The Minister of Justice and the Government of Spain are pushing for a profound reform of the so-called Abortion Law. This was explained at least by the President of the Government himself at the time when he publicly supported this preliminary draft. According to that plan, this is a suspension of the system of deadlines already established by the General Government Contracts Act of 2010. The reform is more restrictive than the 1985 Act, which delays us, because it leaves out fetal malformations. It is clear that with this proposed regulation we will be moving away from the regulations in force in most European countries.

In principle, any policy change requires an analysis of the dysfunctions, difficulties and obstacles set out in the previous one, in order to determine whether or not it is necessary and, where appropriate, the meaning of the reform. Even if that is entirely reasonable, in this case no such thing has been done, at least so far. On the contrary, the need for reform is not justified, due to the consistency of the current Law with the social reality, and due to the absence of any conflict or conflict in the last three years. To mention something, the preliminary draft speaks of the need to adapt to the doctrine of the Constitutional Court, but in fact that Court has never declared the system of deadlines unconstitutional. Conversely, we await the resolution of the appeal of unconstitutionality presented by the People’s Party against the 2010 Law. In addition, the Tribunal reiterates that what is to be born deserves protection under the Constitution, but does not own the rights that assist it. On the contrary, the timescale system ensures balanced protection between the foetus and the rights of women.

The point of view of the draft that is proposed is worrying: women believe that we need support, aid and special advice; women consider us incapable of deciding about our motherhood and the free development of our personality. From the Government ' s point of view, women are mere victims and therefore do not consider us as authors of an abortion crime. I am not going to say that what I want is for him to be treated as a criminal, but that example very well reflects the vision of the Government.

On the other hand, it cannot be denied that the effects of the reform will be very serious. On the one hand, the formal requirements that are envisaged will make it very difficult for any decision to be taken in time and, on the other hand, it will be difficult for health workers to take on such risks.

But that is not the end of the evils that this reform can bring. In particular, at this time, one of the most striking consequences is that social inequalities will intensify and women without economic means will have to abort at the expense of serious consequences. Furthermore, the social injustice of the preliminary draft is deeper when the case of fetal malformations is denied and, at the same time, when aid to dependency is reduced or eliminated.

Apart from the personal and political problems and objectives, which are decisive in this area, it is clear that on the basis of this reform lies the beliefs of a particular religion and are to be imposed on everyone. This imposition and the curtailment of women’s freedom in a free and democratic state and society are absolutely unacceptable.