Said and done. Before I even had time to process it, last week I was writing about what makes me angry, about purpose, about the sense of inequity in male-dominated spaces, about social conflicts between generations—remember? And now, here I am, pale-faced, staring at yet another headline:
“Association in Valle D’Aosta reports: ‘Women forced to listen to the fetal heartbeat.’ The AUSL responds: ‘No evidence of such practice.’ Minister Roccella calls it a ‘medical malpractice.’”
I analyze the issue, go over it again, try to understand what really happened. Then I remember that tonight, with the association, we have a theater class, and I try to see this public debate as one of the conflicts my students bring to the stage. Suddenly, everything shifts into a different perspective.
This conversation affects me directly. It speaks to my gender, to the rights and freedoms won by the generation before mine, particularly in 1978. The anti-abortion stance is a double-edged sword, as Trump demonstrated in the United States, where the only sure scenario for his electoral defeat—according to polls—would be if he leaned too heavily into the anti-abortion agenda. Many women, apparently, would turn their backs on him. And I believe it.
Over the weekend, I brought up the topic in family discussions, trying to explain my level of concern. The response was almost unanimous: “Abortion is not up for debate in Italy.”
I’m not sure we’re watching the same movie. I don’t know if my conversation partners were making a statement of intent or if this is just my fear speaking. But if abortion isn’t up for debate, then why are we debating it?
Looking Back to 1978
In 1975, the Italian Radical Party sparked collective awareness by publicly self-reporting illegal abortion practices, laying the groundwork for what would become the anti-prohibitionist referendum campaign. The law was created to prevent clandestine abortions—a history that has been buried, protected, remembered in private consciences, sometimes repressed, sometimes blurred.
Today, the number of abortions in Italy stands at 63,653 (as of 2021), compared to the estimated 100,000 clandestine abortions in 1978. Discussions about modifying the 1978 law have been ongoing for some time, with proposals to reduce the mandatory seven-day “reflection period” and to address gray areas such as the high rate of conscientious objectors, which in some regions reaches 80%. This suggests that the issue is not only legal but also regional and cultural.
Meanwhile, on the Italian Ministry of Health website, under a photo of a woman staring solemnly out of a train window—a far cry from the celebratory scenes under the Eiffel Tower when France enshrined abortion rights in its constitution—the message reads: “The primary goal of the law is the social protection of motherhood and the prevention of abortion through the network of family counseling centers, a goal pursued within the framework of policies for women’s health.” A European initiative promoting “safe and accessible abortion” is also mentioned.
In contrast, France’s constitution now states: “The law determines the conditions under which the freedom of women to access voluntary termination of pregnancy is guaranteed.”
What’s the Real Debate?
The question, then, is whether the focus should be on ensuring safe and accessible abortion, on preventing abortion, or on striking a balance between the two. Are these goals in conflict, or is this the wrong question to ask?
Some issues need to be addressed. What were the original goals of the 1978 law, and how have they evolved today? Is integrating pro-life movements into family counseling centers a threat to abortion rights? If not, why not? What would need to happen for women to feel reassured? Who do women want to meet in these centers—neutral, non-opinionated experts, or individuals who provide a perspective on the choice itself?
Understanding these questions makes it clearer why this issue keeps resurfacing. Perhaps, after all, there is something here that needs to be discussed.
Three Possible Paths
Different countries have taken different approaches to abortion rights. In the United States, bans vary by state, yet the political risks of an anti-abortion stance are significant. In France, abortion has been enshrined as a constitutional right, with ongoing efforts to push for similar recognition at the European level. In Poland, after a political shift in 2024, there has been a proposal to reinstate legal abortion up to 12 weeks, reversing previous restrictions.
Today, I’m Not Talking About Venture Capital
Perhaps because this topic feels more urgent. Entrepreneurs are just an occupation/type of job of being a citizen.
But I have to admit, the title might have been misleading. If you were expecting a piece on startups, here’s the short version of what I originally planned to write: startups seek market gaps, and these gaps evolve alongside societal trends. Today, we see growing markets in fertility clinics and cross-border reproductive services, much like CBD products surged as soon as regulations allowed. Private industries often capitalize on policy gaps, and while this is worth observing, the instability of regulatory frameworks makes long-term planning difficult.
For businesses to address societal needs effectively, public-private collaboration is often necessary. Unlike in France, Italy lacks a centralized digital healthcare booking system. In France, Doctolib allows easy access to medical appointments and provides transparency on available professionals and their expertise. A similar system in Italy would improve access to information and help women better navigate their options.
If someone at the Ministry of Health wanted to apply a startup mindset before defining policy goals, they might start by conducting a survey among the women using family counseling centers and the doctors who identify as conscientious objectors. Public discourse is always just the surface of deeper systemic issues.
Final Thought
I also checked the French public health website, where clear, practical information is provided on how to access abortion, which clinics offer the service, the rights and responsibilities of conscientious objectors, and what steps to take if an abortion is denied.
Perhaps the reason this issue resonates so widely is that it touches every woman as an individual choice, beyond political affiliation. And perhaps this is the moment when feminism—the kind that exists in everyday life—finally breathes.
But beyond discussing these issues, it is time to begin solving them, one by one.
Next week, I won’t be publishing an article. Then, I’ll return—more startup-focused than ever.
