Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reproductive Rights in Italy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Axiological Pluralism

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 92))

  • 201 Accesses

Abstract

The intervention of medicine in human reproduction (contraception, abortion, artificial procreation) has blurred the boundaries between nature and culture regarding the beginning of human life. This change has led to an unprecedented possibility to increase self-determination, and, therefore, individual responsibility with respect to the choice of giving birth, no longer a gift of God, but a realistic chance to accomplish a wish. This circumstance has opened a debate as to whether or not the right to parenthood and procreation is absolute, and if the person has the right to choose whether or not to conceive. Indeed, the Italian debate is related to two specular aspects of the same issue concerning the alleged absolute inviolability of the embryo: on the one hand, the request of infertile couples to be able to conceive a child through assisted reproduction, including through the use of biological materials external to the couple, subject to rulings of the Constitutional Court, and on the other hand, on the still controversial access to abortion, governed by a law that came into force in 1978, over 40 years ago.

In light of these considerations, the relationship between pluralism, religion, culture and jurisdiction on contraception, abortion, assisted reproduction, and childbirth will be analysed, with particular attention placed on the influence of conscientious objection, which is allowed under certain conditions by Italian law, and how it is used as a boycotting tool by certain professional categories in relation to individual choices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Ferrando (1994), p. 12; Malinowski (2006), p. 550; Prasad (2012), p. 230; Balistreri (2016), p. 25; Zaret (2016), p. 1833.

  2. 2.

    Coontz and Henderson (1986), p. 35; Reeves Sanday (1991), p. 5; Heritier (2002).

  3. 3.

    Former Article No. 552, Criminal Code, “Procurata impotenza alla procreazione”. It was declared unconstitutional by Constitutional Court, 16 March 1971, No. 47. Betta (2012), p. 131.

  4. 4.

    Former Article No. 553 Criminal Code, “Incitamento di pratiche contro la procreazione”.

  5. 5.

    Former Article No 546, “Aborto di donna consenziente”. Nuvolone and Lanzi (1992), p. 33.

  6. 6.

    Constitutional Court, 18 February 1975, No. 27.

  7. 7.

    Foucault (1984), p. 19.

  8. 8.

    King James Bible, KJV, Genesis 9:7.

  9. 9.

    Zizola (1991), p. 240.

  10. 10.

    Thornton (1985), p. 383 ss; Srikanthan and Reid (2008), p. 130; Maternini and Scopel (2012), p. 28.

  11. 11.

    Decree No. 510 of 26 September 2000 of the Health Ministry authorizing commercialization of Norlevo (well-known as “Morning after pill”). TAR Lazio, 21 November 2011. See in this volume Paris, Reckoning with Growing Pluralism. Potentials and Limits of Conscientious Objection: Conscience Clauses in Abortion Laws in Europe, section 2; Boni (2001), p. 677 ss; Pellecchia (2010), p. 31 ss.; Benciolini (2015), p. II, 3 ss.

  12. 12.

    Wojtyla (1995), p. I, 11.

  13. 13.

    Comitato Nazionale per la Bioetica (2011), p. 10.

  14. 14.

    Lalli (2011), p. 118; Benciolini (2015), p. 2003.

  15. 15.

    XVI Parliament (2008–2013), Bill No. 1212; XVII Parliament (2013–2018), Bill No. 1087; XVIII Parliament (2018-2023) Bill No. 22, Bill No. 183; Bill No. 1066; Bill No. 1664.

  16. 16.

    T.A.R. Lazio, II sez., 12 October 2001, No. 8465.

  17. 17.

    Cassano (2002), p. 20751.

  18. 18.

    Casonato (2004), p. 841.

  19. 19.

    Aprile and Benciolini (2011), p. 795.

  20. 20.

    Facci (2004), p. 155.

  21. 21.

    Cass. Pen., 18 June 1987, No. 7425 in [1998] Foro it., II, 447.

  22. 22.

    App. Roma Sez. III, 14 November 2006.

  23. 23.

    Cass. sez. III 24.10.2013 No. 24109.

  24. 24.

    Cass. Pen. 18 June 1987, cit.

  25. 25.

