LJ CASE: ‘Our rights in a new constitution!’ : the role of women groups in the reevaluation of constitutional reproductive rights in late 20th century Slovenia
Introduction
The early 90s were a time of huge political, cultural and systemic change for the newly independent country of Slovenia. The recent break-up of Yugoslavia had been a long-time coming due to both economic, political and national tensions rising within the Socialist Federal Republic all throught the 1980s; nevertheless, Slovenia’s split from it in the summer of 1991 following the Ten Day War had left the country in a relatively uncertain situation in most areas of life, the legal order not being exempt. One of the more pressing issues, as it would be for most freshly independent states, was that of a new constitution; and, within it, there came the issue of Article 55.
Today, Article 55 of the Slovenian Constitution protects the freedom of childbearing, including the right to contraception, reproductive healthcare and, arguably most importantly, the right to abortion (These rights are not all enshrined within the text of the article, but instead within its official interpretation which was accepted alongside the Constitution and is legally binding on the same level as the main text).
These protections had been passed on from the article’s Yugoslav predecessor, Article 233 of the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia, which itself had been an adoption of the Yugoslav Federal Constitution. A freedom enshrined on a constitutional level in Yugoslavia since 1974 had been passed on to a new government – if one only considers the two legal texts separated from their context, apart from some changes in wording, it would appear like not much had happened inbetween. However, that would not only be blatantly incorrect, it would also completely erase a heated multilayered debate regarding this right that was happening right during the formation of Slovenia as an independent state – and, alongside it, the role of women groups in both civil society and decision-making political bodies as they fought for the rights.
Section 1: Historical context
The writing process officially began in June of 1990 with the formation of the Commission for Constitutional Questions, which had 25 members (with sporadic outside consultants) and Image 2: Breakup of Yugoslavia was led by its president France Bučar, who was also the president of the Slovenian Parliament at the time. By the end of August, a working draft had already been formed (the so-called ‘Podvinska’ Constitution), which was then reworked into an official Draft Constitution, published on the 12th of October 1990.
Image 3: The Commission for Constitutional Slovenian citizens on the 26th of December 1990 on Questions on 19. 12. 1991, RTV Archive recording whether
At that point, its adoption was planned to be the cornerstone action of the declaration of the country’s independence; however, as it became clear the process was going to take too long, that was instead switched to be a plebiscite of or not they wanted Slovenia to become independent (of which 95,7% votes were in favor). The constitutional process was then not only delayed by the fact that this plebiscite predicted that Slovenia would formally break off from Yugoslavia in 6 months following its acceptance (which meant a significant amount of preparations had to be diverted towards making that happen), but also by the Ten Day War that followed Slovenia’s declaration of independence from Yugoslavia on the 25th of June 1991. A further delay was presented by the resolution of this conflict with the Brioni declaration on the 7th of July, which ordered Yugoslavia’s People Army units to retreat from Slovenia – but also for all independence efforts within the country to be put on hold for a period of 3 months.
This all meant that by late 1991, even as the dust surrounding the armed conflict in summer had settled, the context in which the new constitution was being finalised was an incredibly unsteady one. Not only had the process been riddled by delays, the position of Slovenia in the international community was still uncertain. The EEC’s stance on whether Slovenia was to be accepted by its member states wouldn’t be finalised until the 16th of December, and conflict that had briefly erupted in the newly formed country in June was beginning to significantly escalate in other ex-Yugoslav republics. Adding to all of that, internal conflicts within the newly formed government began to point towards re-elections of a new Parliament at the beginning of 1992 – and, for those to happen, a new Constitution had to exist to decide what form this new Parliament was going to take.
Section 2: Constitutional reproductive rights as a point of friction: characterizing the discussion surrounding Article 55
As the Commission moved from one draft of the Constitution to another, the discussion recorded within the collected Working Materials and Session Transcripts of the Commission for Constitutional Questions surrounding Article 55 (or, within the earliest drafts, 52) clearly shows how although the right had been enshrined on a constitutional level for decades within Yugoslavia, this was a new country and a new government – and the right to abortion, especially on such a high level, would quickly become a topic of controversy.
