A tragic and dramatic event passed almost unnoticed in Europe and much of the world. Yet one more, indeed the second, country took the infamous step of enshrining procured abortion into its constitution.
On March 1, the tiny duchy of Luxembourg joined France and became the second nation in the world to make abortion part of the supreme law of the land.
The most appalling aspect of this development was the almost complete lack of organized opposition in this country of around 675,000 people.
Unlike the United States and other Western countries, the nation has only a tiny pro-life movement. On the other hand, the Church and nonprofit organizations did not mobilize to stop this shameful national sin. In fact, everything was done to facilitate it.
The Drive to Put Abortion Into the Constitution
A fast-tracked drive to liberalize abortion began when the country’s leftist party, Déi Lénk (The Left) introduced a motion for a constitutional amendment in 2024. A draft law was put forward in May 2025. The State Council of the Grand Duchy, the upper chamber of its legislature, reviewed and approved it in June. In July, both chambers voted to eliminate the mandatory three-day waiting period and pre-abortion counseling mandated by law. Abortion on demand remained “legal” until 12 weeks into the pregnancy.
A Fierce Semantic Debate
The next step was passage in the Chamber of Deputies. The media reported on a “fierce” debate that culminated in a March 1 vote. However, this discussion never called into question the legality much less the immorality of procured abortion.
Shamefully, the debate was about whether abortion is a right or a freedom. The left claimed that procured abortion is a basic human right and fundamental democratic value. The right objected that it cannot be a right since every right creates a duty. Conservatives proposed the word freedom as a more adequate description of what abortion is. The designation would also allow for restrictions, if needed. The grand compromise settled on the word freedom.
Of course, procured abortion is neither a freedom nor a right. It is the premeditated murder of an unborn innocent human being inside the mother’s womb. It does not belong in any constitution that is oriented toward the common good.
How They Voted
After the semantic “battle” assuaged legislators’ consciences, the measure passed the Chamber by a vote of 48 out of 60, well above the two-thirds threshold required for a constitutional amendment. Only 6 legislators had the courage to oppose it, while two abstained.
All the political parties shamelessly punted on the question by allowing members to “vote their consciences.” This was the case of the Democratic Party, for example, which controls 14 lawmakers.
Luxembourg’s Christian Democratic Party, CSV, ultimately supported the measure. Its president, Laurent Zeimet, defended the vote as a measure for the people, reflecting changes in society and going with the times.
Leftist member Marc Baum called the vote historic. “It’s also about what side of history we are on.”
Looking to the Church and the Grand Duke
At the turn of the twentieth century, Luxembourg was almost entirely Catholic. With the grave crisis within the Church, that healthy statistic has been whittled down to 46 percent. The Church still has great influence and would have been an enormous force in the debate.
However, there was no evidence of a moral campaign supported by strong disciplinary Church measures to stop procured abortion.
Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich of Luxembourg is well known for his liberal views and efforts to normalize homosexual sin. Indeed, in a 2022 interview with KNA, the German Catholic news agency, he stated that the Church needs to change its doctrine on homosexual relationships: “I believe that the sociological-scientific foundation of this teaching is no longer correct.”
He labeled the enshrining of procured abortion in Luxembourg’s constitution, not as a day of infamy but as a “sad day” for the country. His main arguments against the amendment were not moral but political. He said that the passage of the amendment could lead to “totalitarian” features in democracy, restrict freedom of expression, and drive people toward embracing “right-wing extremism.” There is no mention of the mortal sin of abortion, the moral destruction it causes to society, and how making it legal and constitutional are collective sins calling down God’s wrath on the nation as a whole, both the virtuous and the sinners alike.
Alas, there is little news commentary about Grand Duke Guillaume V, the nation’s reigning Catholic monarch. Many have attributed his silence to his limited role in the legislative process. When his father opposed the legalization of euthanasia in 2008, the liberal legislature showed its tolerance by stripping him of his powers. The constitution was amended to change the role of the Grand Duke from “sanctioning” laws to merely the symbolic act of “promulgating” them. Thus, Guillaume V is expected to ratify the measure.
Symbolic figures are extremely important, even if they have little political power. He could have been the tireless and hard-fighting champion of the least and most vulnerable of his subjects, calling out their murderers and denouncing the national sin being contemplated. That moral leadership in the defense of unborn Luxembourgers would have gone a long way toward bolstering the pro-life cause. A refusal to symbolically ratify and promulgate the government-approved constitutional amendment would show leadership now.
Photo Credit: © Y. B. Photography – stock.adobe.com