The Constitutional Court plans to approve in its plenary session on May 9 the sentence that will grant the final endorsement of the abortion law and the system of deadlines.
The rapporteur for the PP appeal, Inmaculada Montalbán, vice president of the guarantee court and belonging to the progressive sector, has practically completed the text.
On February 9, the plenary session rejected the draft ruling prepared by magistrate Enrique Arnaldo, from the conservative group.
More information
The Constitutional Court rejects the PP's appeal and fully endorses the abortion deadline law
The court will make the decision today that definitively clears the way for the ruling on the abortion law, appealed by the PP in 2010, to be handed down. The way to vote on the ruling will be clear once the two are rejected in plenary session this week. latest appeals filed by former PP deputies on procedural issues that the Constitutional Court has adopted in relation to this matter in recent weeks.
One of them was not allowing magistrate Concepción Espejel, from the conservative sector, to refrain from intervening in the deliberation on this matter, for having spoken out more than twelve years ago in critical terms against the law.
The second resource refers to the recusals of four magistrates of the court, rejected by the plenary.
The first sentence proposal, prepared by magistrate Enrique Arnaldo and rejected by the plenary session in February, already endorsed the deadline system, but considered it unconstitutional that the pregnant woman who wanted to abort should only receive written information about the intervention she was going to undergo and about its possible alternatives.
The progressive majority of the Constitutional Court considered, on the other hand, that the abortion law should not be accused of being unconstitutional and therefore considered that
the text presented by Arnaldo had to be redrafted.
The objective, in substance, is for the sentence to reflect the evolution of society regarding the rights of women in the decision to terminate or not their pregnancy under the conditions provided by law.
Court sources highlight in this sense that the new wording of the sentence will be more coherent with the legislative changes registered in this matter, establishing a greater distance than the first draft with the ruling that the Constitutional Court itself issued in 1985 to endorse the system of assumptions concrete, and not that of deadlines, for the practice of abortion.
Arnaldo proposed to the court to endorse, on the one hand, the system of deadlines and, on the other, to annul article 17.5 of the law, considering that the information provided to women who want an abortion and how it is provided is insufficient.
Faced with the refusal of the progressive magistrates to consider any aspect of the law unconstitutional, Arnaldo gave up writing another draft ruling that would obviate this objection, and was replaced as speaker.
The decision to be approved, once Arnaldo's presentation was rejected, is considered historical in the court itself, due to the relevance of the issue to which it refers and the unjustifiable delay with which its deliberation and resolution have been addressed. , since the appeal of the PP was presented in June 2010, almost thirteen years ago.
The progressive majority of the guarantee body wanted to send a clear message by taking this issue to the plenary in less than a month from the renewal of the court, and by resolving how the new sentence should be in two days of debate, in terms consistent with the new bill to amend the abortion law that was being debated in Parliament, and which was approved by Parliament on February 16.
The text of the new legislation does not contemplate that a period of reflection must be given to the pregnant woman who wants to abort in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, and the draft sentence that is going to be elaborated will not contemplate the setting of a period for said purpose either. .
Precisely, what the court has rejected is Arnaldo's proposal to annul the information prior to the abortion, with the addition of claiming that in the future it be given not only in writing, but also verbally, even if it was not requested.
What was intended from the beginning was to obtain a text drafted with a gender perspective and based on the recognition of the complete autonomy of the woman to make the decision to terminate her pregnancy and to be able to carry it out without any risk to her personal dignity. .
More information
Feijóo renounces resorting to the Constitutional that minors abort without parental consent
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
Keep reading
I'm already a subscriber
/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/prisa/P327BSM44RF33DQBNEMTERYILI.jpg)