    The Italian Constitutional Court affirmed that a gender reassignment surgery is no longer mandatory for the purposes of sex change on the birth certificate. This is consistent with constitutional values that allow the person involved to choose the way to achieve his/her transition path with the assistance of specialists, in order to compose properly his/her gender identity (Constitutional Court, 5 November 2015, No. 221). See Mauceri (2018), p. 1475.

  26. 26.

    Comitato Nazionale per la Bioetica (1998), p. 18.

  27. 27.

    Trib. Venezia, 10 September 2002.

  28. 28.

    Aprile and Benciolini (2011), p. 795.

  29. 29.

    Trib. Reggio Emilia, 7 October 2015.

  30. 30.

    Sardella (2015), p. 617.

  31. 31.

    Spallarossa (2011), p. 1388.

  32. 32.

    Law 29 July 1975, No. 405.

  33. 33.

    T.A.R. Emilia-Romagna, 29 January 1981, No. 30.

  34. 34.

    Constitutional Court 18 February 1975, No. 27.

  35. 35.

    Pellecchia (2010), p. 31 ss.

  36. 36.

    Bognetti (1991), p. 1 ss.; Rizzieri (2001), p. II, 228 ss.

  37. 37.

    Pellecchia (2010), p. 31 ss.; Reingold and Gostin (2019), p. 21. However, the heritage of the American Supreme Court historical decision Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) seems to be under discussion by conservative laws approved in Georgia, Ohio, Kentucky, Mississippi and Louisiana, and the conservative orientation showed by the Supreme Court Justices nominated by President Trump in 2017 (Justice Gorsuch), 2018 (Justice Kavanaugh), and 2020 (Justice Coney Barrett).

  38. 38.

    Pellecchia (2010), p. 31 ss.

  39. 39.

    Sliger (2004), p. 229.

  40. 40.

    Pellecchia (2010), p. 31 ss.

  41. 41.

    Article No. 4, Law No.194/1978. Translation by the author.

  42. 42.

    Constitutional Court, 18 February 1975, No. 27.

  43. 43.

    Court of Cassation, 8 August 2014, No. 17811.

  44. 44.

    Constitutional Court, 19 July 2012, No. 196. See Scalera (2012), p. 977.

  45. 45.

    Case C-34/10 Oliver Brüstle v. Greenpeace eV. [2011] ECR 2011 I-09821.

  46. 46.

    Trib. Spoleto, 3 January 2012.

  47. 47.

    Caponi (2011), p. 915 ss.

  48. 48.

    Constitutional Court 19 July 2012, No. 196, cit.

  49. 49.

    Pellecchia (2010), p. 31 ss.

  50. 50.

    Court of Cassation, 30 September 2011, No. 44107, Dir. Pen. e Processo [2012] 2 153.

  51. 51.

    Court of Cassation, 6 July 2020, No.13881. See Poiatti (2021), p. 89 ss.

  52. 52.

    Baudouin (2005), p. 1175; Mastrorilli (2013), p. 343; Piraino (2016), p. 450.

  53. 53.

    Gorgoni (2009), p. 2075; Gerbi and Sardella (2013), p. 1221; Mussi (2014), p. 293.

  54. 54.

    Court of Cassation, 27 November 2015, No. 24220.

  55. 55.

    Court of Cassation, 22 December 2015, No. 25767.

  56. 56.

    Court of Cassation, 5 February 2018, No 2675; Court of Cassation, 29 January 2018, No. 2070; Court of Cassation, 11 April 2017, No. 9251; Trib. Perugia, 9 June 2017. See Carbone (2018), p. 923.

  57. 57.

    Mazzoni (2016), p. 461 ss.

  58. 58.

    Mazzoni (2016), cit.

  59. 59.

    Mazzoni (2016), cit.

  60. 60.

    Mazzoni (2016), cit.

  61. 61.

    Court of Cassation, 22 December 2015, No. 25767.

  62. 62.

    Pugliese (2011), p. 32.

  63. 63.

    Veronesi (2005), p. 14.

  64. 64.

    Constitutional Court, 8 May 2009, No. 151. See the English Translation available on http://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/download/doc/recent_judgments/CC_SS_151_2009_EN.pdf.

  65. 65.

    Constitutional Court, 14 November 2003, No. 338; Id., 19 June 2002, No. 282; Id., 26 May 1998, No.185; Id., 20 March 1978, No. 20.

  66. 66.

    Pavone (2011), p. 99; Santosuosso (2011), p. 179.

