The representatives of the Popular Group are convinced that the PSOE scored “one goal” for them with the reform of Article 49 of the Constitution to eliminate the term “disabled” and replace it with “disability,” but with the additional tag “the specific needs of women and children, as sources from this political formation assured THE OBJECTIVE. These sources are popular warned that giving preference to women and minors would conflict with Article 14 of the Constitution, which refers to the equality of Spaniards regardless of race, sex, and condition.
The chaos spread through a sector of the parliamentary group that did not understand the support for a reform, which could be appealed, but in the end, they accepted while following the discipline of the party: «It was wrong, and they just put gender ideology in the Constitution, and they brought up the Constitutional Court so that, from now on, the whole theory of positive discrimination that the Constitutional Court said at that time is in line with the Constitution through an interpretation; there is a rule that establishes positive discrimination.”.
she is cultivating soup This discomfort is not new, although it has become more apparent because of the vote that took place this Thursday in the Plenary Session of the Congress of Deputies. Within days now, an article on the debate on Eugenio Nasarre, who is the general secretary of the Parliamentary Group and general secretary of education in the Aznar Government, has been “very discussed” among the representatives because it affects one of the reasons that is the subject of an internal question: There is a colophon that concludes this new version of Article 49. It reads like this: ‘The specific needs of women and minors with disabilities will be specifically addressed.’ What is the purpose of this commandment? that there is a difference in treatment between the disabled based on sex? A case of “positive discrimination” in favor of disabled women introduced in the Constitution? What “specific needs” do women have because of their disability that men don’t have? “Is this clause a toll on prevailing neofeminism?” Nasarre’s questions.
These representatives, who are critical of the wording of the article, follow the party’s decision but believe that some explanation should have been given. It has been said, and rightly so. This is in our electoral program, or at least the public statements made by the national leadership at other times, and anyone who accepts to be a deputy with those statements must follow the consequences. “They’re right about that.”
One of the most questioned aspects is that Cermi (the Spanish Committee of Representatives of People with Disabilities) wrote this article, according to the sources consulted. The reason is that there are groups within this association that, contrary to some paragraphs in this article, state that “persons with disabilities exercise the rights provided by this title in the conditions of true and effective freedom and equality.” At this point, they point out that there is no freedom because they are not in a position to exercise equality. After all, all disabilities do not have the same characteristics.
The sources consulted point to Cermi, an organization that works closely with the Sánchez Government on aspects such as the closure of special education centers, as stated in the Education Law drafted by the former minister Isabel Celaá, and which they point out is closely linked to Podemos. Jesús Martín Blanco, who holds positions of responsibility in Cermi, was appointed by Podemos in 2021 as director general of disability of the Ministry of Social Rights and Disability.
From the national leadership, the PP president himself, Alberto Núñez Feijóo, defended the agreement and believed that he could be criticized for it, as he stated minutes after the approval of this reform: «I accept that they criticize me for fulfilling my commitments because I believe that this is the result of politics. I accept that they criticized me for implementing my electoral program in a way that was voted for by eight million people in the last election. I accept criticism because of the desire to improve the Constitution and, thus, the politics and institutions of my country. I am clear about what my priorities are, and they will continue. My priority is to be useful to the citizens and endorse reasonable suggestions. My priority is to keep my word, and we said it during the election campaign. I accept all these criticisms, and I’m sorry that some don’t like it or that they don’t share my position, but I assure you that we will do again what we did, and we are proud of it.”