It is important to note that those materials are written transcripts of voice recordings of the aforementioned sessions. This means that, to some extent, the transcripts I worked with likely differed slightly from the direct discussions as originally recorded – which I was able to ascertain from the televised recording of the 41st session of the Constitutional Commission, and how some sections of it weren’t able to be transferred to text (such as Mateja Kožuh Novak’s walkout from the Session). This isn’t to say that the transcripts are innacurate – but it is worthy of note that that was a limitation of my source materials. The debate surrounding reproductive rights wasn’t limited only to this Article; a subject of further debate was also the Constitution’s Preamble, which in some early drafts included the protection of ‘sanctitiy of life’, and Article 46, which enshrines the right to conscientious objection. Article 55 was, however, the one that most of the discussion centered on.
Abortion was still, as it is today, a highly divisive topic; but more than that, it was a highly divisive topic in a politically precarious time which urgently demanded a new constitution to be accepted. This would not only mean that a discussion on whether constitutional reproductive rights were even appropriate could be re-opened, but also that the option of erasing them entirely became a viable solution as it became apparent how contentious a document which enshrined them would be when put up to vote in front of a Parliament.
The working materials spanning the sessions surrounding the article from May to December of 1991 provide detailed insight into what the points of friction within the group most close to the formation of the Constitution were; the first major group being arguments connected to the historical context. Slovenia was still a new country not yet accepted by the wider international community; therefore, points were made regarding whether a constitutional right to abortion would hinder its potential acceptance, owing to the fact that such a right wasn’t present in other constitutions (quote 1). Similarly, the urgency for a new constitution provided its own share of problems; the demand for it to be accepted as soon as possible (quote 2) contradicted with the divisive nature of the right, which was pointed out as being so contentious that on the day on the vote on the Constitution within the Parliament, December 23rd, Commission members were discussing whether to put it up to vote first that Article 55 be withdrawn from the text entirely (quote 3).
That is to say, I think Slovenia would have a bizzare introduction [to the world], if it defined [abortion] within human rights as a human right.
Q2 (Vitodrag Pukl) (Makings of the Slovenian Constitution, Book 1, p. 201):
I’d like to emphasize here that we all want this constitution to be accept as soon as possible and effectively. […] We have to be aware of the fact and are aware of the fact that we are already running out of time.
I think that procedurally, our only option is the following: that we propose or demand a vote ahead of time about a, let’s say, in this case, that an article is withdrawn from the constitution and that the assembly must first vote on whether they are in favor of such a decision.’ ‘I think if we put this into Slovenian: that means they’d be voting on whether or not Article 55 is withdrawn…'
Why this Article was so disputed can be explored further by looking at the legal arguments raised in its favor and against it. Reaccepting the Constitution provided a discussion ground on whether such a right collided with the right of the fetus before birth (quote 4), but also more base-level arguments such as whether it was even appropriate constitutional material. Arguments for that included disputing the legal continuity between the previous Yugoslav Constitution and the new one and reevaluating new values in a no-longer socialist country (quote 5) and arguing that the right to abortion wasn’t appropriate constitutional material (quote 6). However, this was met with a counter-argument from supporters of the Article on the danger of lowering the existing protection standards within the legal system by omitting Article 55 (quote 7).
…and here we have a collision of rights. On one side there’s the right of the woman, including the right to her freedom of belief, and on the other hand we have the right of the child before birth.
‘Is this constitution in a constitutional-legal continuity with the former constitution, or is it not? I would claim that it is not. We know what our current constitution with its 100 amendments and 260 articles is like. We know it’s a derivative of the federal and russian constitution in ultimate consequence. We know that this (233.) article is copied from a constitution whose base doesn’t exist anymore.‘
‘I have to say that many, including some among us, since I’m talking about political parties, are of the belief that this, in its core, isn’t appropriate constitutional material, while at the same time we know that it is impossible to avoid this problem in Slovenia today with this new constitution.’
…I think it’d be right if we check whether our current time, where we’re preparing a new constitutional text, is appropriate for lowering the existing standard within our constitutional system…
Lastly, moral and ideological arguments characterised the discussion surrounding the Article more than most other parts of the Constitution. From raising the argument that accepting such a right on that high of a level would constitute as an act of ‘moral violence’ against citizens who disagreed with it (quote 8) and that the arguments in favor of the Article were made by women who fiercly defended it ‘out of guilt’ (quote 9), there was also an underlying tension regarding demographical interests of the newly formed state. In 1990, a document ‘The Basis of Demographic Policies of Slovenia’ was adopted within the former government which warned against dropping birth rates and predicted measures to be taken to raise them, including, in one (non-adopted) version, a ‘soft’ limitation on the right to abortion. Arguments of building the ‘substance of a nation’, as discused in ‘Pravica do abortusa’ (2021) were present among stakeholders at the time, and were also mentioned and debated within Constitutional Commission discussions (quote 10).
