Recognized by the Constitutional Court as one of the aspects of ideological and religious freedom, conscientious objection is - as the legal theorist Joseph Raz has pointed out - a genuine liberal creation. It is not the same as civil disobedience - which always entails a transgression of positive law - but constitutes an exception authorized by the legal order itself in order to protect a greater good, namely the freedom of conscience of individuals.

In short, it is a matter of exempting the fulfillment of legal obligations when two circumstances concur: a) that the fulfillment of the legal duty seriously threatens one's own conscience; and b) that the consequences derived from authorizing non-compliance do not endanger the greater good of society.

With yesterday's decision, the Constitutional Court has admitted for processing a resource filed by an Andalusian pharmacist who was fined 3,300 euros for refusing to sell the morning-after pill, whose abortifacient effects are well known. Given the moral seriousness of cases such as this subject, some American states have adopted laws that expressly allow pharmacists not to dispense "emergency contraception" drugs.

However, what does the Constitutional Court's Admissions Office a trámite of the aforementioned resource entail? The Admissions Office is a step prior to the decision on the merits, and implies recognizing that we are dealing with a case of "special constitutional significance". On this occasion, the Court has understood that, not having issued a judgment on the subject, it is necessary to judge the merits of the case. For the subsequent decision, the Constitutional Court will have to take into account the assets at stake, and will have to honor the liberal character of our Constitution. For some people (fortunately not a few), few things are a more serious offence against their conscience than the supply of substances that may be aimed at eliminating human life.