Stop an extreme abortion law coming to Luxembourg

In April 2024, Luc Frieden – the Prime Minister and leader of the Christian Social People’s Party – promised voters that he would not make any further changes to the Constitution in the next five years.

The Government is now proposing to break that promise by rewriting the Constitution to enshrine abortion in it.

What is the problem with the proposed amendment to the Constitution and why must it be stopped?

What is this petition?

What is the proposed change to the Constitution?

Would this change be popular with the public?

How could enshrining abortion in the Constitution have the unintended consequence of sowing further division in our society?

Is there a difference between a “freedom” and a “right”?

Could this change be costly for taxpayers in Luxembourg?

What is a positive alternative to making this divisive change?

The proposed rewriting of our Constitution would fundamentally change who controls our abortion laws.

THE CURRENT SITUATION

At present, Luxembourg’s abortion laws are decided by the democratic process. Deputies elected by the people debate and vote on any proposed changes. 

Every change to the law must pass through all stages of scrutiny in the Chamber of Deputies. 

This ensures accountability, transparency, and the right of voters to shape our laws through elections.

Currently, abortion is available on request up to 12-weeks – this is inline with the most common time limit, which is 12-weeks, among European Union countries.

A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE

Enshrining abortion in the Constitution would shift the power to decide our abortion laws away from democratically elected deputies to unelected judges in the courts.

It may look harmless at first – but like the Trojan horse of ancient legend, it conceals something far more dangerous inside.

While it might appear to make no immediate changes to abortion legislation, this amendment would create a new constitutional “freedom” that could be used by local or international pro-abortion lobby groups to bring legal challenges against our current law. 

They could argue that existing restrictions – such as the 12-week limit – are incompatible with the “freedom to have recourse to voluntary termination of pregnancy” written into the Constitution.

From that point on, our abortion laws would no longer be determined by the people of Luxembourg through their elected deputies, but by court rulings in response to legal challenges from pro-abortion lobby groups.

This opens the door to a flood of legal challenges that could force the courts to impose radical changes far beyond what the public would ever support.

Depending on how judges interpret the phrase “freedom to have recourse to voluntary termination of pregnancy”, the consequences could be severe. Pro-abortion lobby groups could push for rulings that:

• Abolish our current 12-week time limit on abortion – and instead allow abortion, for any reason, right up to birth. This is not speculation; Canada has had abortion available for any reason throughout all nine months of pregnancy (up to birth) after pro-abortion campaigners took a case to their Supreme Court challenging their abortion law and the Court decided in their favour, striking down their law in 1988.
• Remove the ability to prohibit certain kinds of discriminatory procedure, such as sex-selective abortion (usually the abortion of female unborn babies, often for misogynistic reasons). A 2012 report from the Canadian Medical Association Journal called Canada a “haven” for sex-selective abortion. It outlined that: “Easy access to abortion and advances in prenatal sex determination have combined to make Canada a haven for parents who would terminate female fetuses in favour of having sons, despite overwhelming censure of the practice, economists and bioethics experts say”.

WIDER CONSEQUENCES

Beyond abortion itself, enshrining it as a constitutional “freedom” could also threaten the rights and freedoms of others.

Pro-abortion campaigners could also bring cases forward to infringe on the basic freedoms of others, such as the freedom of association, speech, thought and assembly of pro-life individuals and organisations could be threatened.

If abortion is elevated to the status of a fundamental “freedom”, anyone who disagrees could be treated as opposing this freedom. Pro-life organisations and individuals could be denied charitable status, excluded from public funding, or barred from speaking in public spaces. 

What may look like a symbolic gesture today would, in practice, dismantle democratic control over one of the most sensitive moral issues in our society.

Petition 3776 has been launched to oppose abortion being enshrined in the Constitution.

We need to get 5,500 signatures on the petition before 11:59PM on 29 October 2025 to trigger a debate in parliament.

If we reach this number of signatures, a public debate in Parliament will take place. The person who is leading the petition will be invited to present their case and may bring up to five accompanying people. The debate involves the Petitions Committee, MPs from the relevant committee, and the competent minister, and it is streamed live.

Reaching 5,500 signatures on the petition will demonstrate to the Government and all deputies that there are a large number of people in Luxembourg who oppose abortion being enshrined in the Constitution. 

This will help send a strong message to deputies that this is an unneeded, highly divisive and unpopular change to the law that offers very little upside to deputies, and instead will have a considerable downside for them, likely losing them many votes.

The large number of signatures and debate following will also enable us to get more media coverage around the major issues with the proposal, meaning that many more concerned members of the public will become aware of it.

All of this will help us build further opposition to the proposal and momentum ahead of the two votes by deputies on the proposed change – and put us on a strong course to ensuring it is defeated.

On 6 October 2025, Members of the Committee on Institutions agreed to a proposal, supported by the Government, that would rewrite article 15 of the Constitution to enshrine in the Constitution that the “freedom to have recourse to voluntary termination of pregnancy” is guaranteed. This constitutional amendment stems from a proposal introduced by The Left deputy Marc Baum (déi Lénk).

The proposed amendment now has further hurdles to clear before the constitution is changed. This means that there is still time to ensure that the proposal is defeated.

