Between the rindignation and indignation, the “celestial” senators today regretted the approval of the law of Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy (IVE) and announced that They will go to court to object to what they consider to be an unconstitutional rule.
One of the referents of the so-called “heavenly” sector in favor of “the two lives”, the senator of Together for Change Silvia Elías de Pérez, acknowledged the failure of the “no” campaign and announced that justice would be brought to justice .
The Tucumán legislator, one of those who closed the debates, remarked that “this is not lost because it is just beginning and the battle for life is never lost.”
The unconstitutionality claim was not enough to consolidate the “heavenly” vote and the senators of that sector dedicated their speeches to acknowledge defeat with warnings about “the inapplicability” of the rule.
Erected as the representative of the “celestial” in the Senate, the head of the Frente de Todos bench, José Mayans, who for the first time showed himself in a position contrary to the majority of the members of his space, warned that the law “is impactable and unconstitutional.”
The first vice president of the Senate, Maurice Closs (All-Missions Front), confirmed his vote against, assuring that “it is not a public health priority” and “is far from being a matter of public order.”
Coincidentally, the opposition senator for La Rioja Clara Vega (Mediar Argentina) defined herself as part of “the entire north of Argentina that is heavenly” and claimed to have received pressure in the days prior to the session, and even minutes before starting his speech.
Macrista senator Esteban Bullrich said that “no woman should go to jail for having an abortion, but questioned that politics” does not protect the weak that is the fetus. “He added that the State” does not guarantee the same rights “and that” it runs of his role “, since” the one who cannot be defended is unprotected. “
Senator Dalmacio Mera (Frente de Todos-Catamarca) based his rejection of the project by pointing out that the initiative “does not take into account the unborn child, does not mention him, or recognize him.”