Hołownia frames referendum as a democratic check on abortion policy
Szymon Hołownia, the leader of Poland 2050, spoke on Saturday about how voters are judged when referendums collide with parliamentary elections. He argued that people should be seen as capable of choosing their representatives, yet sometimes divided over whether abortion should be allowed in a referendum. He warned that a presidential veto could not overturn laws that come from a referendum. The party’s legal team backed these claims, and Hołownia insisted the Sejm should chart the next steps on abortion. His remarks came amid tensions within the December 13 Coalition, with the Left accusing Hołownia of pushing proposals into a political stalemate.
At a campaign gathering in Poznań with Third Way supporters, Hołownia repeated the pledge to resolve the current abortion statute through the twelve guarantees of the Third Way program. He said that from early March he would defend moving abortion legislation through the Sejm, with a crucial vote planned after the first round of local elections on April 11.
Hołownia described the effort to end the present law as a humane fix, arguing it would restore trust in voters who were promised a new law plus a referendum call. He stressed that a referendum would allow Poles to voice their views on a deeply felt issue.
He challenged the idea that people should be trusted to elect familiar MPs like Paulina Hennig-Kloska, Marek Suski, and Antoni Macierewicz but not to decide whether abortion should be permitted and under what conditions. The Sejm leader highlighted this mismatch as evidence that the electorate can handle parliamentary responsibility yet be asked to weigh a direct question on abortion as well.
Hołownia noted that the referendum concept is not new, having appeared in political debates for years. Critics on the Left had gathered signatures for a referendum in 2016, and Sejm transcripts have been reviewed for past calls on the issue. He argued that changing a law that he described as forcing women into heroism required a public vote to reflect public will.
Presidential veto
Regarding President Andrzej Duda’s stated intention to veto laws that liberalize abortion regulation, Hołownia contended that a president could not block laws that emerge from a referendum. He pointed to legal analyses from the party’s Legal Bureau to support this view and urged the president to acknowledge the authority of a referendum outcome.
Hołownia urged opponents to show patience and delay taking up abortion bills in the Sejm until April 11 so the debate could proceed with less emotion and a clearer understanding of the issues. He warned that the topic touches mothers facing hard choices and that the state should handle it with care rather than political theater.
Looking toward April 11, he reasoned that the nation would see if waiting leads to a more thoughtful discussion about the purpose and details of the proposed bills. The focus, he argued, was not on politicians but on women facing crisis pregnancies and the state’s role in supporting them.
Questions lingered about whether Hołownia’s stance aimed to appease the Left or to confuse observers by insisting waiting would yield better outcomes. He noted that his party had secured legal analyses from its Legal Bureau and wondered whether the same level of scrutiny had been applied to the draft laws. The issue sparked parliamentary exchanges, with Krzysztof Bosak of the Confederation posing questions about whether legal opinions had been sought on abortion-related bills and whether constitutional benchmarks were being considered. Yet Hołownia’s camp maintained that all necessary analyses were in place or would be provided to inform Sejm decisions.
The broader debate over abortion policy continued as coalition members and political commentators weighed the implications of a referendum, potential vetoes, and the timing of votes. This ongoing conversation underscored the chamber’s responsibility to balance public opinion with legal frameworks and constitutional considerations.
Further reporting from the scene highlighted the tension between promises made to voters and the realities of governing, especially on a topic as charged as abortion. As discussions progressed, each side prepared to defend their position, mindful that the outcome would affect women in difficult circumstances and the wider political landscape in Poland.
Analyses and coverage have been attributed to parliamentary observers and party briefings, reflecting the diverse viewpoints circulating in Poland’s public discourse on abortion policy.