Medically assisted reproduction requires significant choice, especially for a woman, to allow the man involved in the procedure to change his mind after fertilizing the egg with his seed. The Constitutional Court acknowledged this yesterday by rejecting the question of legality raised by the Court of Rome regarding the provision in Law 40 that makes it possible to implant cryopreserved embryos even after some time has passed, if the woman so desires, even if the couple who chose to resort to assisted fertilization in the meantime separate.
Thus, the man’s approval of the Palestinian parliament is irreversible, according to ruling no. 161 (Edited by Luca Antonini) who considered it not unreasonable to balance the legislator administered in Article 6, paragraph 3, last sentence, of Law no. 40/2004. The constitutional justices presided over by Silvana Cearra thus agreed with Ms AC that she wished to proceed with embryo implantation despite the fact that her husband, from whom she had meanwhile been separated, had withdrawn his consent. The Court of Rome called for the recovery of the case, in raising doubts about the constitutionality referred to in Articles 13 and 32 of the Charter.
But for Consulta, the ban on withdrawing consent is entirely legitimate. Indeed, although the law can be “set within what are defined as ‘tragic choices’, as they are characterized by the impossibility of satisfying all the conflicting interests involved”, access to Pma nonetheless entails “the heavy burden that women bear in making their bodily available, with significant material and emotional investment as a function of parenthood that entails risks, expectations and suffering”. A difficult path from every point of view, the woman “lent it to herself by virtue of the trust in her determined by the man’s consent to the joint parental project.”
This is not a “cold indifference to time,” but rather the realization that there is no “radical break in the correspondence between freedom and responsibility.” In any case, the counselor specifies, finding a possible different equilibrium point between the opposing needs at stake can be “primarily” to be left to the legislator.