The parliamentary path of the project "Aído" law is more desolating with each passing day. The abject proposal made at the urging of the Ministry of Equality deserved the severe criticism of the committee Prosecutor, the historical disagreement of the committee General of the Judiciary and the pass of a complacent committee of State, although with important critical remarks. Far from correcting the defects that have been pointed out, the law is entrenched in error and, unfortunately, can be approved this Thursday in the congress of the Deputies.

I maintain that this law represents the most serious breach of our constitutional system. An effective model in defense of life is a requirement of the first order, since the right to life is the prius of all rights. The Spanish Constitution in its article 15 expresses the constituent pact of protection of life in its broadest terms - "all"-. And this proposal fails to comply with the mandate of protection that the Constitutional Court demands for the unborn child as an asset distinct from the mother: by eliminating the serious conflict of goods to admit the non-punishability of abortion, by not providing positive measures and social financial aid to women to continue with gestation, by establishing an insufficient informed consent model and by admitting without shame the eugenic selection, among others.

After amendments in the Equality Commission, conscientious objection in healthcare centers is already being curtailed and thus, in addition to physical life, the moral integrity and spiritual life of the subjects protected by ideological and religious freedom may be compromised. Should we remember that the protection of social and political pluralism and respect for ideological freedom is essential in a democratic state? And that its denial means a regression towards totalitarian models where the most genuine freedom cannot be invoked in the face of imposed duty, when this brutally clashes with the deepest convictions and ideas of the person? Can the necessary direct or indirect participation in the internship of an abortion be imposed by law on those whose conscience rejects any responsibility in this act?

I pointed out a few weeks ago in a national media that although the market of parliamentary votes is conditioned by many elements, this cannot be one more in the points of parliamentary negotiation as an indecent payment to secure positions or perks or any other consideration.

It is true that there are pregnancies in dramatic situations and that it is urgent to seek solutions. But it is hard to believe that precisely in this topic that causes such terrible suffering to women, we are not capable of using more imagination, ingenuity and courage to find more satisfactory ways. It should not be forgotten that the worst penalty of abortion cannot be abolished by law because it is the prison of suffering staff to which the woman who undergoes an abortion is thrown in many cases. In addition, there is the collective penalty that falls on the entire community manager, the extent of which we will probably become aware of years from now. 

In this connection, it is necessary to underline the deadly trap that conceals the misnamed right to decide. In the United States, where it was recognized in the 1970s, it is now under discussion. The reality has too often turned against the woman, abandoned by the disengaged parent and by society. And the fact is that - if the logic of the right to decide is applied - her status is not the result of a pregnancy but "of her decision alone". For this reason, the perception of the supposed benefits of the right to decide is turning around and is already being pointed out as a cause of women's social exclusion. This explains the rise of pro-life feminist groups in North America and of ecologists and left-wing parties in Europe, which, from the defense and promotion of women, demand respect for life, which is at the same time their greatest strength.

History shows that we humans are capable of the most sublime things: of creating the most beautiful in the arts and the most developed in the sciences, of loving absolutely, of advancing in the most adverse situations, of building bridges between apparent impossibilities, of conquering spaces that seemed to us to be science fiction..... However, we are blind and intellectually dry in the face of the reality of abortion, either because of apathy, interest or disinterest, or because of attachment to ideologies that are sometimes uncritically seconded. With this ballast we are unable to find a satisfactory way out of this impasse.

A greater effort can be asked of us as a community living in the 21st century. This law is a collective failure that should challenge us all. After studying the statistics and seeing the majority causes of abortion, I conclude that it is essential to recover the perception of all life as a good that must be protected in any case, and that social policies of financial aid should be approved for pregnant women, especially in cases of lack of economic resources or social exclusion, but not only. It is also necessary to rethink an adequate sexual Education that reinforces self-esteem, mutual respect and responsibility. But we must also continue to keep alive the discussion, seeking and joining efforts to devise solutions to overcome this collective blindness for the benefit of society as a whole, present and future.