INTEREST GROUPS: SPANISH ABORTION NEW LAW

更多类似内容

ASPECTOS GENELALES DEL DERECHO INTERNACIONAL PRIVADO

由yolanda rodriguez segura

Soc Crit Pedagogy

由Ania Rolinska

Heritage Sectional Exam #2

由James Bell

Trade Organization & Agreement

由Sam Lu

INTEREST GROUPS: SPANISH ABORTION NEW LAW

monica.bartolome@ie.edu

Miguel.Gabaldon@ie.edu

CONTEXT :

Facts and figures about the current situation (El Pais)

Historic overview

1937: abortion is decriminalised for a very brief period by the Spanish Republic until it was prohibited by Franco

1985: abortion is legalised in 3 cases. It was possible in case of heavy risks for the physical or psychological health of the pregnant woman, during 12 weeks in case of rape, for 22 weeks in case of malformations

2010: abortion is legalised during the first 14 weeks and become the result of the woman’s own choice. Until the 22nd week, it is possible for the woman to abort in case of heavy risks for her life or health or for the foetus’s. Women under 18 only have to warn their legal tutor or one of their parents.

Gallardon’s project: it goes back to the law of 1985 but suppresses the possible to abort in case of foetal malformation – or only to the extent that it causes high danger for the woman’s mental health. Women under 18 would have to obtain their parents’ agreement.

Foro Espanol de la Familia: Benigno Blanco, President of the Foro

Political process

2 main directions in which they try to lead the political process: - European: they say they have gained support from the majority of the European Parliament, including members of the right-wing party and are indeed uphold by all the different socialist parties. They hope this will influence Rajoy as he will realize the law would turn Spain into a European laggard. - Domestic politics: o They acknowledge the existence of issue voters that can be particularly concerned about abortion, those voters could have an influence in the upcoming elections and vote against the PP. They argue that a majority of the population opposes the law and most particularly the youth. o They also frame messages to members of the PP given its divisions; indeed, by pitching the almost far-right conservative neo-liberal against the more democratic part of the PP, saying the latter can influence, they wish to get the most progressive ones to oppose the law. They also address women, prompting them to be more courageous.

The debate has successfully been moved onto the European stage

Or through debate in the European Parliament

Whether through demonstrations in Europe

We have the support of the people

The table shows:

- strong support for the law passed in 2010 (73,5%)

- overwhelming support of the youth (84%)

- a majority of the PP support Zapatero’s law

You may regret it in the next elections

This poll shows a drop in popularity for the PP in december, right when Gallardon's project was unveiled.

Benigno Blanco argues that there are only a few divisions inside the PP. Likewise, he says that there is no real opposition to that law: according to him, 15 000 demonstrated in Madrid on February, 1st. Furthermore, basing his argument on ABC’s polling, he argues that there will be no consequences on future elections as other topics matter much more and does not think there are single-issue voters on abortion. He even argues that it can win the PP votes as such a project goes back to the party’s roots.

We have the power of the street

In contrast, El Tren de la Libertad was composed of "elderly" women

Between 250.000 and 1,2 million protested against Zapatero's law in 2009

And even in 2013, people demonstrated in favour of Gallardon's project

Parlimentary process

The PSOE’s goal is clear: they do not want the law to pass and present themselves as using any possible means available. Recently they presented a proposition of law in Congress to push back Gallardon’s project, asking for freedom of vote. A clear message is addressed to the women in PP as they are asked to demonstrate that they are free women and not obedient ones.

PP members in the local parliament asked Gallardon to put an halt to the process

They emphasise the democratic legitimacy of the parliamentary process. First, it appeared in Rajoy’s program. Second, popular legislative initiatives had already been voted in autonomous parliaments for the protection of maternity, thus showing clear support. This support is also obvious in the number of people in the demonstrations. Finally, the PP has gained the majority in the Parliament through the democratic process and given the way parties works it makes sense that they voted against the proposition of the PSOE, which he called “ a strategic error”. Stating this, he criticizes the PSOE while remembering PP members of their necessary loyalty.

Framing the message

Using the experts: "Medical professionals are siding with us"

Pro-life

In 2010, the OMC clearly opposed the law, arguing there was no such thing as the right for a woman to abort but that there was a right to life.

Pro-choice

In 2014, the Organización Médica Colegial (OMC) criticised Gallardon's project

Almost 2.000 health profesionnals argued that there was no need to change a law that was working

THE MANIFESTO

http://projectes.camfic.cat/Docs/13_14/ManifiestoAnteproyectoIVE.pdf

"Ningún cambio es conveniente cuando una norma es acorde a la realidad social y sanitaria del país"

Ante el Anteproyecto de "Ley Orgánica para la Protección de la Vida del Concebido y de los Derechos de la Mujer Embarazada", especialistas en ginecología, genética, psiquiatría, salud pública, así como profesionales de otras especialidades médicas que desempeñamos nuestra labor en el ámbito público o en el sector privado, queremos hacer pública nuestra preocupación. Consideramos innecesaria la modificación de la ley de salud sexual y reproductiva y de la interrupción voluntaria del embarazo vigente desde 2010, ya que ningún cambio es conveniente cuando una norma es acorde a la realidad social y sanitaria del país.

