Pedro Sánchez chose the monastery of San Juan de Burgos (an 11th-century Benedictine monastery, found in the depths of medieval Spain) to announce that the Council of State has approved a proposal to ensure the right to abortion in the constitution.
He did so on the first day of election campaigning in Castile and León, a community governed by the PP for four decades. Neither the place nor the moment was accidental.
The proposal is to add a new amendment to Article 43 of the Carta Magna, which deals with the right to health protection, to expressly recognize “the right of women to the voluntary termination of shame”.
Proceedings of the Council of State, presidido por Carmen Calvo with the power of socialist ex-ministers Maria Luisa Carcedoit is auspicious.
But it’s better to stick to the small print before accepting that we’re on the verge of a victory over women’s rights.
Article 43 is found in Chapter III of Title I dedicated to the basic principles of social and economic policy: the lowest level of the constitutional architecture of the regions.
It does not create debts directly enforceable before the courts.
It does not allow the lamp to return.
No organic law is required to regulate it.
And future reform will only require due process under Article 167, without a court decision or referendum.
Herein lies a paradox that the government does not want to face. In its judgments of 2023 and 2024, the Constitutional Tribunal recognized that the right to abortion forms part of the protected content of Article 15 (physical and moral integrity), bound to the dignity and free development of the personality.
Abortion is now a fundamental derecho under jurisprudential law. Enjoy the recovery of amparo, the reserve of the organic law, and for its constitutional adjustment, request the procedure aggravated by Article 168: Mayorías de dos tercios, disolución de las Cortes y referendum.
A move to Article 43 involves a relegation. Exactly Liner advierte de que “something that was now the basic derecho deja de serlo”. Eloy Garcia claims that the reform “no blinda, sino desblinda”. In its dictation, the State Council states that abortion is not a “natural convenience” from the point of view of health protection, and that the choice of procedure “must be a consequence” of the content, not “of the cause.”
It is a fancy way of saying that the government has chosen Article 43 without constitutional coherence, so as not to dissolve the courts.
An explicit constitutional mention and protection in the face of a hypothetical change in jurisprudence is needed, but more than is needed. And if you leave the vexing question: why does a government that says it’s protecting its backside choose the path that least protects it?
The answer is not legal. It’s politics. Sánchez knows that reform requires three-fifths of Congress and the Senate. You know that PP took the initiative with an absolute mayor in the upper chamber. You know it won’t prosper.
He knew it when he announced it in October 2025, and he knew it when he elected Burgomaster Monastery celebrate the dictation because it was a success.
They are not trying to reform the constitution. PP is obliged to publicly decide “no” on an issue where the social majority sympathizes with the right to decide.
It is more to suffer another thief on this wall with one who has spent years sharing with the Spaniards in two blocs: his own and others.
The mechanics are always identical: Sánchez launches a proposal that is not viable, but with high emotional tension, he forces the opposition to retreat and, as expected, capitalizes on the situation where the law ends.
Abortion is a serious discussion, it is not about instrumentalizing the campaign.
If Sánchez wants to protect abortion at the highest level, he should include it in Article 15 along with the advanced procedure. However, this requires broad consensus, negotiation and real risks.
It seems more advantageous to place another thief on the wall.
Leave a Reply