Medically Assisted Procreation for Women Couples in French Law: Review of New Legislation

法國法下女同性伴侶的醫學輔助生育權利：對新立法的檢視

法國法律以「生物倫理法」此一個規範範圍更廣的法律框架進行對醫學輔助生育（AMP）的管理。而第一部生物倫理學相關法律可以追溯到1994年，且此法相當特殊者為其直接在條文內規定，法律應適時修改。其中，於2019年7月，此部法律被提出相關草案，以進行第三次的修訂。但因疫情、繁忙的立法日程以及政治上反對的聲浪，導致這項改革的通過被大大遲延，但其終於於2021年6月29日獲得表決通過。第一版的草案向伴侶和單身婦女開放了醫療輔助生育的好處。而在籌備工作期間，議會兩院（國民議會和參議院）皆對此項提案表達同意。但在2021年2月，與所有人的預期相反，參議院最終在完全混亂的氣氛中拒絕了這項開放。但可以預見的是，國民議會將在最後一讀中會改變其立場，並允許未婚婦女和伴侶得求助於醫學輔助生殖。一個「歷史的時刻」，一個「將人的意志置於命運的重壓之上的文本」，這些是這個項目的承擔者在2021年6月29日使用的文字。這顯然是一個令人難以置信的進步。然而，立法選擇以「求助於精子捐贈者」的模式允許建立與女同性伴侶的親子關系所選擇的方式亦揭示了不少寶貴的經驗。此些模式表明，立法者沒有能力超越基於肉體生育的傳統親子關係模式，遑論把握醫學輔助生育的具體內容。本文在回顧歷史後，建議分析立法機構準備在2021年做出的選擇以及背後的悖論。

French law regulates medically assisted procreation (AMP) within the framework of a more general law, known as the “bioethics law”. The first bioethics laws date from 1994. This law has the particularity of being revisable. In July 2019, a bill was tabled to carry out the third revision. The health crisis, a busy legislative schedule but also political opposition led to a considerable delay in the adoption of this reform1, which was finally adopted definitively on 29 June 20212. The first draft opened the benefit of medically assisted procreation to couples and single women. This proposal was adopted by both parliamentary chambers (National Assembly and Senate) during the preparatory work. But in February 2021, against all expectations, the Senate had finally refused this opening, in a climate of total confusion3. It was to be expected that in its final reading the National Assembly would reverse its position by allowing unmarried women and couples to have recourse to medically assisted reproduction. A “moment in history”,4 a “text which, above all else, places the will of men above the weight of destiny”,5 these are the terms used by the bearers of this project on 29 June 2021. This is obviously an incredible step forward. However, the modalities chosen to allow the establishment of filiation with regard to the female couple in the event of recourse to a sperm donor reveal valuable lessons. These modalities shows that the legislator is incapable of going beyond a traditional model of filiation, based on carnal procreation, to grasp the specifics of AMP. This article proposes, after a historical overview, to analyse the choices that the legislature is preparing to make in 2021 and the paradoxes that lie behind them.