Spanish Christians reject government proposal to enshrine abortion in the constitution

Evangelical leaders warn that it “undermines the protection of unborn life”. The Spanish Evangelical Alliance already opposed the inclusion of abortion as a constitutional right.

The Spanish cabinet recently submitted a draft amendment to the Spanish Constitution to Parliament, which aims to recognise and “safeguard” women’s sexual and reproductive rights, specifically including the right to abortion.

The proposal suggests the addition of a fourth paragraph to Article 43 of the Constitution on health protection, stating that “the state shall guarantee the right of women to voluntary termination of pregnancy under conditions of real and effective equality”.

The minister for equality, Ana Redondo, claimed that the initiative aims to ensure the effective exercise of this right throughout the country.

She explained that only around 20% of abortions are currently performed in public healthcare centres, with significant variations between Spanish regions.

According to Redondo, the reform also responds to an international context in which an “ultra-reactionary movement” challenges sexual and reproductive rights.

She also stressed that the constitutional amendment would reinforce the case law of the Constitutional Court and consolidate existing legislative advances.

The constitutional amendment requires a qualified majority to be approved. As it is an article included in the guiding principles of social and economic policy, it will need the support of at least three-fifths of both Congress and the Senate.

In certain circumstances, the text could also be put to a referendum if requested by one-tenth of parliamentarians.

According to official statistics presented by the government last October, 106,172 abortions were performed in Spain in 2024, the highest figure in over a decade.

FEREDE: “Undermines the protection of unborn human life”

The Federation of Evangelical Religious Entities of Spain (FEREDE) issued a statement expressing its concern over the government’s initiative.

According to FEREDE, making abortion a constitutional right “undermines the protection of unborn human life” and would go against the spirit of the Constitution.

FEREDE points out that, while there is no single dogmatic position on abortion within Protestantism, there is a broad consensus that life is a gift from God and must be protected from its very beginning.

The Federation also questions whether there is sufficient consensus within society and Parliament to introduce this constitutional change.

In its view, enshrining abortion as a constitutional right “will make the protection of prenatal life meaningless”.

The statement points out that case law of the Constitutional Court recognises prenatal life as a protected legal interest, and stresses the need to find a balance between women’s rights and the protection of unborn children.

Spanish Evangelical Alliance

The Spanish Evangelical Alliance (AEE) already expressed its views on the abortion debate in a document released in October 2025.

In that text, the organisation stated that, from an evangelical perspective, human life exists from the moment of conception, and therefore they consider abortion ethically permissible only in cases of clear danger to the mother’s life or serious malformations that make the foetus unviable.

The AEE also criticised the fact that the public debate focuses exclusively on the woman’s decision, ignoring the rights of the unborn child.

“Talking about voluntary termination of pregnancy is to ignore the fact that it is not a matter of flipping a switch, but of eliminating a life”, pointed out the statement,

They also stressed the need to provide more alternatives and social support for women with unwanted pregnancies.

The document concluded by describing the enshrining of abortion as a constitutional right as “a contradiction in terms” and warned of the social and demographic impact of a high annual abortion rate in Spain.

European debate

The debate over whether abortion should be enshrined in national constitutions has also been a major topic of discussion in Europe in recent years.

In 2024, France became the first country in the world to enshrine the right to abortion in its Constitution, after a social debate in which evangelicals took a stand against it.

In the Netherlands, a similar initiative was rejected.


This article first appeared at Evangelical Focus and is republished under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 license.

Death as a way out: a tragic euthanasia precedent in Spain

At the time of publishing, the young woman in question had already been killed by euthanasia and her organs harvested. This was a tragedy of epic proportions which was totally unavoidable, had Neolia Ramos been given the support she deserved.

by Jennifer Diaz at Evangelical Focus

Noelia Castillo Ramos is a 25-year-old woman from Barcelona, Spain, who will end her life through euthanasia on 26 March, after a long legal battle. Her controversial case has attracted widespread media attention in Spain.

