A cream silk blouse under a chocolate suit. The voice is thin but the hazel eyes of Anne-Aymone Giscard d’Estaing have lost none of their sagacity. On January 17, 2025, France will celebrate the half-century of the Veil law, which sets in stone the decriminalization of abortion. Direct witnesses to this major societal advance are becoming increasingly rare. At 92, the former first lady scrupulously watches over her husband’s political legacy. In the cozy nest of her Parisian apartment, among ancient bronzes, Pissaro pastels and precious Japanese prints, Anne-Aymone Giscard d’Estaing shared her memories with L’Express. And confided how and why Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, this young president elected in 1974, deeply religious, carried and supported tooth and nail the text of the law defended by Simone Veil in the National Assembly. VGE, the most feminist president of the Fifth Republic?
L’Express: How was the fight for the decriminalization of abortion born in the mind of President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, whose political dream was that of an “advanced liberal society”?
Anne-Aymone Giscard d’Estaing: I couldn’t say precisely what the triggering event was for him, but I remember very well the feeling of great injustice that he felt at the time of the Bobigny trial in 1972. He had obviously followed it a lot. And what mattered to him was putting an end to the criminalization of abortion. Michel Poniatowski, who was Minister of Health during the last year of Pompidou’s presidency, had also considered this decriminalization, and they had both talked about it, since they were very close. In fact, together they built the program for the 1974 election. For my husband, this commitment was foundational because he knew that his political camp would be opposed to it, particularly for religious reasons.
You were very active during the 1974 campaign. Did you also push in this direction?
For several years, I supported an association which worked in Aubervilliers to help families in difficulty. On many occasions, I had the opportunity to meet young women who found themselves in terrible situations. I remember one in particular who was just over 30 years old. She already had 6 children, lived in an HLM without many facilities, and we knew that her husband often came home in the evening drunk. She had no recourse if she became pregnant again. This social injustice touched me a lot, especially since I also met many women from much wealthier social categories who told me they were going to Switzerland or London to have an abortion. For me, it was also about repairing a deep social injustice.
How did Valéry Giscard d’Estaing reconcile this need for social justice with his religious convictions?
The need to remedy a great injustice took precedence over his Christian conviction. I know that when he met the sovereign pontiffs, Paul VI in 1977 then John Paul II in 1980, this subject was discussed. But Valéry considered that a head of state must above all take into account the needs of his fellow citizens and not impose his convictions on them.
Was this decision immediately contested among his political friends?
Yes and it was very difficult for him. The Minister of Justice, Jean Lecanuet, was a Christian Democrat. The latter immediately told him that he would not publicly oppose the bill but that he could not support it, even though it was up to him to defend it from the platform of the National Assembly. This is why, ultimately, the defense of the project was entrusted to the Minister of Health. In reality, the text of the law was already finalized when it was entrusted to Simone Veil.
The debates in the National Assembly were incredibly violent. Michel Debré then speaks of “a monstrous historical error”. Jean Foyer, former Minister of Justice for General de Gaulle, talks about “abortion houses”. Even Jean-Marie Dahier, a deputy from the center, who dares to speak of “embryos thrown into the crematorium” in front of Simone Veil. How did the president experience these three days of debate?
I remember extreme tension. We realized at that moment that there are ideas so deeply anchored in men that they have reactions that we cannot imagine. Many experienced this law as a challenge to their masculinity. We must remember an extremely traditional and patriarchal society. What is striking is that at no time in the expressions of the opponents was there any question of women’s rights, ever. These were men’s rights, above all! Obviously, Valéry was shocked. But he never doubted the need to pass this law and therefore he tried by all means to influence the vote.
Was he afraid that the bill would not be voted on in the National Assembly?
I don’t have specific memories, but it was certainly very difficult. Since ultimately it was his political opponents – the left-wing deputies – who voted the most in favor.
Was he bruised?
Yes, surely. But he considered it something that had to be done. He took it upon himself to twist the arm of his own political family.
Legalization of abortion, reimbursement of the pill, divorce by mutual consent… Did Valéry Giscard d’Estaing have a certain idea of feminism…
He was a very feminist president and we have forgotten him a little too much! Moreover, all the advances you speak of were made at the start of his seven-year term. They had been theorized before his election. For him, politics was not only a game of power, but first and foremost a tool to improve society.
Did the fact that this committed feminism is not more often put to shame sadden him, years and decades later?
Yes, surely… He suffered greatly from what he considered to be the ingratitude of his fellow citizens. This is not at all to take away its merits, but in the French imagination, this law is cited as the Veil law, and associated with the very strong personality of Simone Veil. But the fact that it was she who defended the law is a bit fortuitous, since normally, it was up to the Minister of Justice to do so in the case of a law that changed a law…
You spoke about Jean Lecanuet’s position within the government, do you remember any other oppositions?
Jacques Chirac was not in favor either. But it would have looked bad if the Prime Minister did not support such a symbolic law.
“He was a very feminist president and we have forgotten him a little too much!”
Is there something in the trajectory of Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, in his childhood, his career, which could explain this feminist commitment?
I couldn’t really explain it. He grew up in a fairly traditional family. His mother, to whom he was very close, had been a bit of a pioneer in her time. Living in Auvergne, she had passed the “bachot”. It was still something…
How did you live last year? the constitutionalization of abortion ? For you, is this a form of completion of your husband’s work?
I don’t think it would have been supportive at all. He considered that the Constitution was made to regulate the institutional life of the country, not to engrave laws in stone. This is a bit of an abuse of the Constitution.
Society has evolved a lot. Today, the MeToo movement denounces sexual violence in particular. How do you view this new generation of feminists?
I think they surely have good reasons to be agitated! There are still too many sociological heavinesses which mean that, for example, rape culture has not yet completely disappeared. This is what needs to change. As with any movement, there is always an element of excess. But basically, their protest is a useful thing. Of course, society has changed a lot in fifty years, but I think that there is still in the psychological foundation of certain men the idea that women are inferior beings. Look in the professional field, there is still quite a way to go to achieve true equality. Statistically, we have not reached perfect parity. That being said, wanting to impose parity is a bit absurd.
Do you find that women’s rights have progressed more than those of children…
Quite ! When we see how little attention is paid to child protection today, I am appalled. I created the Children’s Foundation in 1977 and, at the time, Simone Veil and other ministers advised me not to do so, telling me that I would only get into trouble. We really hoped to change things, better protect children, combat domestic violence. And in that regard, really, it hasn’t changed much. For at least twenty years, there has been no state secretariat or ministry specifically dedicated to children’s problems. Child welfare is an institution that has been abandoned and its situation is catastrophic. Departments, particularly rural ones, do not have the financial means to help unaccompanied minors. The State should re-engage on this subject.
How do you explain the few cases given to child protection?
Maybe because children are not voters…
.