Brussels, 30/01/2008 (Agence Europe) - The public hearing held on 29 January in Brussels by the European Parliament's committee on women's rights and gender equality on “sexual and reproductive health and rights” uncovered two very different life-views on issues of contraception and abortion, and also on the need (or lack thereof) to institutionalise sex education to enable all young people to develop fully. Two different worlds confronted these issues: using ethics as their basis, MEPs from the new EU Member States were generally attached to the principles of religious morality, essentially those of the Catholic Church, and did not accept contraception or abortion, whereas MEPs from the old Member States, who were more in tune with scientific and medical progress, deemed it vital to a woman's physical and psychological health to be free to choose whether or not to become a mother. The hearing was a successful one, with broad participation from civil society and MEPs, among them a large number of Polish MEPs, and also MEPs who are not members of the committee on women's rights who had come in as reinforcements, such as Polish members Ewa Tomaszewska (UEN), Wojciech Roszkowski (UEN), Slovakian MEP Miroslav Mikolasik (EPP-ED) and Irish MEP Mitchell Gay (EPP-ED). The success was welcomed by the Polish socialist MEP Lidia Joanna Geringer de Odenberg, who said that she was “astonished that there were even MEPs here whom I have never heard speak!”. “The debate was very animated but the hearing proved that opinions differ on sexual health and rights. This division is seen throughout Europe but every man and every woman has the right to decide on their life”, the President of the committee, Anna Zaborska (EPP-ED, Slovakia), said in conclusion, adding that “the debate will continue”.
Wanda Nowicka, the President of the ASTRA network and of the Polish federation for women and family planning, presented the recent trends in terms of sexual and reproductive rights in Central and Eastern Europe, particularly Poland. On the issue of abortion, Ms Nowicka stressed “the very great influence and role of religious institutions and the Catholic Church” and highlighted the danger of 'back-street' abortions “which are sought out by women given the legislative restrictions”. On reproductive rights, she indicated that these “are not perceived as an issue of equal rights. The rights of the foetus trump the rights of the woman”, she added, appealing for “complete, clear and transparent sex education information; information which is completely lacking in some regions”. In conclusion she hoped that the EP would draft a new report, following that compiled by Anne Van Lancker (PES, Belgium) which was adopted in 2002, and that the Agency for Fundamental Rights and the bodies responsible for gender equality would take up this subject.
On behalf of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Belgian lawyer Irène Donadio looked at sexual and reproductive rights and access to healthcare, highlighting the difficulties experienced by the most vulnerable groups; young people (“who have needs when it comes to sexual issues”), disabled people (“who have feelings and needs but who often remain invisible within healthcare systems”), people who are HIV-positive and still of child-bearing age, migrants and illegal immigrants, and minorities. “In health education these groups should be given special attention”, Ms Donadio noted, expressing the hope that “sex education will be institutionalised”.
Jana Tutkova of the Czech Republic, the Director of the Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, presented a very conservative vision of contraception and voluntary abortion. “The State these days encourages choices which undermine the family”, she said, citing “embryo farming” as an example. In Ms Tutkova's view, “the war against women's fertility is a war against woman who has become a sexual object!”. She also criticised the EU, inviting it to “promote public health rather than abortion, contraception and hormonal stimulation”. Ms Tutkova rose up “against synthetic hormones which mutilate women's bodies!” “We must review our way of thinking. Sex in order to reproduce, to conceive: fine. I invite you to extend bio-principles to the body”, she exclaimed, sharply criticising the pharmaceutical industry “which is even more profitable than arms-trafficking”. Ms Tutkova concluded: “The role of the EU is to recommend healthy choices to its citizens: better hygiene, better diet. We are forced to observe that there is a lack of medical aid while contraceptives are all around us! We must stop exporting abortion using European taxpayers' money!”.
Sandra Dahlen, an educator and consultant on sexual and equality issues (Sweden) said that “sexuality is an integral part of our lives. Sexuality is identity, relationships, health and democracy. There must be access to properly handled information”. And Douglas Silva, a researcher at the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (USA), added that “reproductive rights are a basic right”.
Presenting the European Commission position on these matters, its representative noted that “the good health of women and children is a necessary condition of development, (…) and the Commission wants to promote access to reproductive health as part of the 5th Millennium Objective”. It was added that in terms of public health, the Commission “aids civil society, guarantees monitoring, promotes the exchange of good practices”. These are initiatives which were welcomed by Anne Van Lancker (PES, Belgium), who believes that “women's reproductive health is key to the development of our societies”.
According to Ewa Tomaszewska (UEN, Poland), “pressure in favour of the right to abortion encourages people to be irresponsible! The right to convenience and consumption should be less that the right to life!”. In the MEP's view “the decision on conception must be a free one (…) and the lack of workers emerging in Europe will not be resolved through immigration”. Wojciech Roszkowski (UEN, Poland) wondered why the expert Wanda Nowicka talked of “anti-choice movements, institutionally supported by the Church, rather than pro-life movements”.
Zita Plestinska (EPP-ED, Slovakia) wondered “why sex education should take place in schools rather than within the family? What of the role of the family, then?”. She also posed some other questions about contraception: “Have we asked the child whether it has the right to life? Can a woman live a full and happy life knowing that she killed her child? Does the EP have the right to intervene in a life?”. Konrad Szymanski (UEN, Poland) believes that sexual and reproductive health rights “should not figure in European policy as there is a division in Europe on these matters and Europe should take this on board or risk losing its credibility”.
Eva Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL, Sweden) warned Jana Tukova: “It is no good judging homosexuals or women who have made a choice in terms of reproduction. We must respect their choice, their way of life!”. In Ms Svensson's view, “what people are afraid of is giving women rights over their own body. In 2008 I cannot understand how we can forbid women to discuss and make decisions concerning their own life, their libido, their right to control their own bodies!”. She concluded by stressing the importance of sex education in schools “so that everyone can decide freely on their own life and have free access to contraception”.
Zuzana Roithova (EPP-ED, Czech Republic) said that “even though sexual and reproductive rights are linked to cultural, social and religious issues which depend on the Member State, we must be able to help women in difficult situation, via for example the British baby box system, which allows a baby to be left anonymously at health establishment. This possibility must be given to people to help them live more comfortably”. This point of view was shared by Vera Flasarova (GUE/NGL, Czech Republic), who underlined the importance of family in women's lives. Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL, Portugal) pointed out that “maternity and paternity are fundamental social values which should be anchored in law”.
“The decision to become a mother belongs to the woman. It is not up to a doctor, or the father, or a religious representative to decide. It is a difficult decision and we should not, therefore, stigmatise women who make this decision”, said Raül Romeva i Rueda (Green/EFA, Spain). Agreeing with the proposals made by her colleague Romeva, Lissy Gröner (PES, Germany) said: “I feel like I'm in a debate from the 70s when there was abortion tourism!”. She added: “Health and sexual reproduction rights should not be limited to abortion. The Commission should not tolerate any meddling with these rights”. Donata Gottardi (PES, Italy) highlighted the paradox of the debate on medically assisted procreation, “where the influence of the Catholic religion is unbelievable in many countries! Abortion, yes or no? That's not the question. The question is: under what conditions”. Miroslav Mikolasik (EPP-ED, Slovakia) pointed out that the right to life is regulated at national level. “When we talk about the life of a baby we are not talking about its own life, we're talking about the life of a human being”, he said. Finally, Maria Panayatopoulos-Cassiotou (EPP-ED, Greece) asked that the European Commission “express itself with more severity, as guardian of the treaties, on these issues so that international law is taken into account”. (G. B.)