  67. 67.

    Wojtyla (1995), p. I,11.

  68. 68.

    Santosuosso (2011), p. 179.

  69. 69.

    Costitutional Court 28 January 2005, No. 48.

  70. 70.

    Costa and Pavan v. Italy, app no 54270/2010 (ECHR, 28 August 2012).

  71. 71.

    Costa and Pavan v. Italy, app no 54270/2010 (ECHR, 28 August 2012).

  72. 72.

    Costa and Pavan v. Italy, app no. 54270/2010 (ECHR, 28 August 2012).

  73. 73.

    Venturi (2012), p. 10.

  74. 74.

    Constitutional Court, 5 June-2015, No. 96.

  75. 75.

    Trib. Milano, 18 April 2017; Trib. Milano, 21 July 2017, Trib. Vercelli, 15 October 2018; Trib. Rovigo, 19 March 2019. See Iannicelli (2018), p. 44.

  76. 76.

    Constitutional Court, 10 June 2014 No. 162.

  77. 77.

    Constitutional Court, 10 June 2014, No 162, cit. See Querci (2015), p. 1142.

  78. 78.

    Constitutional Court, 9 March 2021, No. 33; Constitutional Court, 18 December 2017, No. 272. See Gorgoni (2018), p. 541.

  79. 79.

    Court of Cassation, 8 May 2019, n. 12193. Contra, Court of Cassation, 29 April 2020, No. 8325.

  80. 80.

    Ferrando (2019), p. 677; Dogliotti (2019), p. 667; Lecis Cocco Ortu (2019), p. 68.

  81. 81.

    App. Milano, 10 August 2015.

  82. 82.

    Court of Cassation, 16 May 2019, No. 13000. See Giunchedi (2020), p. 27; Faccioli (2019), p. 1282.

  83. 83.

    Trib. Santa Maria Capua Vetere, 25 February 2021.

  84. 84.

    The Constitutional Court ruled that mandatory gender diversity of the couple accessing MAR is a clear condition in the family legal framework. Under this perspective the Italian legislator has also taken into account the social acceptance of “homosexual parenthood”, since there was not a sufficient agreed consent on this point at the time of Law 40/2004 enforcement (Constitutional Court, 23 October 2019, No. 221). This interpretation has been reaffirmed by two subsequent decisions of the Constitutional Court. Both affirmed that accessing MAR techniques by would-be same-sex parents could only be established through a law (Constitutional Court, 20 October 2020, No. 230; Constitutional Court, 9 March 2021, No. 32).

  85. 85.

    Comitato Nazionale per la Bioetica (2012), p. 13.

  86. 86.

    See in this volume Paris, Reckoning with Growing Pluralism. Potentials and Limits of Conscientious Objection: Conscience Clauses in Abortion Laws in Europe, section 2.

  87. 87.

    Lalli (2011), p. 59; Farace (2018), p. 798.

  88. 88.

    Lalli (2011), cit.

  89. 89.

    European Committee of Social Rights of the Council of Europe, a decision published on 11 April 2016, the Italian General Confederation of Labour (CGIL) against Italy, complaint. 91/2013. This decision followed that one of the European Committee of Social Rights of the Council of Europe, 10 March 2014, International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network v. Italy, No. 87/2012.

References

  • Aprile A, Benciolini P (2011) La sterilizzazione: aspetti clinici e casistica medico legale. In: Rodotà S, Zatti P (eds) Governo del corpo. Trattato di Biodiritto. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 795–804

    Google Scholar 

  • Balistreri M (2016) Il futuro della riproduzione umana. Fandango, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudouin JL (2005) Wrongful life: un aperçu de droit comparé. Familia:1175–1181

    Google Scholar 

  • Benciolini P (2015) Obiezione di coscienza? Nuova Giur. Civ. 1(II):3–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Betta E (2012) Note sulla storia dell'articolo 553 del codice penale italiano. In: Betta E, Caglioti DL, Papadia E (eds) Forme del politico tra Ottocento e Novecento. Studi di storia per Raffaele Romanelli, Viella Roma, pp 131–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Bognetti G (1991) Aborto, III, Diritto comparato e straniero. In: Enc. giur. Treccani, I. Ed. Enc., Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Boni G (2001) Il dibattito sull'immissione in commercio della c.d. pillola del giorno dopo: annotazioni su alcuni profili giuridici della questione, in particolare sull'obiezione di coscienza. Dir. fam. e pers:677–717

