As the government pushes forward with controversial bioethical reforms, the Jérôme Lejeune Foundation is raising concerns about the increasing violations of human dignity. From euthanasia to assisted reproductive technology (ART), including abortion and prenatal screening, the Foundation urges people not to accept these changes without question.
In 2026, it seems that bioethical issues are escalating. Following a summer filled with discussions about “assisted dying,” the government is continuing to promote actions that could undermine human dignity. This trend is particularly notable as we approach an election year, where these bioethical issues are often used as “progressive” markers to unite supporters.
The Ministry of Health is working on regulations to implement euthanasia, and on September 7, it released a “Sexual Health Roadmap for 2026-2030.” This plan includes extending the legal timeframe for accessing abortion and removing the specific conscience clause related to it.
On September 16, the Biomedicine Agency, under the same Ministry, began a nationwide campaign to recruit gamete donors. The aim is to meet the growing demand for gametes, which has increased significantly since the 2021 bioethics law made ART accessible to all.
However, behind these new “rights” to euthanasia, abortion, and ART, there is a shift in how we view humanity. Limits on human existence are increasingly seen as barriers that law and technology should overcome. The focus on control, autonomy, and individual choice is overshadowing the needs of vulnerable individuals who may depend on others.
The state is not just regulating these practices; it is actively promoting them. This represents a significant intrusion by the government into deeply personal aspects of life, such as procreation and death. The state is even encouraging young people to donate gametes, suggesting it is as simple as donating blood. But donating gametes is not just another act of generosity; it involves creating a new life with its own story and connections.
The government’s priorities raise questions. How can it justify removing time limits for abortion and the conscience clause, just four years after extending the legal timeframe to 14 weeks and two years after constitutionalizing the “freedom” to have an abortion? The stated reason for these changes is to reduce the stigma around abortion. However, after decades of promoting abortion through permissive laws, this reasoning seems disingenuous.
Moreover, in a demographic context where France is experiencing more deaths than births, the government seems to forget its obligation to support families and welcome children into society. The introduction of new prenatal screening tests, which some institutions are lobbying for, raises concerns about the potential for selective abortions based on genetic conditions, which is a form of eugenics.
Finally, the state is now involved in discussions about death, which is seen as another area where people should have freedom. It is crucial to monitor how these euthanasia regulations are implemented, especially for vulnerable individuals who may not be fully protected under this law.
Despite these troubling developments, there is hope. The words of Pope Leo XIV remind us that we should not lose faith. What is legal is not always moral, and we need to engage in ethical discernment. The idea of ending life under the guise of compassion must be firmly rejected. Every person, from the moment of conception to their last breath, deserves dignity.
The Jérôme Lejeune Foundation remains committed to protecting life. They believe that understanding these changes is essential to taking action. That’s why they are organizing a nationwide event called “Bioethical Disarray: Guidelines for Action.” The goal is to help people understand these transformations and find ways to respond. The fight against bioethical disarray is not inevitable; it is something we can all engage with.
This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Euthanasie, IVG, PMA : « le dérèglement bioéthique n’est pas inéluctable »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..