FIRST CHAMBER VOTE

It will now move on to its first vote by the Chamber of Deputies. At this vote, it will require 40 of 60 deputies to vote in support of it in order to pass on to the next stage.

If the amendment passes the first vote, there needs to be a three-month gap before it can be voted on again. 

SECOND CHAMBER VOTE

It will then be voted on a second time by the Chamber of Deputies; again, it would need two-thirds of all deputies to vote for it for it to pass.

PROMULGATION

It would then be promulgated by the Grand Duke and published in the Mémorial (the official journal). It would then become part of Luxembourg’s new consolidated Constitution

Beyond a small number of radical pro-abortion campaigners, there has been virtually no demand from the general public to make this change to our abortion laws.

Shifting decisions on such a sensitive issue away from the democratic process and into the hands of unelected judges, through court cases driven by local or international lobby groups, would not be welcomed by the public.

The people of Luxembourg value their democracy and sovereignty. Any change that transfers power from elected representatives to external interest groups seeking to impose extreme legal changes through the courts would rightly cause deep concern.

The changes that these groups look to impose on countries would also likely be deeply unpopular with the public. There has been no polling of the public on whether they would support allowing abortion up to birth, but polling from overseas shows that these extreme changes are not supported by the public and by women in particular – and results for Luxembourg, when asked about radical changes to abortion law, would likely be similar. 

For examples, a poll by the BBC’s pollster, ComRes, in the UK showed that only 1% of women supported extending their time limit to allow abortion up to birth – and 91% of women supported explicitly banning sex-selective abortion.

Instead of rewriting the Constitution to pave the way for extreme changes, the Government should focus on practical help for women facing crisis pregnancies – housing, childcare, workplace protections and high-quality perinatal care – supporting them with compassion, not opening the door to divisive and undemocratic court battles.

People have said that they want to avoid a divisive US style abortion debate coming to the Luxembourg.

Elevating abortion from ordinary law into the Constitution would shift decisions from open parliamentary debate into strategic, courtroom battles – case after case, with winners and losers decided by judges, not voters.

Once litigation becomes the main arena, the issue hardens into exactly the kind of high-conflict, US-style culture war that Luxembourgers want to avoid. 

Interest groups will challenge time limits and safeguards as incompatible with a newly guaranteed constitutional freedom. 

Each case would test the limits of a new constitutional formula and turn into another national argument.

Each challenge would fuel more polarising coverage, more appeals, and less space for consensus in parliament. 

Enshrining abortion into the constitution would lead to more not less division in our society.

The Committee on Institutions has settled on the wording “freedom to have recourse to voluntary termination of pregnancy” as the government-backed formula. 

The Prime Minister and his party have publicly backed using “freedom” rather than “right”, presenting this as a compromise.

While this may be useful for the Prime Minister in trying to present his position as moderate, in practice the change to the wording makes basically no difference and is just as problematic as the original wording.

Even if the right to abortion is called a ‘freedom’ rather than a ‘right’ it would still be a constitutional guarantee setting a superior standard that ordinary laws must respect. 

This means that it can no longer be changed by the ordinary processes of democratic government. 

As the French Conseil d’Etat has observed:

“In view of the case law of the Constitutional Council, which does not, in this matter, retain a different meaning of the terms right and freedom, the Council of State considers that the enshrinement of a right to resort to voluntary termination of pregnancy would not have a different scope from the proclamation of a freedom.”

Therefore, any constitutional amendment to introduce a “freedom” to abort is likely to be interpreted by judges as a constitutional right, potentially creating concrete positive obligations for other individuals or institutions.

Once inside the Constitution, judges can apply and expand a freedom through case law, just as they would a right.

Yes.

A new constitutional “freedom” would encourage test cases by well-resourced domestic and international pro-abortion lobby groups.

The State, funded by taxpayers, would have to defend each case through multiple rounds, often over years, paying Government lawyers, outside counsel, translators, experts and court fees.

Where proceedings reach European or UN bodies, there can also be damages and reimbursement of the other side’s legal costs.

Comparable public-law cases in Europe routinely reach six figures for a single action, and the bills accumulate when there is a sequence of challenges.

Over several years, the total can run into the millions once you add appeals and compliance work.

That is public money diverted from practical support for women and families into fighting legal battles.

Rather than rewriting the Constitution to pave the way for extreme changes to our abortion laws, the Government should put its energy into practical, compassionate support for women who are facing crisis pregnancies. 

That means safe and stable housing, affordable childcare, stronger workplace protections against pregnancy and maternity discrimination, and high-quality perinatal care.

It also means timely financial help when budgets are stretched, flexible work options so mothers can keep their jobs, rapid access to counselling and peer support, and clear signposting to local services that can assist the whole family.

By prioritising this kind of real-world help, we can remove the pressures that so often make pregnancy feel overwhelming and give women the confidence and resources they need to thrive with their babies.

This approach builds unity and trust by delivering tangible improvements in everyday life, while keeping big constitutional questions out of the courts and in the hands of elected deputies who are accountable to the public. 

Let’s choose compassion, practical action and democratic accountability over legal battles that risk dividing the country.