The territory Court in Warsaw repealed the order of the Warsaw-Śródmieście territory Attorney's Office to refuse to initiate proceedings on the activities of the alleged abortional “abort” “Abotak”, ordering it to conduct an investigation. The Court of First Instance considered that the prior decision of the prosecution was ‘early and based on incomplete evidence’.
The prosecution was forced to prosecute the abortion falcon “Abotak”. It appears that the decision of the court may appear only to take method account of the remedies. In fact, it points to a much deeper problem: an inconsistent, instrumental policy of law enforcement and criminal justice in the fight against abortion activists of the far left.
Let's callback the context of this case: the "Abotak" facility was opened in Warsaw on 8 March 2025 by the activist "The Abortive Dream Team", as a form of civilian protest against existing abortion restrictions and a de facto test of legal and police boundaries. Prosecutor’s Office received a announcement for the activities of this henchman from the Ordo Iuris Institute, who accused the organizers of actions contrary to Article 152 of the Criminal Code and the Pharmaceutical Law Act. Unfortunately, the prosecution refused to initiate proceedings, considering the evidence gathered as insufficient.
The refusal to prosecute was pointed out by observers as an expression of the deficiency of clarity of explanation and political direction of the prosecution's decisions by Waldemar Żurek people, alternatively of basing them on a transparent, predictable explanation of the law.
The authoritative guidelines in this case, issued by the lawyer General, stress that the offence under Article 152(2) k.k. is formal – this means that there must be a specific, identifiable pregnant individual who has been assisted in abortion in order to be able to talk of criminal liability. However, the study afraid – according to the prosecutor's office – a more abstract plan and declaration than a documented act against a peculiar patient.
However, erstwhile examining the case, the court concluded that the refusal decision was ‘early and superficial’. specified a verdict of the court shows unequal standards of functioning of state institutions in socially and politically polarized situations. While the prosecution may exercise caution in the prosecution of abortion – in literal terms, related to circumstantial cases of violation of the law – the decisions of the court indicate that the function of the prosecutor must not be reduced to the function of abortionists due to ideological pressure.
This phenomenon should not be underestimated due to the fact that it leads to a situation where criminal law becomes a tool for fighting for social order alternatively of protecting the most crucial legal assets. specified distortion of the functions of law enforcement undermines trust in the regulation of law, especially in the area of reproductive rights – rights that enter the most intimate spheres of citizens' lives.
This case is not isolated – previously, the prosecution has besides made controversial decisions in akin contexts, even in terms of waiving abortion investigations at different stages of pregnancy, which, according to opponents of restrictive criminal law policy, confirms the dysfunction of the law enforcement strategy in these areas.
In conclusion, the repeal of the prosecutor's order by the court shows that the conflict around abortion in Poland is not only about literal application of the rules, but about deeper tensions between the judiciary, ideological policy and civilian rights. In specified a situation, law, which was to be an instrument for the protection of the social order, begins to be a tool that undermines the coherence and predictability of the regulation of law. And I guess that's what this is all about – to convince the leftist that they can do more as long as the Civic Coalition governs. That's how you build an iron electorate.
We besides recommend: The Tusk government strikes entrepreneurs with another absurditym
