The cardinal suggests that constitutional protection is unnecessary since abortion is already legal in Luxembourg. However, legal access without constitutional protection leaves medical care vulnerable to political shifts and legal uncertainties that can prove fatal. The tragic cases across Europe demonstrate this clearly:

—Savita died of sepsis in Galway, Ireland, after miscarrying at 17 weeks. She repeatedly asked for her pregnancy to be ended once doctors confirmed the baby could not survive, but was told it was not legally possible while there was still a fetal heartbeat. By the time the fetus died, her infection had advanced, and she died four days later. At the time of Savita’s death, Ireland’s constitution contained the Eighth Amendment, which had been passed by referendum in 1983. This amendment gave equal constitutional protection to the life of the fetus and the pregnant woman, effectively banning abortion except where there was a “real and substantial risk” to the mother's life. The legal ambiguity in Irish law prevented doctors from providing timely, life-saving medical intervention despite clear medical necessity.

—Marion, a Canadian tourist in Malta in 2014, miscarried at 17 weeks when her waters broke. Despite developing a rising fever and making repeated pleas for medical intervention, doctors twice refused to end her pregnancy due to Malta’s restrictive policies. She was only saved when her Canadian insurance covered an emergency airlift to France for the procedure. Without this costly international medical evacuation, the infection could have proven fatal. To date, Malta has the most restrictive abortion laws in the European Union. Until 2023, abortion was illegal under all circumstances, with women facing up to three years in prison and doctors facing up to four years plus license revocation. Malta made minimal changes in 2023, allowing abortion only when the pregnant woman’s life is at immediate risk--but not for health risks that don’t threaten death.

—Mirela from Zagreb, Croatia was 24 weeks pregnant when she was told her baby had a malignant tumour and would not survive. She requested a termination at four Zagreb hospitals but received no help. As the tumour grew quickly and she received no adequate support from the medical system, she was forced to travel to Slovenia where she underwent the procedure at her own expense--enduring additional trauma, cost and delay during an already devastating situation. While Croatia technically has liberal abortion laws dating from 1978 that allow abortion on request up to 10 weeks and for medical reasons thereafter, the reality is vastly different. Since 2003, doctors have been granted the right to “conscientious objection,” and this has been so widely used that many hospitals effectively don’t provide abortion services.

These women died or suffered not because of extremism, but because of the very legal uncertainties that constitutional protection would eliminate.

The cardinal’s concern about “imposing opinions” mischaracterises constitutional protection. Constitutional rights don’t impose beliefs--they protect individual choice. No one would be required to have an abortion; the protection ensures that medical decisions remain between patients and their doctors, free from religious or political interference.

Healthcare policy must be based on medical evidence and professional standards, not religious interpretation. When we allow religious doctrine to override medical judgment, women die.

Cardinal Hollerich warns of “totalitarian characteristics,” yet constitutional protection of healthcare rights is precisely what prevents totalitarian overreach. A democracy that allows religious authorities to dictate medical policy is far closer to authoritarianism than one that protects individual healthcare decisions.

The separation of medical practice from religious doctrine ensures that all citizens--Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish or secular--can access medically appropriate care according to their own conscience and medical needs.

If we want to discuss extremism, let’s be clear: the extremism lies not in protecting healthcare access, but in policies that force women to carry fatal pregnancies to term, that allow preventable maternal deaths and that subordinate medical judgment to religious interpretation.

Constitutional protection doesn’t create division--it prevents the tragic consequences we’ve witnessed when healthcare becomes a political battleground rather than a medical matter.

A million voices across Europe

The overwhelming support for reproductive healthcare rights is clear. As Nika Kovač, campaign coordinator of My Voice, My Choice, noted: “We managed to connect the entire EU and build a network across Europe. Most importantly, we clearly demonstrated that the right to freely decide about childbirth is a shared value across Europe.”

With over one million signatures across the European Union--far exceeding thresholds in 15 countries--enough women and allies have spoken. It is time to listen to them.

Luxembourg has an opportunity to learn from the preventable tragedies across Europe and ensure that medical decisions remain where they belong: with patients and their doctors.

* Jana Degrott, Luxembourgish social entrepreneur, jurist and former politician, is part of the citizens’ initiative My Voice, My Choice, calling for safe access to abortion in the European Union and which has reached the necessary one million signatures for the EU Commission to issue a response.