► Full Reference:
M.-A. Frison-Roche, "
GPA : "Il faut cesser de passer la femme par pertes et profits"" ("Surrogacy: "We have to stop writing off women""), interview with Olivia Dufour,
Actu-Juridique, April 30, 2024 -
💬read the interview (in French) -
► Presentation of the interview by the journal: "
Le 23 avril 2024, les députés européens ont adopté une loi élargissant le champ d’application des mesures actuelles pour combattre et prévenir la traite des êtres humains et mieux soutenir ses victimes, par 563 voix pour, 7 contre et 17 abstentions. La maternité de substitution, ou GPA, entre désormais dans le champ de la traite des êtres humains. Mais depuis quelques jours, la polémique fait rage. Le nouveau texte réprime-t-il uniquement la GPA contrainte organisée par une association criminelle, ou toute forme de GPA ? Nous avons demandé au professeur Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, auteur d’un ouvrage intitulé « GPA : dire Oui ou dire Non » publié chez Dalloz en 2018, de nous éclairer sur les enjeux attachés à cette question et sur la position de l’Europe.". (Free translation: "On April 23, 2024, Members of the European Parliament adopted a
law extending the scope of existing measures to combat and prevent human trafficking and provide better support for its victims, by 563 votes to 7 with 17 abstentions. Surrogacy (
gestation pour autrui – GPA in French), now falls within the scope of human trafficking. But in recent days, controversy has been raging. Does the new text punish only forced surrogate motherhood organised by a criminal association, or all forms of surrogacy? We asked Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, author of a book entitled "
GPA: dire Oui ou dire Non" ("Surrogacy: say Yes or say No") published by Dalloz in 2018, to shed some light on the issues surrounding this question and on Europe's position".) -
🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche,
📕GPA : dire Oui ou dire Non (Surrogacy: say Yes or say No), 2018 -
► Questions asked, answers given:
Actu Juridique. Question :
La GPA est une pratique ancienne même si elle est longtemps restée marginale, qu’est-ce qui a changé et nécessite aujourd’hui l’attention des pouvoirs publics et du législateur ? Surrogacy is a long-standing practice, even if it was marginal for a long time. What has changed that now requires the attention of public authorities and legislators? Marie-Anne Frison-Roche. Answer. : Two things have changed this practice. The first is the possibility of introducing a man's gametes and a woman's oocyte into a woman's body, thus reducing her to being a "carrier" and providing this service, which is very much in demand. The second is the transformation of the desire for a child, an eternal desire shared by many, into a "right to a child". This right to a child would need to be put into practice by any means, for the benefit of any holder who is unable or unwilling to suffer the inconvenience of pregnancy. This is how the practice developed. The legislator intervened, following case law, by declaring, as the
Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation) had done, that this practice was contrary to the dignity of the human being, punishable under both the
Code civil (French Civil Code) and the
Code pénal (French Criminal Code).
A.J. Q. :
Autrement dit, les innovations techniques couplées à l’émergence d’un sentiment de droit à l’enfant ont fait exploser la demande de maternité de substitution… In other words, technical innovations coupled with the emergence of a sense of entitlement to a right to a child have led to an explosion in demand for surrogacy… MaFR. A. : Yes, but this demand has to be matched by an offer. There are few fertile women prepared to bear children for others. The desire to have children is not matched by a desire to bear them for others without compensation. And the few women who are willing to do so are in countries far removed from the people who want them. The practice has only developed because of the very prosperous agencies on which everything depends. Without this intermediation, towards Ukraine for example, the practice could not have spread.
A.J. Q. :
L’Europe avait-elle déjà pris position sur la GPA et si oui, par quels textes et dans quel sens ? Has Europe already taken a position on surrogacy and, if so, in what texts and in what direction? MaFR. A. : In Europe, it was the case law of the ECHR which in 2014 (
Mennesson judgments) broke with French jurisprudence to impose that the filiation of a child born as a result of a surrogacy carried out abroad in a country where surrogacy is lawful can be established with regard to the father whose gametes had been used. All that remained was for the child to be adopted by the father's spouse. This did not change domestic legislation, but the way civil status works means that the prohibition can be rendered ineffective. But this meant saying Yes and No at the same time… The challenge was therefore to amend the texts, either to exclude surrogacy more strongly, or to admit it more openly.
A.J. Q. :
Dans ce contexte, quelle nouveauté apporte le texte adopté par le Parlement européen le 23 avril dernier ? Against this backdrop, what is new about the text adopted by the European Parliament on 23 April? MaFR. A. : It depends on how you interpret it. When the text of the directive was being discussed, no one disputed that its adoption would result in the effective prohibition of surrogacy throughout the European Union and the strengthening of the basis of this prohibition in that surrogacy constitutes trafficking in human beings, the woman who carries the child and who legally remains the mother since she gives birth to the child, and that child. But once voted, the text gives rise to another interpretation, supported by some. It is argued that trafficking in human beings is not the "legal category" into which surrogacy falls, but the "condition" under which surrogacy is punishable; So, if surrogacy is practised without "trade" (trafficking is a trade), if there is no money involved, if there is only altruism and concern for the other person, then not only is surrogacy not punished, but what is more, this so-called "altruistic" surrogacy becomes legitimate by the very fact of this directive! The scope is therefore quite simply the opposite… This could give rise to litigation.
A.J. Q. :
Dans l’ouvrage que vous avez consacré à la GPA en 2018 chez Lefebvre-Dalloz préfacé par Éliette Abécassis, vous montrez qu’on peut dire Oui ou Non à la GPA, mais qu’il faut répondre et surtout vous mettez en lumière les implications de ces choix. Pourquoi faut-il forcément répondre à cette question ? In your book on GPA published by Lefebvre-Dalloz in 2018, with a preface by Éliette Abécassis, you show that we can say Yes or No to surrogacy, but that we must answer, and above all you highlight the implications of these choices. Why do we have to answer this question? MaFR. A. : The question of whether or not to allow surrogacy must be answered (say Yes or say No), because it is a question of society. Not to answer it, to say neither yes nor no, to say yes and no at the same time, is not to choose the society in which we want to live.
A.J. Q. :
Imaginons que l’on choisisse le Oui. Qu’implique-t-il sur les valeurs de la société et l’état du droit ? What does this mean for the values of society and the Rule of Law? MaFR. A. : If we accept that surrogacy is legal, then it is the will of the people involved that gives birth to the child. The agreement between the person or persons planning to have a child and the woman who agrees to carry the child, with the agent acting as intermediary. It is the society of the contract, because the State is nothing, it is only the scribe who copies the stipulations onto the civil status register. Parentage ceases to be the institution guarded by the State through which the individual is anchored in the social group. Parentage becomes a private matter. This contract-based society is in fact a market society.
A.J. Q. :
Et si l’on dit Non à la GPA, on le fait sur quel fondement et pourquoi ? And if we say No to GPA, on what grounds and why? MaFR. A. : If we maintain the prohibition of surrogacy and seek to make it effective, in particular by taking action against agencies, we are referring to a society where the State, through public order, watches over human beings and where the law controls power and protects women. -
🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law
