When ideologies replace Justice

The latest ruling by the Spanish Constitutional Court constitutes not only a delayed new Roe vs. Wade by 50 years (ignoring the lessons of 5 decades of prenatal death), but also the beginning of an ideological assault on the institutions of the State.

The consideration of abortion as a "right" is, by far, the worst news in the Spanish legal landscape, and the way it has been done speaks of what is, in reality, the famous diversity and tolerance of liberal and progressive Western culture: imposition dressed as democracy through complicated and measured mini-assaults.

It is serious, legally speaking, to base the argumentation of the ruling on instances external to the Spanish Constitution of 1978, such as the European Union, the UN, and various declarations sponsored by the latter, as we know, the world's largest promoter of abortion. Not only that. It ignores previous jurisprudence and the very article 15: "Everyone has the right to life and to physical and moral integrity".

This is followed by the famous "evolutionary interpretation", which, in summary, translates into an attempt to change the application of the Constitution from the highest Judicial Power (which is another way of changing the law), invading the field of the legislator (and perhaps we should say replacing it by commission) according to the ideological tendencies of the magistrates. In other words, progressive magistrates do not change the Constitution because they literally cannot, but they de facto change the way it is applied (which is, in reality, the goal) without going through the ballots or Congress and Senate, and without the possibility of their decision being controlled or appealed.

To many of us, such a maneuver seems anything but democratic, but it is done with enough verbiage and stealth combined, so that the ordinary citizen does not become too alarmed because they do not understand it or perhaps do not care. Lately, citizens accept anything, even being locked in their homes for months. Partitocracy and media corruption do the rest.

The circumstances of the ruling are worth mentioning:

• 13 years of delay with respect to the submitted and admitted appeal. They have not bothered to make any excuse for not having resolved it earlier. Conservative magistrates left it in a drawer until the arrival of 3 new "progressive" magistrates was consummated. Better to let others do the dirty work.
• The Popular Party (supposedly conservative) is happy that the Court dismisses its appeal and declares itself "fully in agreement" with the ruling. This joy of losing explains very graphically the "journey" of the once-conservative PP towards full identification with the culture of death (euthanasia, abortion) and its harmony with gender ideology. «Homologated progressives».
• The arrival of the "progressive" magistrates occurs through the agreement (accidental and full of swaps) of the two main parties to share their quotas of power.
  
  

Now let's briefly stop at the main aspects of the ruling. They are a monument to the twisting of language to make day seem like night.

The Court recognizes the right to abortion in the name of a "right to physical and moral integrity, dignity, and free development of personality" of the pregnant woman without even alluding to the right to life of the nasciturus. Can a pregnancy diminish a woman's dignity or cut her integrity?

The Court believes it is giving certain protection to the nasciturus thanks to the limitations of abortion past 14 weeks with which, they say, the baby not exposed to abortion in that period is protected. It protects, therefore, only the one the mother wants to protect. It is a useless protection.

It also ensures the "right" to abortion for a supposed obligation of the Public Administrations to safeguard fundamental rights (among which it includes abortion, as it is usually said, because yes) while ignoring the right to life of the nasciturus. The Court uses the concept of physical integrity and the free development of the mother to grant her, an adult human being with legal capacity to act and express herself, the right to decide on the life and death of another vulnerable, dependent human being without the capacity to defend himself. It legalizes in this way the law of the strongest, the law of the jungle.

The Court, moreover, limits the right to conscientious objection by reserving it to doctors who directly participate in abortions, and denying it to the rest, to support personnel, with the same arbitrariness.

Finally, it takes away from the unborn the consideration of personhood. These magistrates affirm that only those who are born are persons (the birth canal personifies, apparently) and that, as the unborn, according to them, is not a person, the public powers have no obligation to defend their rights. To do this, they shield themselves with the abortionist propaganda of the United Nations, the European Parliament, and the declarations of the Cairo Conference which, as we know, are colonized by the international abortionist employer IPPF.

We will hear these arguments on more occasions, as in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Nazism also denied the humanity and personhood of some human beings because of their ethnicity. Nothing new under the sun. The Spanish Court perhaps ignores the ruling of the European Court of Justice C-364/13, which declared that there is a human being from conception, giving legal form to a scientific truth.

The deceptive use of language and the denial of scientific truths, jurisprudence, and fundamental rights are the clay feet that support the legalization of the dismemberment of babies in their mothers' wombs. And society does not react to these manipulations. We are facing a challenge that exceeds our capacities: to make the Truth shine in the midst of an indolent and indifferent society, stunned and entertained with frivolities. That is why we must combine prayer with public testimony in the style of Christ, helping mothers and their babies, and praying for the conversion of those who reap lives for money.