Q8 (Ivan Bizjak) (Makings of the Slovenian Constitution, Book 2, p. 591):
This is something that I’d dare say is a form of moral violence against people, when they’re forced to abide by an act that is, to them, unacceptable. That’s why I propose that we simply solve it by leaving this issue out of the constitution.
Q9 (Tine Hribar) (Makings of the Slovenian Constitution, Book 2, p. 579):
Among our general public, for example in the newspaper Delo, there’s two general opposing beliefs. The first opinion, backed mostly by some women, is fiercely defending the right to abortion. This fierceness is what convinces me that they’re talking out of guilt. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be such fierceness. On the other hand there’s the belief that this is a murder. A murder of innocent, unborn children.
Personally I am completely against a ban on abortion. I also agree with the fact that this isn’t about any governmental or national interests of the population. Demographically, we’re not going to solve it with this.
This long-lasting series of disagreements resulted in several different versions of the text being proposed; from dropping it from the Constitution entirely to having it stay the same, from replacing the word ‘right’ with ‘freedom’ to having it be the ‘freedom to decide on heritage’, from members of left-leaning parties proposing the addition of the explicit right to abortion and to members of right-leaning ones advocating for reshaping the text to be on the freedom of conception instead of childbearing. Alternatives to the Article were raised, like having there be a constitutional guarantee that any legislation on reproductive rights could only be changed with a two-third absolute majority of Parliament votes, or holding a referendum on its future, or even writing into the Constitution that the Article would be decided upon on a later date. On the 19th of December, the last session of the Commission before the day of the vote, an agreement was reached on all Articles except for 55, where one member withheld their vote – and on the day of the vote, the 23rd of December, a meeting had to be called during the session for Commission member to discuss Article 55 again.
Q13:
In accordance with the fact that the Green party is a pro-Europe party and that no European developed country has a constitutional right to abortion and considering the opinions of the part on the issue, the following was proposed: the Green Party of Slovenia supports the exclusion of Article 55… […] Regarding this proposal, there were many thoughts and conflicting opinions shared within the discussion. When this issue was discussed the Assembly didn’t reach quorum, so the proposal wasn’t voted upon.
Q14 (Leo Šešerko, a representative of the Green Party at the Constitutional Commission Session on 19. 12. 1991) (Makings of the Slovenian Constitution, Book 2, p. 628):
‘…the stance of the party is clear, and that is that we support Article 55 in the case that it’s possible to achieve a compromise…’
Section 3: The role of women groups and the intertwinement between civil society and politics
As Vlasta Jalušič points out in ‘Kako smo hodile v feministično gimnazijo’ (2002), the transition from Yugoslavia to a separate Slovenian state can be analysed through different frameworks. She points to three of them; the national political myth of a nation-country forming after ‘thousands of years of opression of the Slovenian people’, the outlook of communist reformators directing the ‘radical’ opposition and facilitating a relatively peaceful break from the Federation, and lastly the outlook of the alternative, of civil society and their impacts on the country as it formed (which, she points out, should not be mythologized any more than the former two).
Important to note: as Jalušič (2002, particularly pp. 33-34) would point out, the categorization of feminist groups as an element of Slovenian civil society at the time is a partially innacurate one, as many parts of contemporary civil society didn’t accept them or fully rejected them and their ‘women separatism’, sometimes violently; she proposes that is more approprriate to treat them as a separate and internally non-unified phenomenon. When I refer to these groups and movements as adjacent to civil society, it is a simplification and should be taken with this context in mind.
The 80s, as previously mentioned, were a turbulent time in Yugoslav history – however, they were also a time when many alternative movements within the country would develop, from the punk subculture to intellectual opposition movements to feminist and women groups. In Slovenia, those would start forming around the middle of the decade, most prominently with the foundation of the Women Section of the Sociology Society in 1984, from which came the formation of groups such as the Prenner Club and the Lilith Image 4: Scheme of women organizations in Slovenia during for a plethora of new organizations (such as Lesbian Lilith, SOS hotline for women and children suffering from abuse and, in 1990, the Women for politics group which would eventually end up being instrumental in the movement for Article 55). Many of these organizations didn’t have a formal membership structure, but they organised discussion evenings, printed brochures, posters and leaflets, connected with other organisations like peace and ecology groups, organised campaigns like one against mandatory military conscription for women in 1985, and in general were already an active part of Slovenia’s political life by the time the break-up of Yugoslavia came around.
