Lawsuit of Bobigny

the lawsuit of Bobigny , in October and November 1972 with Bobigny (Seine-Saint-Denis), was a political lawsuit of the Avortement in France. Five women were judged there: an young girl who had fallen through after a Viol, and four major, of which his/her mother, for complicity or practical of the abortion. This lawsuit, whose defense was ensured by the lawyer Gisele Halimi, had an enormous repercussion and contributed to the evolution towards the de-penalization of the Voluntary interruption of pregnancy.

The abortion of minor

Rape ée by a boy of its college, Marie-Claire is pregnant at 16 years. She refuses to keep the child and asks her Michele mother to help it. Michele C. is a modest employee of the RATP. She only raises her three daughters of 16,15 and 14 years, after being left by their father who had not recognized them. She gains 1500 francs by mois.
then The gynecologist which confirms the diagnosis of pregnancy does not refuse to fall through the young girl, but he asks 4500 francs, three months of wages of the mother. This one requires then of the assistance to his/her colleague Lucette D., who in his turn solicits Renee S. They address to another colleague, Mrs. B. Sick, widowed with three children and itself being already fallen through in the past.

Practical Mrs. B. the intervention for 1200 francs, by posing a probe. But with its third attempt, a Hémorragie occurs in middle of the night. Michele and Marie-Claire C. go to the hospital, where the mother must deposit 1200 francs, which it does with accounts - rubber checks, before even as her daughter that is to say allowed and neat.

A few weeks later, Daniel P., the rapist of the young girl, suspected of having taken part in a flight of cars, is stopped. And he denounces Marie-Claire in the hope which the police officers leave it quiet. Several police officers go then to the residence of Michele C. and threaten it of prison for it and his/her daughter if it does not acknowledge, which it does then immediately.

Michele and Marie-Claire C., and the three colleagues of Michele are then accused - the term of then as regards become in France a Mise in examination.

The mother finds with the library of the RATP the book Djamila Boupacha writes by the lawyer Gisele Halimi, on militant Algerian violated and tortured by French soldiers. The continued women contact the lawyer, who agrees to defend them.

Gisele Halimi and Simone de Beauvoir, which chairs feminist association Choisir, decide with the agreement of accused to carry out a political lawsuit of the abortion: far from be sorry for the made act, defense will tackle the injustice of the law of 1920, the more so as whereas the Frenchwomen who can it leave for Switzerland or Great Britain to fall through, poorest must do it in France in clandestinity and of the often deplorable sanitary arrangements.

The first time that it is in front of the Examining magistrate, Michele C. protests: “But, Mister the judge, I am not guilty! It is your law which is guilty! ” The judge orders to him to be keep silent under penalty of a second inculpation for Contempt of court.

The lawsuit

Release of the young girl

The business is divided owing to the fact that Marie-Claire C. is minor: before the lawsuit of the four major, the young girl is sent only in front of the juvenile court of Bobigny, behind closed doors, the October 11th 1972. Gisele Halimi evokes the crowd outside which, while she pled stressed Slogan S like “England for the rich person, the prison for the poor! ” A manifestation of MLF and To choose had been organized a few days earlier, and brutally repressed on instruction of the Minister of Interior Department Raymond Marcellin. “The press, which had been pilot brutalities, made a broad echo with the demonstration and thus, one started to speak about Marie-Claire” (GH). Militant feminists also distributed leaflets the following days.

During the audience, the prosecutor expresses doubts on the reality of the rape of the young girl, being astonished that it did not go to announce it to the police force. One also tries to make say to Marie-Claire whom her mother obliged it to fall through, which she contradicts: “I was a schoolgirl, and at my age, I did not feel at all the possibility or the desire for having a child…” (GH)

After the door - closed lawsuit, the judgment is returned in public sitting - the actress Delphine Seyrig and several expressing can thus assist to with it. Marie-Claire is released, because she is regarded as having suffered from “constraints of a moral nature, social, family, which she had not been able to resist”.

“It was at the same time courageous, completely new in the field of the Jurisprudence and sufficiently ambiguous so that all the comments can go their train”, the lawyer comments on. Does one have to understand that the absence of contraception or financial impossibility to raise a child led the young girl to this abortion?

