Friday, March 29

The Constitutional endorses the terms of the abortion law and says that the State cannot “impose a forced maternity”


The ruling of the Constitutional Court that 13 years later buries the complaints of the PP regarding the abortion law is clear when it comes to endorsing the system of deadlines implemented in 2010 and also when rejecting that the response to the interruption of a pregnancy must be criminal: it is a “manifestation of the right of women to make decisions” and the State cannot, explains the progressive majority of the court, “impose forced maternity.” All the arguments of Alberto Núñez Feijóo’s party are rejected without the plenary understanding, as alleged, the abortion law, that the life of the unborn is completely unprotected.

The Constitutional neutralizes the “right to life” as a throwing weapon of the rights against abortion and euthanasia

Further

These are some of the arguments that appear in the 84-page sentence finally agreed by the progressive majority of the Constitutional Court, voted by the majority of its seven votes against the four members of the conservative sector, who will issue individual votes against. The paper fell into the hands of the conservative Enrique Arnaldo at first but was finally prepared by the progressive Inmaculada Montalbán after almost a decade collecting dust in the drawers of the guarantee court.

The sentence, to which elDiario.es has had access, devotes a part of its 84 pages to justifying why childbirth cannot be imposed on a pregnant woman. The decision to have the baby, says the Constitution, “affects a woman’s freedom of procreation and indisputably conditions her life project” and the legislator must be inspired by “respect for the dignity of women.” That would be ignored, he adds, if the woman was imposed “in absolute terms, the culmination of her own pregnancy and the consequent delivery.”

Forced maternity, says the resolution that ends 13 years of litigation and decades of right-wing arguments against this right of women, is an “instrumentalization of the person” contrary to the Constitution. The voluntary termination of pregnancy is a “manifestation of a woman’s right to make decisions and make free and responsible choices, without violence, coercion or discrimination, with respect for her own body and life project” and that, she concludes, is protected by various constitutional rights: physical and moral integrity, dignity and the free development of the personality of women.

The law promoted in 2010 by the socialist executive of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero changed the system of the 1985 norm, claimed by the PP in recent years despite having firmly opposed it, and established a system of deadlines. Up to the 14th week of pregnancy, abortion is free and voluntary, and up to the 22nd week the pregnancy can also be interrupted if there is danger to the life of the mother or if there are serious anomalies in the fetus that compromise its viability.

This option, which according to the PP went against the right to life of the unborn, is according to the court “in accordance with our constitutional text and with the doctrine of this court.” This model, he explains, through preventive and sanctioning measures, protects prenatal life “without violating women’s rights.” It is a system “fully adjusted to the Constitution” and imposes a preventive and assistance model that for the court “is undoubtedly more respectful of the rights of pregnant women than the exclusive recourse to criminal sanctions.” Recognizing this “area of ​​freedom” for women, they add, “is necessary for the effectiveness of their constitutional rights.”

The “gender perspective” and conscientious objection

In its appeal presented in 2010, the PP also fought, among other things, the option of terminating a pregnancy up to 22 weeks of gestation if there was a danger to the health of the woman or to the viability of the fetus. The Constitutional recalls that international legislation does not oblige States to consider a “person” with rights to the unborn, and allowing these terms is not only constitutional from a legal point of view, but also “in the exceptional affectation of the rights constitutional disorders of the woman that derives from the detection of such anomalies in the fetus”.

Contrary to what the PP affirmed more than a decade ago, the Constitutional Court says that a serious anomaly in the fetus is “a variable of extraordinary influence in making said decision, completely altering the decision-making scenario” and that, in addition, the party by Alberto Núñez Feijóo started from “an erroneous premise” because it does not authorize the abortion of viable fetuses until week 22.

The guarantee that the law imposes so that women can terminate their pregnancy within these assumptions in public health is not unconstitutional either, as the PP proclaimed. It is something that conforms to European jurisprudence and that, if it is not guaranteed by the State, can constitute discrimination since this only affects women: “Unjustified or disproportionate limitations of their rights derived from such events, knotted inextricably linked to their sex, constitute discrimination based on sex”, says the sentence that this newspaper has been able to examine.

The Constitutional continues with a plea on equality between the sexes, explaining that it is not necessary to protect only those of women who opt for maternity: “It is equally necessary to protect the rights of those women who, in the face of an event associated with their sex such as the pregnancy, decide to interrupt it freely, within the assumptions and conditions established by the law itself.

They also refer to the application of the gender perspective in education or health, questioned by the PP, and explain that not only does it not constitute discrimination, but it implies “taking into account the different needs of men and women in said areas of reality, with the ultimate goal of guaranteeing effective and real equality between men and women”.



www.eldiario.es