With a foundation already formed before the early 90s, as the government mobilised towards a new constitution and an independent country, these women groups were then capable of mobilising right alongside them. Which, as became apparent, was something they would have to do. Firstly, because the formation of a new state meant a newly forming legal and political system that could be subject to change towards feminist policies – it was, for example, precisely through pressure by the aforementioned Women for politics group that the forming Parliament would establish the Commission for women politics, a Parliamentary body dedicated to researching and advocating for the field. This Commission was later joined by the Department for Women Politics, founded in 1992 as a separate Parliamentary Commission. By the early 2000s, however, these bodies would either be disbanded (like the Commission) or reconstructed (like the Department, which was renamed into the Department for Equal Opportunity in 2001).
However, secondly, it was becoming apparent from documents such as the Basis of Demographic Policies of Slovenia, titles being published in the media fear-mongering about falling birth rates endangering the strength of the ‘Slovenian nation’ and increasing lobbying of the Roman-Catholic Church, that already existing rights in the Constitution not only could, but would be reopened and potentially struck out. As pointed out in ‘Pravica do abortusa’ (2021), a large sum of post-independence feminist activism was therefore a fight for the pre-existing rights to remain upheld in the face of a government that, while open to change, was still led by a coalition of parties whose largest party votes-wise was the Christian Democtratic one (SKD); however, it would be precisely this movement formed out of urgency around Article 55 that would end up being one of the most influential moments in the history of Slovenian feminism. Attempting to clearly separate women groups and their influence on the reacceptance of Article 55 into those that acted more on the level of civil society and those acting more within formal politics is not only difficult, but at least partially innacurate to history. Many advocates for the constitutional right within political bodies were also members of feminist groups outside of them; in many cases, actions committed on the level of feminist groups would end up bleeding into the political sphere and vice versa.
As an illustration, the Working Group for women movements and women research established at the Republic conference level of the Union of Socialist Youth of Slovenia (ZSMS) had its origins in the Women Section of the Sociology Society and overlapping members with other feminist organizations. As Slovenia grew closer to an independent governement and political parties were being established, ZSMS would turn into the Liberal Democracy of Slovenia Party (LDS), and even though the Working Group wouldn’t last, its existence contributed to the political party’s efforts for women politics, their advocacy for Article 55 and, later on, towards the formation of the formation of the Commission for Women Politics. The first president of this Commission would be Metka Mencin – who, at the same time, was also a member of the Women for Politics group, a feminist organisation acting outside of the formal structure of political bodies.
However, it is precisely this relationship that I would highlight as the most important; the political mobilisation of individuals and groups both within formal decision-making bodies and outside them, and how different moving parts of the feminist movement intertwined with each other in the fight for constitutional reproductive rights.
Subsection 3.1: Women groups outside decision-making bodies; public opinion and the media
Images 5 & 6: Publication ‘Abortus - the right to choose?!’ shown on ‘Dnevnik’,
Figure 7: Pamphlets used in the campaign for Choice on 'Dnevnik'
Secondly, women groups would also bound together in organising initiatives and demonstrations, which would have a significatn impact on the public opinion. The campaign ‘For Choice’, which collected signatures for the reacceptance of Article 55, was an effort of mass collaboration between different organisations across the country and was effective enough that the campaign’s signatures were directly referenced as an indicator of public opinion within the Constitutional Commission Session transcripts (quote 15) and shown on national news reports (image 7). Out of the demonstrations, the most significant one would end up being the one on the 11th of December, just over a week before the Constitution was due to be voted upon, coorganised by several feminist groups, initiatives and campaign sections of political parties. While the initiative For Choice was being signed across Slovenia, more than five hundred people gathered in front of the Parliament to protest with signs (images 8 & 9), chants (like ‘our rights in a new constitution’, ‘women into the Parliament’, ‘abortion is a right the government’s a pig’ and ‘the government has no balls’) and actions (like allegedly throwing eggs at the Parliament building and bringing a Christmas tree decorated by condoms inside). A part of the demonstration was also the reading of demands in the name of several women groups, which demanded the group members to receive an audience with the Parliament, key political figures and for there to be a publically televised Constitutional Commission session where they were allowed to be present.
