The Communs will present this week, within the framework of the General Policy Debate, a proposal for parliamentary resolution to urge the Government to shield the right to abortion in the statute. Specifically, they bet on adding a new epigraph to article 23, which is the one that regulates rights in the field of health.
In the addition, the commons want it to specify that “the public health service recognizes and guarantees all women the right to voluntary interruption of pregnancy freely and free, as part of their right to sexual and reproductive health”, as sources from the party have explained to Eldiario.es.
Although abortion is a right that is collected in an organic law, the commons allege that it is the autonomies that manage it and, therefore, it is a right that “fits in the statute.” They emphasize that, in addition, the rights included in article 23 of the Catalan norm are “non -enforceable rights” before the courts and that, therefore, they are rather “political positions.” However, from the party they ensure that including this new epigraph does not imply, in any case, that Catalonia attributes state powers.
Rights in the field of health collected in the Statute are general issues such as that all people must be able to access “in conditions of equality” to health services, which their preferences must be respected when treated and that they have the right to be informed about services, treatments and resources. So far no epigraph has been included that refers to the right to receive a specific treatment as the commons intends with abortion.
In the event that the proposal went ahead, changing the statute requires the vote in favor of two thirds of the deputies, the referral to the General Courts and the approval of the modification by means of an organic law. In the case of Catalonia, this assumes that the proposal should have the votes of all the parties of the left arch and, in addition, the deputies of Junts.
Butterfly effect from Madrid
On the other hand, the Communs will also submit a proposal for an institutional declaration so that the Parliament “expresses its rejection of attempts to criminalize and persecution of women's right to abortion by the right and the extreme right and the absolute rejection of the attribution of false post -abortion syndromes.”
With this statement, the party refers to the approval of a VOX proposition in the Madrid City Council for which women are obliged to inform women about an alleged “post -abortion syndrome” that does not have scientific support or evidence.
After the criticisms received, the mayor of Madrid, José Luis Martínez-Almeida has been forced to recognize that this affectation “is not a recognized scientific category” and came back after having voted in favor of the proposal.
The consequences of this controversy reached the government and have derived in that Pedro Sánchez raises a constitutional reform and a modification of the reproductive health decree to “shield” the right to abortion. The objective of this modification of the Magna Carta will be to “consecrate the freedom and autonomy of women,” according to government sources.
Sánchez now takes out from the drawer that proposal that he promised a year ago in the framework of the 41st PSOE Congress, but parliamentary arithmetic makes it a difficult deed to achieve. And it is that to achieve the reform of the Magna Carta, yes or yes, the votes of the PP.
The Conservative Party has behind it a long history of trying to prevent the right to abortion since it was legalized, in three very specific assumptions, in 1985 and when it went to the law “of deadlines” in 2010 thanks to a reform of the Zapatero Executive.
In fact, the popular have not recognized that abortion is “a right” (although it is included in the law) until 2023, when the Constitutional, finally knocked down the appeal that the PP had filed 13 years before.
Thus, aware that the reform of the Constitution that Pedro Sánchez plans can fall into a broken sack because of the PP, the commons want to press the Parliament of Catalonia so that it positions itself unequivocally in favor of this right that, after 40 years, is in question again.