    Google Scholar 

  • Caponi R (2011) La tutela della identità nazionale degli stati membri dell'U.E. nella cooperazione tra le corti: addio ai 'controlimiti'? Il diritto dell'Unione Europea:915–926

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbone V (2018) Nascita indesiderata: anche il padre ha diritto al risarcimento dei danni. Corriere Giur:921–927

    Google Scholar 

  • Casonato C (2004) Diritto, diritti ed eugenetica: prime considerazioni su un discorso giuridico altamente problematico. Humanitas 4:841–856

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassano G (2002) Concepimento versus «pillola del giorno dopo» (T.A.R. Lazio, II Sez., 12.10.2001, N. 8465). Nuova Giur. Civ. 5(II):571

    Google Scholar 

  • Comitato Nazionale per la Bioetica (1998) Il problema bioetico della sterilizzazione non volontaria. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Comitato Nazionale per la Bioetica (2011) Nota in merito alla obiezione di coscienza del farmacista alla vendita dei prodotti contraccettivi di emergenza. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Comitato Nazionale per la Bioetica (2012) Obiezione di coscienza e bioetica. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Coontz S, Henderson P (1986) “Explanations” of male dominance. In: Coontz S, Henderson P (eds) Women’s work, men’s property. The origin of gender & class. Verso, London, pp 1–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Dogliotti M (2019) Le Sezioni Unite condannano i due padri e assolvono le due madri. Famiglia e Dir. 7:653–676

    Google Scholar 

  • Facci G (2004) Il danno da sterilizzazione non riuscita. Resp. Civ.:155

    Google Scholar 

  • Faccioli M (2019) La condizione giuridica del soggetto nato da procreazione assistita post mortem. Nuova Giur. Civ. 6:1282–1287

    Google Scholar 

  • Farace D (2018) Interruzione volontaria della gravidanza e situazioni giuridiche soggettive. Riv. Dir. Civ.:798–828

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrando G (1994) Il «caso Cremona»: autonomia e responsabilità nella procreazione. Giur It I(2):995

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrando G (2019) Maternità per sostituzione all'estero: le sezioni unite dichiarano inammissibile la trascrizione dell'atto di nascita. un primo commento. Famiglia e Dir. 7:677–686

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault M (1984) Histoire de la sexualité, vol. 2: L'usage des plaisirs. Gallimard, Paris. Italian translation: Foucault M (2015) L’uso dei piaceri. Storia della sessualità 2 (trans: Guarino L). Feltrinelli, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbi M, Sardella I (2013) Il danno alla persona derivante da attività sanitarie. Danno e Resp 12:1221–1245

    Google Scholar 

  • Giunchedi D (2020) La procreazione assistita post mortem tra responsabilità procreativa e favor stabilitatis. Fam e Dir.:39–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorgoni M (2009) Nascituro e responsabilità sanitaria. Resp. civ. e prev.:2075

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorgoni A (2018) Art. 263 cod. civ.: tra verità e conservazione dello status filiationis. Nuova Giur. Civ.:540–546

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritier F (2002) Masculin-Féminin II. Dissoudre la hiérarchie. Odile Jacob Paris. Italian edition: Heritier F (2004) Dissolvere la gerarchia, Maschile/Femminile II, (trans: Panaro A). Raffaello Cortina, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Iannicelli MA (2018) Diagnosi genetica preimpianto e coppie fertili portatrici di malattie genetiche trasmissibili: il giudice di merito applica la sentenza della Corte Cost. n. 96/2015. Corriere Giur:52–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Lalli C (2011) C'è chi dice no. Dalla leva all'aborto. Come cambia l'obiezione di coscienza. Il Saggiatore, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Lecis Cocco Ortu AM (2019) L’obbligo di riconoscimento della genitorialità intenzionale tra diritto interno e CEDU: Riflessioni a partire dal primo parere consultivo della Corte Edu su GPA e trascrizioni. Genius 1:68–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Malinowski MJ (2006) Creating life? Examining the legal, ethical, and medical issues of assisted reproductive technologies: a law-policy proposal to know where babies come from during the reproduction revolution. J Gender Race Just 9:549

