Riding the wave of public debate sparked by Poland 2050 and the Polish People’s Party, which called for a referendum on free access to abortion, Professors Wojciech Sadurski and Magdalena Środa weighed in on the issue in Thursday’s Wyborcza. Their remarks anchor a broader discussion about how democratic societies handle reproductive rights, civil liberties, and the mechanism of referenda in modern Poland.
Sadurski supports a referendum on abortion
The first of the two scholars to address the question of ending unborn life as a de facto women’s reproductive right argues in favor of a referendum on the topic. He challenges the liberal left’s push for a straightforward abortion law with no constraints or exceptions, suggesting that a public vote could clarify where society wants to draw the line. He states clearly that he is not pursuing popularity but rather presenting reasons that he believes deserve public consideration.
In his written commentary, he explains his stance and details the arguments that motivate his position. He frames the issue as a democratic question about the limits of rights in a constitutional order where majorities decide on the practical scope of freedoms. His view emphasizes the legitimacy of voting on constitutional matters that touch on human life and bodily autonomy as a matter of public deliberation rather than private moral authority.
Voting on human rights and the logic of referenda
In a democratic state, the form and limits of human rights are, he argues, subject to public decision through votes. He recalls past referenda as benchmarks for how societies measure the acceptability of fundamental rights, pointing to the constitutional referendum of 1997 and Poland’s EU accession referendum in 2003 as historical precedents for citizen participation in high-stakes questions.
Parliament repeatedly votes on rights, including those related to women’s autonomy. Supporters of women’s rights must explain why these freedoms receive unique treatment or why they are treated as items distinct from other rights that are routinely debated in legislative bodies. Rights, in his view, gain their legitimacy not merely from abstract principles but through the process by which people acknowledge and enact them in the public sphere.
Exploring human rights frameworks
Sadurski further delves into the concept of human rights and how these rights are interpreted and defended in law and philosophy. He notes that there is often ambiguity around what constitutes human rights, and he cautions against allowing that ambiguity to become a pretext for political manipulation. Rights may rest on moral postulates or legal justifications, and both forms can be debated by citizens under constitutional norms.
His conclusion is straightforward: human rights, when properly protected by the state and exercised by the citizen, are legitimate subjects for public discussion and even for voting. The alternative he warns against is a narrow, self-appointed elite claiming a privileged understanding of what counts as real human rights and seeking to impose that view on everyone else.
Natural law and leftist rhetoric
Sadurski remarks on the rhetoric around natural law, noting that its attractive phrasing can disguise a tool aimed at imposing a particular religious doctrine on society. He cautions that eloquent, almost beautiful phrases can mask a fundamental attempt to define the moral order for all, bypassing broad civic deliberation. He stresses that the critique of universal rights should not become a pretext for excluding or marginalizing minority views, and he pushes back against the idea that there is a single right approach that must be accepted by the entire polity.
Both natural law discourse and the left-leaning interpretation of human rights share a common thread, according to him: a lack of confidence that the democratic majority will align with certain ideals. He champions a robust debate that allows competing visions to contend openly, rejecting any move toward epistemic gatekeeping by a non-representative minority. His stance is a call for inclusive discussion rather than ideological enforcement.
Wednesday perspective on abortion referenda
In the same edition of Wyborcza, Professor Magdalena Środa presents a distinct line of thought. She references political strategies that frame referenda as demonstrations of take-it-or-leave-it politics, critiquing attempts to balance religious identities with modern, secular understandings of women’s rights. Her analysis treats the referendum as a morally charged arena where tone and framing can shape public perception and outcome, urging readers to see beyond slogans and appearances.
Środa characterizes the referendum concept as morally outrageous and politically naïve when applied to abortion. She argues that returning to an old compromise, reached between church authorities and a subset of politicians, does not reflect women’s actual will and misreads societal change. She views a popular vote on a woman’s body and motherhood as morally problematic and politically risky, a characterization she uses to challenge leaders who promote the idea as a simple solution to a deeply nuanced issue.
Critique of political rhetoric and practical concerns
Środa directs sharp criticism toward the political maneuvering of Poland 2050’s leader, suggesting that the push for a referendum may be more about visibility than substantive policy. She notes two practical obstacles: there is no guaranteed threshold of deputy support for a referendum, and citizen turnout for referenda tends to be unpredictable. She casts doubt on the public’s willingness to participate when turnout is uncertain, warning that low engagement could distort the outcome and undermine legitimacy.
Her concern about social capital—defined here as civic engagement—highlights a broader worry about governance and church influence. She cautions that high church messaging and low civic participation could skew public judgment, and she urges a careful, reflective approach to any move that involves direct democracy on a matter as intimate as abortion rights.
In sum, the two scholars present divergent voices from the left on the subject of abortion referenda. Sadurski rejects the imposition of a fixed moral order through natural rights rhetoric, while Środa worries about the nation being steered by politics that may not reflect collective will. Both agree that the question demands rigorous public debate and a careful balancing of rights, religious sensibilities, and democratic legitimacy. The exchange underscores the complexity of translating moral and legal concepts into practical political choices, especially in a society grappling with competing visions of rights and responsibilities.