Now Two Countries Think There’s a Right to Kill Babies in Abortions

Luxembourg just wrote abortion into its constitution.

On March 3, Luxembourg’s Chamber of Deputies voted to add the “freedom” to have an abortion to the country’s highest law. The initiative began when MP Marc Baum of déi Lénk introduced the proposal in 2024, then pushed it through the legislative pipeline in 2025, including review by the State Council.

Along the way, lawmakers contorted themselves into knots and deliberately shifted the text from a claimed “right” to a “freedom,” a rhetorical dodge that changes the label while keeping the same moral claim: the state should publicly bless the deliberate destruction of unborn children.

Tragic.

And here’s the thing, even supporters of this constitutional alteration admit the truth that exposes the whole project: this constitutional change does not alter Luxembourg’s abortion statute. Abortion is already available “upon request” in Luxembourg up to the end of the first trimester. The government’s own health portal states plainly that a pregnant woman can request an abortion before the end of the 12th week of pregnancy.

Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.

So why do it? Because symbolism and faux hysteria now drive abortion politics in Europe.

France constitutionalized abortion in 2024, with leaders openly framing the move as a “safeguard” against a potential rollback like the one that followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022. Luxembourg’s advocates explicitly cast this vote in the same mold, presenting it as a long-term shield against future democratic change.

That is exactly why this change is so dangerous and so unnecessary.

Luxembourg does not, and has not, faced an imminent pro-life “ban.” Even Luxembourg’s Catholic Church, while opposing the amendment with moral clarity, noted a basic political fact: “In Luxembourg, no political party has made it their mission to weaken or even abolish the current abortion legislation.” The same statement points out that the proposed constitutional move did not even appear in the coalition agreement or the governing parties’ election programs.

That matters because constitutions exist to protect core rights rooted in justice, not to freeze contested moral wrongs into place out of political anxiety.

This amendment did not arise from a legal emergency in Luxembourg. It arose from ideological imitation. France did it, so Luxembourg followed. And France did it largely to send a message after Dobbs.

Luxembourg’s leaders have now imported a French political gesture and called it “progress.”

Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, Archbishop of Luxembourg, warned last year that constitutionalizing abortion would mark “a sad day in Luxembourg’s history.” He argued that since abortion is already legal, locking it into the Constitution amounts to “imposing” one view on the whole population. He warned that such a move could give liberal democracy “features of a totalitarian system” by forcing a view on citizens who dissent.

He also cautioned that this kind of political coercion can “drive people to extremism,” not because truth drives extremism, but because elites sometimes create backlash when they treat moral dissent as illegitimate.

You do not need to agree with every phrase to grasp his central point: once a nation constitutionalizes abortion, it declares the unborn child unworthy of the law’s protection.

The Church also reminded lawmakers that Luxembourg’s constitution already declares human dignity inviolable and argues that this protection “also refers to unborn life.” In other words, Luxembourg now risks embedding an internal contradiction at the constitutional level: inviolable dignity on one page, constitutionalized permission to kill the smallest human beings on the next.

This was overkill, and it will harm future efforts to protect life

Supporters sold this amendment as “security,” not as policy. But “security” here means something chilling: they want abortion insulated from ordinary democratic debate. They want future governments blocked from offering greater protection to unborn children, even if voters demand it, because constitutional text sits above ordinary legislation and usually requires supermajorities to revise.

In plain terms, Luxembourg just tried to make abortion harder to limit, harder to regulate, and harder to reconsider.

No woman becomes more supported by this change. No family gains better maternity care, better housing, better childcare, or better protection from abandonment. This amendment does not build a single resource that helps a mother carry her child with confidence.

It does something else. It tells women, at the highest legal level, that when life creates a conflict, the child loses.

That is not liberation. That is legal despair.

A humane society does not respond to Dobbs, or to France, by racing to constitutionalize the killing of unborn children. A humane society responds by making it easier to welcome children and harder for any mother to feel trapped. Luxembourg’s Church named those real answers: family-work compatibility, support for single parents, preventing child poverty, and building genuinely child-friendly conditions.

Luxembourg chose the opposite path. It chose constitutional theater over concrete love.

LifeNews.com Note: Raimundo Rojas is the Outreach Director for the National Right to Life Committee. He is a former president of Florida Right to Life and has presented the pro-life message to millions in Spanish-language media outlets. He represents NRLC at the United Nations as an NGO. Rojas was born in Santiago de las Vegas, Havana, Cuba and he and his family escaped to the United States in 1968.

The post Now Two Countries Think There’s a Right to Kill Babies in Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.