The last few years of Noelia’s life have been marked by intense pain. She was diagnosed with BPD (Borderline Personality Disorder) at a young age, a serious condition that causes emotional instability, a profound sense of emptiness and fantasies of self-harm.

She has been under state guardianship since the age of 13. Due to their limited financial situation, her parents have had to rely on public resources for her care.

In 2022, she was raped, the details of which remain largely unknown. This traumatic event was the breaking point in her life. Afterwards, she attempted suicide by jumping from a fifth-floor window. She survived, but was left paraplegic.

Since then, she has had to use a wheelchair and take different medications to relieve the pain. Although these medications are effective, they cause her severe side effects.

After conducting several mental capacity tests and treatments, the psychiatrists who treated Noelia concluded that, despite her BPD, she was capable of making decisions about her life and death.

However, her story portrays profound pain, traumatic events and a BPD diagnosis, which at least partially clouds the autonomy attributed to her by the doctors, since BPD can severely affect a person’s emotions and undoubtedly impact decision-making.

In 2023, a discharge report concluded that Noelia was medically stable and her physical pain was under control. Nevertheless, despite all her father’s efforts to change her mind, on 10 April 2024 she officially requested euthanasia from the Catalan Commission for the Guarantee and Evaluation of Rights.

Just a couple of months later, on 18 July 2024, the commission accepted the request.

Noelia gave a final television interview before her death, in which she reaffirmed her decision to end her life with the support of her mother, although the latter made it clear that she did not want this ending for her daughter either.

The family is actually divided on the issue. Her father sought help from the Christian lawyers association, arguing that Noelia was not psychologically capable of making that decision. Against his wishes, the process continues.

This case sets a dangerous precedent in Spanish society, suggesting that a life of extreme suffering is no longer “worthy” of being lived.

Ours is a failed state that allows its citizens to resort to death not only for physical pain, but also for mental illness, as in Noelia’s case.

The 2021 Organic Law regulating euthanasia in Spain was originally approved for people suffering from a chronic, incurable illness that causes significant pain. This was based on the new individual right, namely the autonomy to exercise freedom over one’s own life and death.

Between June 2021 and mid 2025, euthanasia has been applied to 1,034 people in Spain. 

But, as anticipated, there is currently no clear definition of what constitutes this type of painful illness. This case raises the question: Do depression, various personality disorders and borderline personality disorder fall under this category? The answer seems to be yes.

We look with concern to a future that already seems dystopian, because depression is currently spreading throughout the world like a pandemic, and Spain is one of the countries with the highest suicide rates among young people.

Can the solution to this mental health crisis be entrusted to the state? Does society have the necessary tools to respond to profound suffering? Noelia’s case suggests it does not.

The state is making a serious mistake by believing that the dignity of life can be defined in terms of suffering.

It would be wise to view with suspicion this law based on the right to personal autonomy, which ignores that life is not the absolute private property of the individual, but rather has an origin and purpose that transcend the person.

God breathed the breath of life into Noelia, created her and was pleased to see her born, so that she might know Him and find the meaning of her life in Him.

Noelia’s pain is real and her desire to end her suffering is legitimate and entirely understandable. However, even though she is broken inside and has lost the will to live, Noelia was made in the image of God. Her life has incalculable value.

This is a heartbreaking story that should move us deeply. We live in a time of a total loss of the value of human life, where people have become disposable consumer goods. Society was unable to restore hope to Noelia, and then offered her the quick way out, disguised as ‘dignified’: death.

That is quite the opposite of the message of the Gospel, which delves into the heart of suffering to redeem it — not necessarily to eliminate it. God can redeem a life, even in such extreme circumstances.

Job longed for death; Elijah cried out to God to take his life; but undoubtedly, the most extreme case of physical and emotional pain was suffered by our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus is an expert in impossible causes; he is the Lord of those who seek him, of the brokenhearted; he is the comforter and the giver of hope.

The state surrendered too quickly with Noelia; God would never have done so, and neither should we surrender to the suffering of others by offering death as a solution.


This article first appeared at Evangelical Focus and is republished under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 license.