Hoy en día las mujeres que recurren a una interrupción voluntaria del embarazo (IVE) lo hacen porque afrontan un embarazo no deseado o imprevisto y nada hace presuponer que dejarán de sopesar esa posibilidad. No observar por parte de los/as legisladores/as esta circunstancia es dar la espalda a la realidad. El actual sistema de plazos permite a las mujeres interrumpir la gestación hasta la semana 14, estableciendo límites y normas para proteger también los derechos del no nacido. Tanto es así que, gracias a esta disposición legal, se ha intensificado la tendencia hacia el aborto temprano y hoy el 90 % de los abortos se realizan dentro del primer trimestre de gestación (un 68 % en gestaciones inferiores a las 8 semanas), evitando así los riesgos biológicos, psicológicos y sociales derivados de los abortos tardíos. Abortos, estos últimos, que se incrementarán cuando se restrinja el acceso voluntario de la mujer a la interrupción.

Los países de nuestro entorno europeo no son ajenos a esta situación, adoptando la mayor parte de ellos legislaciones que permiten la libre decisión de la mujer durante un determinado periodo de gestación, entre las 10 y las 24 semanas. Otros, como Inglaterra, admiten indicaciones amplias que en la práctica implica el respeto hacia la libre decisión de las mujeres. Tan solo Polonia e Irlanda, con legislaciones muy limitadas, obvian la voluntariedad de la mujer en el aborto. Así como Malta donde el aborto provocado está prohibido.

En lo que refiere al supuesto por malformaciones fetales, la legislación vigente contempla la interrupción hasta la semana 22, o incluso más adelante cuando se detecten en el feto anomalías fetales incompatibles con la vida o una enfermedad extremadamente grave e incurable en el momento del diagnóstico y así lo confirme un comité clínico, en concordancia con todas las legislaciones europeas. Las mujeres afectadas (un 3% del total) toman una decisión informada, contando con el debido asesoramiento médico. La eliminación de este supuesto contradice nuestra ética profesional y



MANIFIESTO

Página 1

resulta contraria al sentir mayoritario de la población. Restringir el aborto por patología fetal solo servirá para agudizar el dolor de estas 3000 mujeres que deseaban su embarazo. Basar esa restricción en la Convención de Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad de Naciones Unidas es un argumento incorrecto, ya que en ningún apartado se habla del discapacitado no nacido, dado que la discapacidad no existe antes del nacimiento, dándose ésta a largo plazo y en interacción con el medio.

A día de hoy, el aborto provocado es una práctica sanitaria normalizada que se realiza con total privacidad, intimidad y garantía sanitaria. Su reconocimiento por el Sistema Nacional de Salud garantiza su gratuidad y equidad en todo el territorio. Restringir o dificultar el acceso no significa que las mujeres vayan a dejar de recurrir a este recurso, solo estigmatiza su práctica, poniendo en peligro la seguridad e incluso la vida de las mujeres.

Por otro lado, la ley actual ha supuesto un importante avance en relación a la seguridad jurídica de las mujeres y los profesionales. Así en sus más de tres años de vigencia ninguna mujer ni profesional sanitario ha sido denunciado, encausado o condenado. Creemos que las extremas limitaciones para la práctica del aborto previstas en el anteproyecto ponen en riesgo la seguridad jurídica de los profesionales que realizan los informes preceptivos, los psiquiatras y también de los que realizan efectivamente el aborto.

El único instrumento válido para evitar los embarazos no deseados es el acceso real a los métodos anticonceptivos. La única herramienta de probada eficacia para reducir las gestaciones imprevistas es la educación sexual. La Ley de Salud Sexual y Reproductiva e IVE que ahora se quiere derogar es eminentemente preventiva. Dicha norma, complementada con la Estrategia de Salud Sexual y Reproductiva, promueve diversas acciones para mejorar la educación y el acceso a los anticonceptivos, así como, la creación de recursos de atención a la salud sexual y reproductiva allí donde son insuficientes, lo que también va a quedar en suspenso.

Más de 5 millones de mujeres en el mundo sufren complicaciones médicas derivadas de un aborto inseguro y 47.000 mueren en uno de los más de 22 millones de abortos clandestinos que se realizan cada año, según la OMS.

