The farce unfolded in two acts, separated by two years. In 2023, on the eve of retiring from , he held a virtual session designed to cast his vote for the decriminalization of abortion. Afterwards, as agreed, Luis Roberto Barroso requested a view, suspending the trial. The second act repeated the first. Barroso cleared the case to cast his vote, in a virtual night session, on his last day in court, aligning himself with Weber. Then, as agreed, he asked for a view, freezing the process.
The double performance was intended to satisfy the vanity of Weber and Barroso. In sessions without debates, the STF substantially renounced its collegial status, but acted collectively to deceive the public, simulating a trial. The actions between friends form private captures of the institution by the ministers, with the purpose of sugarcoating their biographies. Judges judge for themselves, using the supreme court as a tool to acquire an asset of symbolic value.
“The debate is not yet mature in Brazilian society”, explained Barroso when requesting an extended view. According to the fiction it sells, docile Brazilian society “maturizes” at the exact time of the “maturing” of its very personal decision to leave the STF. But, when conjuring a new request for a view with Gilmar, he recognizes the farcical nature of his actions.
The USA legalized abortion through judicial means, lighting the fuse of an extreme political polarization lasting half a century that resulted in the decision being reversed by a Supreme Court with a conservative majority. Italy did the same, but through parliamentary means, establishing a majority social option in law.
The votes of the two ministers imitate the American path, advancing on Congressional prerogatives. In this step, they exempt parties that defend the right to abortion from the duty to persuade the electorate and offer a flag to the reactionary right committed to the absolute prohibition of terminating pregnancy. “Enlightenment” activism hides in cowardice: Weber and Barroso will be behind the curtains when their symbolic votes produce real effects.
In his vote, Weber emphasizes the “right of women”, adding secondarily the “right to health”. Barroso’s short vote reverses priorities, justifying decriminalization essentially for public health reasons. His vote, not hers, opens the way to an enlightened debate on merit in the social arena, something that requires self-restraint from the STF.
The “woman’s right” argument (“my body, my rules”) ignores that the fetus is an “other body” and, furthermore, that legislation imposes paternal financial obligations during pregnancy. Politically, it is a recipe for inexorable failure for campaigns to legalize abortion.
The interpretation of abortion as a social right supported by public health imperatives shifts the debate to the sphere of pragmatic choices, enabling the delimitation of its limits and conditions. It is the only way capable of producing a political majority in favor of changing the retrograde criminal law.
Barroso could retire, first, and then use his respected voice to add thickness and depth to the public debate on the topic. He preferred to assign Aphrodite, goddess of vanity, the mission of carving out his legacy.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
