Informujemy, że Państwa dane osobowe są przetwarzane przez Fundację Instytut na Rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris z siedzibą w Warszawie przy ul. Górnośląskiej 20/6, kod pocztowy 00-484 (administrator danych) w celu informowania o realizacji działań statutowych, w tym do informowania o organizowanych akcjach społecznych. Podanie danych jest dobrowolne. Informujemy, że przysługuje Państwu prawo dostępu do treści swoich danych i możliwości ich poprawiania.
Skip to main content
PL | EN
Facebook Twitter Youtube

Fight with coronavirus as a pretext for promoting abortion. An ideological resolution of the European Parliament

Published: 05.08.2020

Adobe Stock

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.

Education

11.05.2021

Collegium Intermarium: a new university connecting academics from Central Europe

Collegium Intermarium is the first university registered in Poland after the great reform of the higher education system. Its mission is to build a platform of co-operation between academics from the countries of the Intermarium region. Multilingual study courses will start in October.

 

Read more
Family and marriage

07.05.2021

Together in the defence of fundamental values. International conference on the Geneva Consensus Declaration

Effective life and family protection requires joint actions at an international level. This issue was discussed at the conference on the Geneva Consensus Declaration.

Read more
Family and marriage

30.04.2021

European Commission’s unlawful attempt at interfering in family law. Petition of Ordo Iuris

The European Union announced works on a document demanding from Member States to acknowledge foreign adoptions of children by single-sex partnerships. According to EC plans, such provisions could be implemented as a regulation, which would be binding on all EU members. This would be contrary to the national law of several states, including Poland. The Ordo Iuris Institute has drawn up a petition to the EC authorities calling for them to abandon these plans.

Read more

Freedom of speech in jeopardy. European Commission to ban so-called hate speech

The European Commission intends to take action against freedom of speech. The EC initiative would incorporate the so-called ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crimes’ in the catalogue of ‘EU crimes’. This means that they would be included in Article 83 (1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, in this way, behaviours covered by these terms would be inevitably considered crimes by all EU Member States.

Read more