Esa y no otra es la realidad. Frente a ella, 68 países, un 25 % del total, reaccionan legislando restrictivamente o prohibiendo el aborto. Por el contrario, 73 países, el 61% de la población, han optado por normas que no establecen restricciones en cuanto a la razón para abortar o admiten razones socio- económicas amplias. El resto, 14%, permiten el aborto por causas médicas.

La sociedad española debe decidir si se posiciona a favor de la realidad sanitaria, jurídica y social de los países con leyes que respetan el derecho a decidir de las mujeres, o si quieren emular a aquellos que no lo hacen, poniendo en peligro la vida de las mujeres. Los profesionales que firmamos este comunicado solicitamos al gobierno de España que no apruebe el citado Anteproyecto de ley.

In the conclusion of its report on unsafe abortions, the World Health Organization argues for the extension of abortion services.

They present the 2010 law as an efficient one that does not need to be changed, arguing the part about sexual information has actually reduced the number of abortions. Gallardon’s project is presented as all the more unnecessary as there are other priorities, mostly economic. Furthermore, the PP’s policies are presented as illogical as they cut down Welfare spending while forcing women to give birth to children doomed to suffering – all the more so that spending are reduced. The emphasis is put on individual liberty: abortion is a choice taken by the couple and the women and not by institutions such as the state and the Church, thus emphasizing relations between the PP and the Catholic Church. The emphasis is put on the right to decide considered as part of the women’s fundamental right to control their body and life: they don’t want to force anybody to abort. Furthermore, they base their argument on medical legitimacy, arguing they care about the foetus once it recognised as a future human being by doctors; there is a time limit for abortions to be done. Finally, the idea of regress is emphasised, all the more so that Spain is presented as having been a leader for women’s emancipation on other topics. They use images that refer to the time abortion was illegal such as that of women going to London to abort. Indeed, they also argue that the number of abortions will not decrease as women who can afford it would just go abroad while the other will have unsafe abortions. Emotions play an important role here, especially when she referred to an experience that happened to someone she was close to.

We want the right to decide upon our life and our body. "We do not want to abort, we want to be able to decide."

Legalising abortion does not necessarily increase its number / Prohibiting it does not reduce its number

The situation in Spain actually shows a decrease in the number of abortions between 2011 and 2012, most probably thanks to the effort on sexual education implemented by the law passed in 2010

Sexual education, as planed in the law passed in 2010 is key. Indeed, this graph shows that 30% of women who abort didn't use any contraceptive method.

The graph shows that the number of abortions is not consequently lower when abortion is prohibted BUT that the number of unsafe abortion is significantly higher

The danger of unsafe abortions

In Spain

In the world

Back to the past... and to London

The animated map on the link clearly shows that if Gallardon's law is passed, it would litteraly be a return to the past.

A personal matter

Un terible retroceso

There is a great emphasis on the foetus as a child. Hence, it needs to be protected as much as the mother – even more as it is weaker – whereas the current situation does not recognize any value to the life of the unborn child before the 14th week. They dismiss the rhetoric of abortion as women’s right as it relies on violence made to another human being. Furthermore, they argue that the 2010 law does not protect the mother either as it does not offer any alternatives to abortion. They also criticise the ideologisation of society implemented by that law. Maternity and pregnancy are presented as facts that happen despite the use of contraceptive methods. Hence, they recognize that abortions may happen but argue that its mere existence does not justify legalisation. On the contrary, they argue that prohibiting it lowers the figure. Finally, commenting on the youth of the participants to their demonstrations, they argue that it is the defence of life that is going to matter in the 21st century, thus framing their opponents as out-dated and presenting themselves as going in the sense of progress.

Prohibiting abortion decreses its number

Poland – A pro-life turnaround

As covered in the Spanish media

The killing of an unborn child

2005

Protecting both the mother and the child

Presentation of their reasons

There is a need to raise socialist activists’ awareness on those issues and react when discrimination looms. They argue that given the political context with the PP in power, the need is even greater for them to be on the lookout.

They underline the importance of families in the lives of Spaniards: most people live within families and they are seen as the basis of society, an organisation of huge social interests and efficacy as it provides for goods, education. Yet, despite its importance, families lack media coverage, hence the need for the FEF as a way for families to be more present in the media.

Families as the pillar of society

ADRESSING THE ISSUE

Presentation of the organisation

The provincial secretary of equality is presented as a source of information for militants, a place for debates and reactions on political actuality on issues related to women discrimination and equality between men and women. The secretary is usually a woman as she knows more about the reality of those discriminations.

Cartoon explaining how difficult it would be if the law was passed

Benigno Blanco presented FEF as the grouping of family’s associations created for the latter to have a common voice in the public defence of family’s interests. They organise workshops and conferences with a focus on education and information but also set up demonstrations.

Nothing to do with the Church

Defend the interests of families

PSOE: Marta Gomez Gutierrez, Secretary of Equality for the province of Segovia