The purpose of the hearing was to discredit the pro-life organizations, question their legitimacy, and exclude them from the democratic debate.
2021. On March 25, Croatian MEP Berraj Matic submitted a draft resolution to the Chamber of Deputies On the state of sexual and reproductive health and rights in the European Union. Although this area falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Member States, the draft resolution seeks to advance itRight to Abortion » At the same time with the removal of the objection of conscience, contrary to European law.
Health is not the prerogative of the European Union, but the prerogative of the state. More specifically, it would be illegal to take action on abortion; The monopoly of member states on this issue has been repeatedly emphasized by various European bodies. Recently, the European Commission reported that “Legislative powers relating to sexual and reproductive health and rights, including abortion, are within the competence of Member States.” This position is consistent and is regularly confirmed by the Commission.
Given the reluctance of member states to introduce a standard they did not choose, proponents of this draft resolution will attempt to take advantage of the non-binding law system to introduce a new standard. It should not be underestimated that the institution has chosen this strategy, because although the decisions of the European Parliament have no binding legal value, they express a position on which Parliament intends to speed up actual legislation.
First of all, this draft resolution emphasizes “The Right to Abortion” It seeks to establish it in international law, and derive it from the right to health, and more specifically from sexual and reproductive health. However, in international law, no treaty recognizes it “The right to an abortion”, Nor in the field of sexual and reproductive health. On the contrary, it precludes a connection between the two concepts. First, it was only mentioned in an international treaty “Sexual and Reproductive Rights”, But abortion is also not included. Similarly, with the Cairo Declaration of 1994, which excluded abortion from these rights. Instead, he stated, abortion should not be considered a legitimate tool for family planning, and states have committed to reducing the number of abortions. In 2014, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon claimed that she was كانت The roadmap remains unchanged.. In 2020, 35 of the United Nations endorsed the Geneva Declaration of Consensus which states that abortion does not fall within the scope of sexual and reproductive health.
According to the draft resolution, the “The Right to Abortion” To achieve this, all obstacles to the practice of abortion, including the objection of conscience, should be removed. According to the draft resolution, the possibility for medical staff to refuse an activity deemed incompatible with their religious, moral, philosophical or moral beliefs should be prohibited. The draft resolution considers that this position should be interpreted as a refusal of medical care.
Therefore, the illegality of the proposals contained in the draft resolution is clear from several aspects; This appears to be confirmed by offensive references to weak legal sources in his references. The course cites European directives that differ significantly from their field of work, as well as texts that have no legal value. Aware of this weakness, the draft resolution’s proponents vowed to pre-empt any opposition.
So an attack was organized against the pro-life organizations, and this was in mind that a hearing was held in the European Parliament on March 25, 2021. The hearing presented the pro-life organizations as part of a conservative Christian conspiracy against EU values. The purpose of the show was to distrust partisan organizations, question their legitimacy, and exclude them from the democratic debate. However, this experience seems somewhat hypocritical, especially when we look at the relationships between foreign organizations and the different speakers in this session. They are all active in the field of abortion and are part of large global networks that are generously funded by organizations such as Planned Parenthood, the Open Society Foundations and the Bill Gates Foundation. The paradox of this argument is also reflected in the completely one-sided nature of the trial. It is a real ideological maneuver created by abortion supporters so that they can later impose their ideas of human rights without hindrance.”