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastrorilli (2013) To be or not to be: comparare l'incomparabile. Danno e Resp 5:492–497

    Google Scholar 

  • Maternini MF, Scopel L (2012) La bioetica e le confessioni religiose. Edizioni Università, Trieste

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauceri T (2018) Identità di genere e differenziazione sessuale. Problemi interpretativi eprospettive normative. Nuove Leggi Civ. Comm. 6:1475–1507

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzoni CM (2016) Vita e non vita in cassazione a proposito di cass. n. 25767/2015. Nuova Giur. Civ. 3:461–462

    Google Scholar 

  • Mussi CA (2014) Nascita indesiderata per omessa diagnosi di malformazioni del feto e risarcimento del danno iure proprio del nascituro. I Contratti 3:293–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuvolone P, Lanzi A (1992) Gravidanza (interruzione della), Digesto - IV edizione, Discipline Penalistiche VI. UTET, Torino

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavone IR (2011) La Convenzione europea sulla biomedicina. Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellecchia E (2010) Aborto farmacologico e disciplina dell'interruzione volontaria della gravidanza. Nuova Giur. Civ. 1:31–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Piraino F (2016) I confini della responsabilità civile e la controversia sulle malformazioni genetiche del nascituro: il rifiuto del c.d. danno da vita indesiderata. Nuova Giur. Civ. 3:450–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Poiatti F (2021) La critica al danno da nascita indesiderata e la complessità del danno permanente futuro. Danno e Resp.:89

    Google Scholar 

  • Prasad A (2012) Like a virgin. How science is redesigning the rule of sex. Oneworld, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugliese V (2011) Il diritto a diventare genitori. Procreazione medicalmente assistita e caduta dei divieti. Edizioni Laterza, Roma-Bari

    Google Scholar 

  • Querci A (2015) La maternità "per sostituzione" fra diritto interno e carte internazionali. Fam. Dir.:1142–1157

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves Sanday F (1991) Female power and male dominance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Reingold RB, Gostin LO (2019) Women’s access to reproductive health services. JAMA 322(1):21–22. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.8437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rizzieri A (2001) L’aborto nella giurisprudenza della Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti. Nuova Giur. Civ. 3:228–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Santosuosso A (2011) Diritto, scienza, nuove tecnologie. Cedam, Padova

    Google Scholar 

  • Sardella I (2015) Quali danni risarcibili se nasce un figlio non desiderato. Danno e Resp.:617–624

    Google Scholar 

  • Scalera A (2012) La legge 194 ancora una volta al vaglio della Consulta. Fam e Dir 11:979–983

    Google Scholar 

  • Sliger F (2004) Since Roe: access to abortion in the United States and policy lessons from Western Europe. New Eng J Int Comp Law 10:229

    Google Scholar 

  • Spallarossa MR (2011) La procreazione responsabile. In: Rodotà S, Zatti P (eds) Governo del corpo. Trattato di Biodiritto. Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Srikanthan A, Reid R (2008) Religious and cultural influences on contraception. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 30(2):129–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton A (1985) Reciprocal influences of family and religion in a changing World. J Marriage Family 47(2):381–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venturi P (2012) Sulla legittimità della legge n. 40/2004 sulla procreazione assistita in relazione alla Cedu. Giur. It.:1993–1998

    Google Scholar 

  • Veronesi P (2005) Diagnosi preimpianto: i nodi al pettine. Dopo il referendum tocca alla Consulta. D&G 33:14

    Google Scholar 

  • Wojtyla K (Johannes Paulus II) (1995) Evangelium Vitae I, 11

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaret A (2016) Editing embryos: considering restrictions on genetically engineering humans. Hastings Law J 67:1805

    Google Scholar 

  • Zizola G (1991) Il modello cattolico in Italia. In: Ariès P, Duby G (eds) La vita privata. Il Novecento. Laterza, Roma, pp 239–299

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Carlo Cattaneo-LIUC, Castellanza, Italy

    Elena Falletti

Authors
  1. Elena Falletti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena Falletti .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Trento, Trento, Italy

    Lucia Busatta

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Trento, Trento, Italy

    Carlo Casonato

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Falletti, E. (2021). Reproductive Rights in Italy. In: Busatta, L., Casonato, C. (eds) Axiological Pluralism. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 92. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78475-1_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78475-1_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-78474-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-78475-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation