Once again, under the pretext of actions concerning fight with coronavirus, the European Parliament promotes radical demands regarding the promotion of abortion and claims of LGBT activists. Members of the European Parliament adopted a resolution regarding the EU’s public health strategy post-COVID-19. It contains proposals of access to ‘reproductive and sexual health services’, which include contraception, abortive substances and ‘safe’ abortion. This issue has nothing to do with the aspects of fighting the consequences of the epidemic; moreover, its regulation does not fall within the EU’s scope of competence.
The primary aim of the resolution was to give an overview of the consequences of COVID-19 and to present the steps that the European Union should undertake to mitigate the consequences of the spread of the coronavirus. Apart from unquestionable health care issues, the document contains also ideological proposals. In the opinion of MEPs, ‘the access to sexual and reproductive health and rights services has been negatively affected during the health crisis and women, children and LGBT+ people have been at higher risk of violence and discrimination’ (point W). For years, left-wing circles have used the term ‘reproductive and sexual rights and health’ for promoting the unlimited possibility of killing unborn children and vulgar sexual education. Importantly, states have also never agreed to the establishment of a separate category of ‘sexual rights’ that is used in an unauthorised manner by radical groups.
In the resolution, MEPs call on EU member states ‘to promote and ensure access to sexual and reproductive rights services, including access to contraception and the right to safe abortion’. This was emphasised even though the concept of ‘the right to abortion’ does not exist in the applicable international law. On the contrary, a number of treaties aimed at the protection of human rights guarantee the protection of ‘the right to life’ to everyone. In the opinion of the European Parliament, access to contraception, including emergency contraception, and to prenatal killing should be considered as essential healthcare services to be maintained in times of crisis (see point 25). In this way, the EP puts the killing of an unborn child on a par with basic health services saving health and life. For these reasons, the provisions of the resolution may be interpreted as an attempt to force EU member states to change their legislations regulating the market of contraceptives and abortive products.
Moreover, the resolution criticises the states that have not guaranteed access to prenatal killing during the epidemic. It states that the denial of access to ‘reproductive and sexual health services’, including ‘safe and legal abortion is a form of violence against women and girls’ (point 26). In the same point, MEPs encourage EU states to provide access to pharmacological abortion.
‘Although the establishment of the law regarding the permissibility of abortion falls only within the competence of EU states, MEPs call on member states in the adopted document to guarantee “ready access for women to family planning”, including “modern contraceptive methods and safe and legal abortion” as emphasised in point 26. The care expressed by the language of the text is aimed at creating a positive image of abortion and distracting attention from its negative and inseparable consequences. This is another attempt of Members of the European Parliament to influence decisions of EU states in the field outside the competence of the European Union. The proposals formulated by the European Parliament in this respect contradict also the provisions of international conferences in Cairo (1994) and Beijing (1995), during which it was stated clearly that the obligation of states is to act for the purpose of reducing the number of abortions,’ stresses Karolina Pawłowska, Director of the Centre of International Law of Ordo Iuris Institute.
The Sejm has registered the Citizens’ Initiative Committee “Yes to Family, No to Gender”. The initiative is aimed at terminating the Istanbul Convention by the Polish government. The Committee has submitted the first 3,500 signatures under the project.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sided with a Bulgarian woman who, contrary to Bulgarian law, demanded that she be recognised as a man. The courts refused to register her as a man in the civil status records, as her legal gender must correspond to her biological gender.
The European Commission intends to launch the first LGBT Equality Strategy, whose aim will be to promote the LGBT ideology in Member States. The Strategy will contain demands, among others granting same-sex cohabiting couples with the privileges of married couples, including adoption.
The European Court of Human Rights allowed a Nigerian woman living in Spain to keep in touch with her son. The woman had fought for the right to visit her child regularly and for the suspension of his adoption for a few years.