Madrid (EFE)
With the abstentions and challenges against four magistrates already rejected, the Plenary began this Wednesday the debate on the most mediatic and long-standing matter that the guarantee court has pending.
The deliberations began with magistrate Enrique Arnaldo, who presented his presentation that endorses the 2010 law and only sees one issue as unconstitutional, the article that regulates the information that women previously receive considering that they are not duly informed.
It also proposes to delimit the interpretation of two concepts: that the conscientious objection is not only to the health workers involved in the intervention but also to those who participated before and the reference to social health to justify the eugenic abortion.
After him, several magistrates took the floor to explain their position given that it is such a complex and sensitive issue and, therefore, all of them want to intervene.
As a consequence, the deliberation is being “intense”, although legal sources believe it is “probable” that this Thursday the Plenary could rule on an appeal that had been in the drawer for almost 13 years and that President Cándido Conde-Pumpido sees a priority to resolve.
The progressive majority intends to fully endorse the Abortion Law
The progressive majority, from seven to four in plenary, intends to fully endorse the Abortion Law without accepting limitations or conditions on the right to abortion.
If this happens, two scenarios open up: that Arnaldo assumes the thesis of the majority and writes a private opinion, which is usually the most common in these cases, or that he resigns from the paper so that another magistrate is the one who writes it according to the feel majority and so approved in the next plenary session.
The Organic Law on Sexual and Reproductive Health and the Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy established free abortion as a woman’s right until week 14, and until week 22 in case of risk to the life or health of the woman or serious anomalies in the fetus.
The appeal considers the so-called “law of terms” of 2010 unconstitutional compared to the “law of assumptions” of 1985, that is, it seeks to outlaw abortion except in the three cases included in the rule of 38 years ago: alleged rape; up to 22 weeks in cases of risk of fetal malformations; and without limit in the case of danger to the physical and mental health of the mother.
