Healthcare Rights Are Not Political Extremism

Editor’s Note 

This blog entry is part of our focus on SDG 5: Gender Equality. Around the world, we still see inequalities when it comes to safe and timely healthcare, especially when it comes to reproductive rights. In Luxembourg, debates about codifying abortion rights at the constitutional level have sparked strong reactions. For young people, this conversation is not only about politics, but about the kind of future we want to build: one where healthcare decisions are guided by medical expertise and personal choice, not by political or religious pressure. 

The article written by our Founder, Jana Degrott, explores why constitutional protection matters, shares stories of women across Europe whose lives were put at risk when the law failed them, and asks about the role Luxembourg wants to play in safeguarding healthcare rights for all.  

Healthcare Rights Are Not Political Extremism 

Imagine needing urgent medical care, but your doctor says they can’t help, not because they don’t know how, but because the law is unclear. This would not only be unjust, but it could also be deadly. This is the reality for so many globally when their healthcare rights aren’t fully protected under the law. And this is why Luxembourg’s debate about codifying abortion rights into the constitution isn’t just a political matter; it’s a healthcare matter. 

Recently, a Luxembourgish religious figure has suggested 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. Across Europe, women have already paid the price for laws that left them without vital medical attention: 

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. 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. 

Mirela from Zagreb, Croatia was 24 weeks pregnant when told her baby had a malignant tumor and would not survive. She requested termination at four Zagreb hospitals but received no help. As the tumor 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. 

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

Some might say that constitutionally protected healthcare rights would “impose opinions, however, 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, the result is not protection but preventable harm, and too often, the loss of women’s lives. A democracy that allows religious authorities to influence medical policy is far closer to authoritarianism than one that protects individual healthcare decisions. True freedom means protecting every individual’s right to 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.