A strategy: the political lawsuit

With the agreement of prevented, their lawyer Gisele Halimi thus chose to make lawsuit a platform. “I always professed that the political lawyer was to be completely committed at the sides of the militants who it defends. Partisan without restriction with, as weapons, the knowledge of the Right " ennemi" , capacity to thwart the traps of the charge, etc (...) gold rules of the lawsuits of principle: to address itself, over the head of the magistrates, with the Public opinion very whole, with the country. For that, to organize a demonstration of synthesis, to exceed the facts themselves, to make the lawsuit of a law, a system, a policy. To transform the debates into public platform. What our adversaries reproach us, and it is included/understood, because there is not nothing like it to choke a cause which a good door - expeditious field. ” (GH)

The audience is held the November 8th 1972, 1 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Many personalities come to defend accused: the scientist and academician Jean Rostand, the Nobel Prize and biologists Jacques Monod and François Jacob, of the actresses like Delphine Seyrig, Francoise Fabian, of the politicians like Michel Rocard, of the committed personalities of the letters like Aime Césaire, Simone de Beauvoir… The professor Paul Milliez, catholic doctor and enthusiastic, affirms with the bar that in such a situation, “there was not an other honest exit”. “I do not see why we, catholic, would impose our morals on the whole of the French”, he declares. Its remarks in favor of the defendants are worth to him in November 1972 a blame of the national council of the Ordre of the doctors. And a few months later, they will be worth to him not to be allowed with the Academy of medicine.

The impassioned pleading of Gisele Halimi makes the point that to disobey an unjust law, it is to advance the democracy. She pleads: “You Look at Sirs. And look at us. Four women appear before men. To speak about what? Uterus, pregnancies, abortions. Don't you believe that the fundamental injustice is already there? ”

The verdict: the law of 1920 is not applicable any more

Michele C. is condemned to 500 francs of fine with deferment. She makes call of this judgment, but “the public ministry voluntarily let pass the 3 years deadline without fixing the business at the audience of the Court of Appeal. From where regulation. From where Michele C. condemned forever” (GH).

Lucette D. and Renee S., which however asserted the right to have helped Michele C., are discharged, the court judging that they are not accessory because they would not have had “a direct relationship with Marie-Claire”. Mrs. B. is condemned to one one-year suspended sentence to have practiced the abortion.

Impact of the lawsuit

A prohibition of publication which was not respected

The indictment of the prosecutor of Bobigny starts with a recall with the Journaliste S present of article 39 of the law of July 29th, 1881, prohibiting the publication of the debates of abortion. The reading of the legal text by the prosecutor does not have any effect on the journalists. Francoise Giroud in the Express train puts even at the challenge that one continues it at the end of his article. No journalist will be worried.

The Choisir movement will publish just after the lawsuit, out of pocket at Gallimard, Avortement. A law in lawsuit. The business of Bobigny , prefaced by Simone de Beauvoir. This book is an integral transcription of the audience, exclamations with the sometimes absurd questions as when the president of the court asks the abortionist if it put the Spéculum in the mouth… In a few weeks and without publicity, more than 30.000 specimens will be sold by it.

Hundreds of articles and reactions multiple

The lawsuit of Bobigny causes comments and debates in all the country. The shortly after the lawsuit, France Soir publishes in photograph of professor Milliez with in title “I would have agreed to fall through Marie-Claire…” Of the hundreds of articles, of flashes or of emissions on the radios and televisions are devoted to the business. The clerk's office of Bobigny receives in the days which precede the lawsuit by the letters, petitions and telegrams requiring the release of accused.

The president of the Republic, Georges Pompidou, questioned on the abortion at the time of a press conference a little later, states himself “counterirritated” by the question. But it must admit that the legislation in force is exceeded.

The considerable repercussion of the lawsuit contributed to the evolution which will lead in 1975 to the law Veil on the Voluntary interruption of pregnancy.

In 2005, the realizer François Luciani turned the telefilm the Lawsuit of Bobigny , with Sandrine Bonnaire in the role of Michele C. (renamed Martine) and Anouk Grinberg in that of Gisele Halimi, diffused in April 2006 on TSR 1, RTL-TVi and France 2.

Random links: