In 2010, the PP appealed the Zapatero abortion law to the Constitutional Court. And the Court has passed thirteen years without ruling that, if we were in a legally serious country, it would be a grave breach of its constitutional duties and obligations. At one point in those years, famous justices had a majority of like-minded justices, but as they always do when they rule, and unlike the left, they do nothing. Now the left-wing obedience judges are in the majority, and they didn’t even take two weeks to put the order into action. The speaker was Enrique Arnaldo, from the conservative minority, whose proposal supported the current rule, except that he considered it unconstitutional that women who wanted an abortion did not receive “personal information”. Arnaldo refused to amend this point, and that was sufficient for the majority to replace him with the Vice-President of the Court, Enmaculada Montalbán, and declared that the new paper would declare the whole law to be in conformity with the Constitution.
We are in an election year, and everything goes to win votes, from an increase in pensions and minimum wages, to an increase in scholarships, to the urgent nationalization of the descendants of exiles residing abroad, or to the award of two hundred euros to each citizen who fulfills the minimum requirements. Not to mention the false strike and the mobilization that, under the pretext of defending public health, attempted to damage electorally the President of Madrid. Together with Diaz Ayuso, Núñez Fijo seems to have a certain advantage, but the attack of the left, supported by several media, including public radio and television, and control of Parliament and the State Gazette, introduces uncertainty about it. .
What happened in the Constitutional Court with the abortion law has already happened in the past and will be repeated in all its future decisions. And the citizen in the street, who assumed that these decisions were the result of technical legal analyzes and studies, in short for science, discovers with concern that no, that they are the product of the ideology of each judge, whose opinion and the meaning of his voice are known in advance. This should happen in the General Council of the Judiciary and in other courts, and not only in the Constitutional Court. Which, he concludes, does not understand why these judges are not replaced by citizens of the street equipped with their appropriate party card. It will be cheaper for public coffers.
As for the abortion law that was passed, the left and the government were quick to characterize abortion as a right, even as a basic right. And it is necessary to clarify that nay, abortion is not a right at all, because if it were, it could be performed at any time during pregnancy without specifying conditions or assumptions until shortly before birth. On the contrary, abortion is a crime that is not criminalized under certain periods or circumstances. This means that it can only be legally exercised in those terms or assumptions. It does not hurt to present some analyzes and some technical-legal studies, scientific in short, to correct the intolerable illiterate demagoguery that has dominated our social and political life.
