Other monarchs have managed with similar laws have managed to avoid giving assent (Leopold of Belgium, Alois of Lichtenstein). (I’ll confess I didn’t realize Vladimir merely meant Royal Assent.)
But if Winniesboy is merely insisting that the Queen is merely a useless, cowardly Christian, but not actively oppose to Christian morals, consider the fact that the Queen gave the former head of Planned Parenthood International the rare and high honor of being named “Commander of the British Empire.” That should utterly put to rest any notion that the Queen was merely avoiding expressing an opinion out of a tragically misguided sense of deference to the mechanisms of democracy.
Her husband joked as he opened an abortion clinic, “We need to ‘cull’ the surplus population. In the event I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
If you aren’t horrified by such a joke, Winniesboy, you’ve utterly lost the ability to be outraged.
An entirely different situation. The constitution of Belgium explicitly gave Leopold the ability to step aside and allow the law to take effect without his signing anything. The constitution of Liechenstein also contains a provision that explicitly allows the Reigning Prince to refuse consent. The British constitution does not contain such a provision.
Constitutional monarchies are governed by their own individual constitutions. The fact that some of these constiutions gives the Monarch certain powers does not mean those powers are available to all other Monarchs. The Queen of the United Kingdom is bound by the constitutional law of the United Kingdom and that law does not give her the power to withhold assent to a law except on very specific and limited grounds.
Her Majesty cannot refuse assent to a law that has been correctly and constitutionally passed by Parliament unless it is somehow unconstitutional. She cannot do it on moral grounds, or because she does not like it. She does not have that power.
Anybody who believes she does should read Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice which is part of Britain's constitution (though the Constitution is said to be unwritten this simply means that it's actually spread across multiple documents).
"The necessity of refusal of the royal assent is removed by the strict observance of the constitutional principle, that the Crown has no will but that of its ministers; who only continue to serve in that capacity, so as long as they retain the confidence of Parliament.
It is interesting that until 1967 (the year of the Abortion Bill) there was an unusual circumstance in existence that would have allowed a Bill to become law without the Queen's personal signature - it was a procedure called Assent by Commission which was used in 1811 on the Bill that created a Regency for King George III - as the Regency was necessary because the King was incapable, he could not give assent and so that procedure was used. But that power was taken away by Parliament in the Royal Assent Act of 1967, shortly before the Abortion Act was dealt with, so the Queen no longer had that option available. It would have been very surprising if she'd used it but it was taken away from her. One might speculate as to why, Parliament took that action in that year at that time.
Those who believe the Queen could have or should have withheld consent from the Abortion Act of 1967, or indeed any other law, do not understand the British constitution. They seem to think it should say what they want it to say, rather than what it says.
And besides that they are expecting the Queen to violate her Coronation Oath which she gave to God:
Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
An oath she gave while 'laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible' and kneeling before the Great Altar of Westminster Abbey, with the final words:
The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.
They are asking her and expecting her to betray a sacred Oath she made to God. On top of asking her and expecting her to violate the constitution.
Firstly, the honours system. Honours such as the CBE you mention are not in the personal gift of the Queen. They are chosen by a committee of the Cabinet Office following a process of public recommendation and consultation. Those selected are then formally recommended to the Queen, who does not have a power of veto. Her only role is to present the honour at a public ceremony. (And given that there are many 'political' honours, awarded 'for political services' following recommendations by the political parties, she has doubtless had to grit her teeth while pinning a gong on the lapel of many a rogue and charlatan over the last 65 years.) There is a small category of honours which are in the personal gift of the Queen, but the CBE is not one of them.
Ian Duncan Smith. There's no doubt that had he still been leader of the Conservatives at the time of the 2001 General Election, and had the Conservatives won that election, he would have become Prime Minister. Following a General Election, the Queen is obliged to invite the leader of the largest party in the Commons to form a government.
The Duke of Edinburgh's reported remarks. Given that the Queen's Consort has no constitutional status, it's hard to see how my reaction to those remarks is relevant to the matter under discussion. Judging Heads of State by the unscripted remarks of their spouses has never been wise.
Finally, on the Constitutional questions, I hope the typically authoritative post from naturalman1975 has put the matter to rest.