With an amendment to the decree on Pnrr funds, on which it also placed its trust, the government has foreseen that associations in the third sector “that have qualified experience in supporting maternity” can enter public clinics. In the language of the right, this is equivalent to anti-abortion associations, which are already present in clinics and public health facilities, but which have received further legitimacy with this amendment. The amendment does not provide for “new or greater burdens on public finances”, but was nevertheless highly criticized by the opposition. Also the European Commission he criticized the government’s operation, stating that “The Pnrr decree contains measures that concern the governance structure of the Pnrr, but there are other aspects that are not covered and have no connection with the Pnrr, such as the law on abortion” .
The process that led to this legitimization of anti-abortion associations comes from afar and was successfully tested by right-wing local administrations before being extended to a national level. Faced with criticism, just as happened this time, the right has always defended itself by recalling the system of law 194/78which in article 2 provides that consultants must “contribute to overcoming the causes that could lead the woman to interrupt her pregnancy” and that they can “take advantage of […] of the voluntary collaboration of suitable basic social formations and voluntary associations, which can also help difficult motherhood after birth”.
How was it documented several timesHowever, the associations that the government intends to use use questionable methods which, rather than supporting women in their choice, have the aim of dissuading them from having an abortion, in some cases even spreading false scientific information (such as the false correlation between abortion and breast cancer or between voluntary abortion and infertility), promising economic aid and exercising psychological conditioning. Furthermore, very often these associations do not explicitly declare themselves as anti-abortion groups, but present themselves as teams of “experts” or also offering psychological support. The most important of these groups is the Movement for Life, born after the approval of law 194. The association operates throughout Italy and at the moment there are more “Help for Life Centers” than hospitals where abortion is possible . According to the investigation site OpenDemocracyat least thirty of these centers have their headquarters within public structures, some of which, such as the Cav of the Mangiagalli hospital of Milan, have been operating for more than 35 years.
But it is only in recent years that the presence of this type of associations has received increasingly institutional support, also benefiting from public money. Lombardy was a forerunner, which in 2010 established the “Nasko” fund, later transformed into “Cresco”, which initially provided for the disbursement of 3 thousand euros in 18 months to women who renounced abortion (to access it it was in fact necessary to present the IVG certificate, to prove one’s initial intention to have an abortion). The funds were managed by the Movement for Life, which collaborated with the consultants. In 2012, Veneto approved a regional law that authorized anti-abortion groups to display information material on “alternatives to abortion” in hospitals and clinics.
Then in 2018 there was the case of motions of “pro-life cities”, like that one approved in Verona, which committed the city administrations to including “adequate funding for associations and projects operating in the Municipality’s territory”. The motion was also presented in Milan and Rome, where it was not approved. But other smaller municipal administrations had already presented and approved similar motions or continued to do so, such as the municipality of Montebelluna in the province of Treviso, that of Iseo (Brescia), of TrentOf Busto Arsizio (Varese), of AlexandriaOf FaenzaOf CremonaOf Nickel (Turin), by Rivalta of Turin.
In 2022, the Piedmont region went further, establishing a fund of 400 thousand euros which was more than doubled to one million euros in 2023. The initiative was presented by the Fratelli d’Italia councilor for social policies Maurizio Marrone, already known for having tried, in 2020, to intervene on the guidelines on pharmacological abortion modified by the Ministry of Health, which provide for the administration of RU486 also in clinics. The money from the “Nascent Life Fund” is managed by anti-abortion associations which can operate directly in the clinics, and which, according to the opposition of the regional council, are selected in a non-transparent manner. A recent one investigation Of Republic it also showed how difficult it is for a woman in difficulty to contact associations and receive concrete help. As if that wasn’t enough, the Sant’Orsola hospital in Turin, an excellence in abortion care which twenty years ago launched the first Italian trial on pharmacological abortion, has entered into an agreement with the Pro-Life Movement to establish a “listening room” “consecrating Piedmont as the vanguard of social protection of motherhood, which several other Italian regions are taking as a model,” Marrone commented at the time.
The model was in fact followed byUmbriawhich already in 2020 had decided to repeal a previous regional law that allowed pharmacological abortion in day hospital, without the obligation of hospitalization. The governor of the region, Donatella Tesei, had signed the manifesto of values of the anti-abortion associations Family Day and Large Families which envisaged, among other things, “support for associations which have, among their statutory purposes, support for maternity” and “the preparation, within hospital structures and health facilities, of , of cradles for life and doors for life”. Tesei remained faithful to his purpose, establishing in 2023 the Nascent Life Fund. None of these initiatives is contrary to law 194 which indeed, as has been said, in its initial part deals with “social protection of motherhood” and “overcoming the causes of abortion”. Faced with criticism from the opposition, who have always spoken of an “attack on 194”, the right has always said that it only wants to implement the provision in its entirety, so much so that the “full application of 194” appears in the first point of the plan with which Fratelli d’Italia presented itself at the last political elections.
Law 194 was the result of a great compromise between the left, the unconvinced promoter of the law, and the Christian Democrats, who opened up to the possibility of decriminalizing abortion only thanks to the climate of national unity that arose after the assassination of Aldo Moro. The law was in fact approved by the Senate on May 18, 1978, less than ten days after the discovery of the body of the president of the DC. To approve the law, which had been discussed for more than five years, it was necessary to accept the framework proposed by the Catholic forces, that is, that of a law that protects maternity, not the right to abortion, which can only be used in certain circumstances. conditions and always with the approval of a doctor. Over the course of these 46 years, the problematic nature of this system has made itself felt: conscientious objection, designed to protect Catholic doctors in the transition from a country where abortion was illegal to one where it could be practiced anywhere , has become a practice, despite the number of observant Catholics in Italy has been declining for years, and the anti-abortion associations had free rein. In the most striking cases, such as that of Piedmont, their presence has also received funding from public money.
But the Meloni government has gone further, nationalizing support that until now had only been given at a local level. Since its inauguration, the government has legitimized the anti-abortion groups: not only has it signed the values manifesto of ProVita and Family during the election campaign, but it has also appointed some of their representatives in key places (just think of the Minister of Birth Eugenia Roccella, spokesperson of the Family Day) and expressed solidarity with the association after the demonstration on 25 November in Rome, where some Non Una Di Meno activists had defaced the shutter of the headquarters. Their entry into the clinics is therefore nothing new, but the fact that they can now enter with the seal of the executive, affixed through such an irregular procedure, is the thing that should worry us the most.
The only way to stem this phenomenon would be to modify law 194, making it a law that deals with exclusively to guarantee access to voluntary termination of pregnancy and which no longer provides for unlimited conscientious objection. It would also be necessary to reform the counseling centers, established in 1975 and for years in crisis, which provide most of the certificates for IVG. In fact, if there were sufficient staff in the clinics, especially in social and psychological assistance, the contribution of external associations would not even be foreseen, and these realities could return to being the places of public health, secular and accessible as they were originally conceived. Unfortunately, the only response that the left has managed to give over the years in the face of repeated attacks on the right to abortion is the appeal for the protection of 194, which is precisely the root of the problem, without doing anything concrete to resolve it. Until we understand that access to abortion must be actively protected and not just by referring to a law that has stopped working, anti-abortionists will have a clear path.