(mages 8 & 9: Demonstrations on 11. 12. 1991 shown on ‘Dnevnik’)
…here we have a series of signatures that have arrived here in support of the current text, as it was proposed, we have 13539 signatures…’
This meeting, which took place on the 19th of December, would indeed be televised and a delegation of representatives of women groups would be present (which included Vlasta Jalušič, Metka Mencin, Eva Bahovec and Mateja Kožuh Novak). This was effectively a meeting that almost exclusively discussed Article 55 and by effort of mobilisation, members of feminist groups were not only there, but Vlasta Jalušič (after explicitly asking for a word, as apparent from the session recording, image 10) was given the floor to read the declaration ‘V obrambo ustavne pravice do svobodnega odločanja o rojstvu otrok’ (In the defense of the constitutional right to freedom of childbearing). When Mateja Kožuh Novak, a member of the delegation and also a past outside consultant for the Constitutional Commission, repeatedly asked for a word in the discussion, she ended up having a verbal altercation with the Commission’s president France Bučar and the session had to be dismissed for a break (image 11). The session’s result, however, would be a Constitution with Article 55 as a part of it.
Subsection 3.2: Influence of women groups in decision-making bodies
In civil society, the activity of women groups was apparent. In politics, it was slightly less so; however, it was by no means quiet or insignificant. Even though only 11% of delegates within the Parliament were female at the time, several factors would weave themselves into a scheme of political pressure that would systematically exert itself towards the acceptance of Article 55. Alongside representation within the Constitutional Commission of members supportive of women groups’ ideas (such as Darja Lavtižar Bebler, the Commission’s only permanent female member, image 12), one of the most major factors was the Commission for Women Politics. Although only having just been established, it ended up being a key player in the proceedings, as it not only presented feminist talking points in the Parliament and the Constitutional Commission, but also presented a connecting bridge between the world of formal political bodies and the women groups outside them. As previously mentioned, Metka Mencin, the Commission’s president (image 13), was also a member of the group Women for Politics; furthermore, many of the Commissions permanent outside members’ were members of feminist civil society. The Parliamentary body would provide an official forum for feminist ideas to make their way into institutions, including those about the formulation of constitutional reproductive rights – and, in turn, the discussions within political bodies could be reported back to women groups outside the Parliament.
Conclusion: Extensions and final thoughts
On December 23rd, 1991, the Slovenian Constitution was accepted within the Parliament with 179 votes out of 240, only 19 more than the quorum needed – and Article 55 and its mandatory interpretation were accepted alongside it. Although there had been an emergency Constitutional Commission meeting the day of, and although it faced some backlash at the time, the majority of public opinion was supportive, and the freedom of chilbearing remains a part of out Constitution to the day I’m writing this text.
At the end, here are some extensions that I’ve thought about including, but wasn’t able to cover:
- the debate surrounding other constitutional articles connected to reproductive rights, although not central to them (such as the Preambule and Article 46 which enshrines conscientious objection);
- an analysis of the effects of the media and the public opinion (which both supported the acceptance of 55 and contributed to its adoption in their own right);
- an analysis of effects of the internal political situation and unique Parliament structure on the adoption of Article 55 (no overwhelming majority of the Coalition, internal instabilities ect.);
- Article 14 enshrining non-discrimination as a comparison of failure of civil movement pressure for the inclusion of same-sex orientation as an explicitly mentioned factor.
By researching this topic, I wanted to analyse the ‘end of war’ from the perspective of building a new system in its wake; who gets to influence the process, how and to what extent. How does a right already granted become the subject of such controversy, and how did women organize, both formally and informally, through cabinet meetings and public protests, towards preventing that from happening? In summary: with collective action, mobilisation, and collaboration between different walks of feminist groups from those involved in formal political bodies to those outside them.
Izabela Letonja
The Ljubljana students worked on a common thematic umbrella in 2025-2026 (From a state of war to a state of peace via (new) communication technologies and media: the establishing of authorities, institutions, laws and the reframing of constitutional values).
Sources
Primary sources
Secondary sources
Images sources
Comments
Post a Comment