refuse to transfer the embryo obtained with the oocyte of his partner to a woman? Why not sort out gametes and embryos to obtain a child of such sex, with such eye color, with such IQ, if the woman so desires?
The second consequence is that we continue the process of abandoning the natural, biological kinship, in favor of a kinship of intention. This process already exists in assisted reproduction with third-party donors for the benefit of male-female couples. What matters is not to have transmitted life, it is to have wanted to have a child. Thus the supplier of gametes is relieved of all responsibility for the birth of the child, however, born of his gametes. The law prohibits any filiation link between them, even if they know their respective identity and they both wish to establish such a link. Filiation is established according to the will of those who have asked science to provide them with a child. And the bioethics bill, as it was adopted in 1st reading by the National Assembly, refuses even to identify within the couple of women, the one who will have brought the child into the world. What founds motherhood, that is to say gestation and childbirth, is rejected in favor of the will.
You are a lawyer. Would the right of parentage be weakened by the assisted reproduction without a father?
The right of filiation will be weakened by this emergence of intending kinship. What will count will no longer be having begotten, given life, it is wanting to be the parent of a child. We are already seeing in other countries that this concept results in assigning a child 3, 4, 5 parents.
Conversely, we are going to witness a questioning of actions in search of paternity or maternity. Today in France, any child who has not been recognized by one or the other of his parents has the right to find him his father or his mother. Article 327 of the Civil Code allows in particular any child to bring an action to seek paternity in order to establish a bond of filiation with his parent. Tomorrow, with the eviction of biological kinship in favor of intending kinship, how can we force a man to have to take on a child that he will not have wanted when, at the same time, a supplier of gametes will be at the origin of the birth of children that he will have the right to ignore?
With the confinement, the situation of children born abroad from surrogacy has come back to the fore. However, it is officially banned in France. What do you think of this situation?
These sad affairs bring to the fore a certain general incapacity for reflection. We are told about humanity and the interests of the child, about processes that have been based since their inception on the exploitation of human misery and the trafficking of human beings. Because even if we have pity on the adults prevented from picking up the promised babies, we must not forget that they violated the legal prohibition of surrogacy to order in countries that do not care about respecting the rights of women and children. children, that they have exploited a situation of distress which leads a woman to agree to bear a child for remuneration, to abandon it at birth, and finally that they have programmed the abandonment of this child by its mother, denying the bonds forged in utero and the trauma of abandonment.
Their demands to force the border to be closed is the culmination of France's ambiguous attitude, which maintains the ban on surrogacy on its territory but which turns a blind eye to the actions of foreign agencies in France and to orders placed with abroad by French people. By accepting the transcription of the fictitious civil status of children born by GPA abroad, by refusing to adopt penal measures allowing French offenders to be sanctioned, France is becoming an accomplice in this trafficking in human beings.
Finally, can you give us an update on the progress of the bioethics bill?
The bioethics bill was adopted in 1st reading by each of the assemblies, but the Senate made important amendments in the text voted on February 4, 2020. The text must therefore start again for a 2nd reading in the National Assembly and the Government had specified before the Senate that it intended to revert to the 1st version of the text. In view of the health emergency, this new examination by the deputies was postponed. But supporters of the bill have already questioned the office of the Minister of Health, Olivier Véran, who replied that the examination of the bioethics bill would resume as soon as the sessions of Parliament have returned to their ordinary form. . The process of adopting the bill will resume, that is for sure. On what date, I couldn't tell you. We must remain vigilant on the agenda of the National Assembly in July.
We thank Olivia Sarton for taking the time to answer our questions.
Info Chrétienne being an online press service recognized by the Ministry of Culture, your donation is tax deductible up to 66%.