Mijn reactie bij het artikel ‘Pro-Lifers Are Like Flat Earthers, Says Sponsor of EU Resolution Calling Abortion a ‘Fundamental Right‘ van 28 juni 2021 van Michael Foust voor Christian Headlines. Ik heb er kritiek op en zet een Europese naast een Amerikaanse visie op het onderwerp: veilige toegang tot abortus voor vrouwen. Zie voor een Nederlandse vertaling bij reacties:
It is unclear why this article on European politics reflects the position of an American lobby group. It has only indirectly to do with the subject. Nor does it help that the author tries to put an American frame on this subject. That does not correspond to the European situation.
American politics is steeped in religion, but it’s different in Europe. There it is the exclusive territory of New Right and conservative Christians. Although in the US the importance of religion in society and politics is rapidly diminishing, partly due to the corruption of white church leaders with former President Trump. So in that respect, the EU and US are growing closer together.
The framing is normative that the resolution is ‘controversial’. Why is the word ‘fundamental’ put in quotes before the word ‘human right’? It is not enough for the writer to present the facts, but he tries to make the decision-making in the European Parliament suspicious. That is not very generous and understanding.
More interesting is what the article doesn’t say. Namely that safe access to abortion is a human right. That finds its reason in practical politics. Women’s rights are restricted in Poland and Malta. The resolution opposes that. The resolution is about safe access to abortion and not about ensuring its legalization. That is a possible next step.
Conservative members of the European Parliament also deny that access to abortion is a human or women’s right. They believe it is a legal right. What makes their position untenable, however, is that they accuse the drafter of the resolution of ideologizing a human right, but by withholding their support they do exactly that. Namely, the ideologizing of a women’s right.
The resolution should be understood not so much as a progressive offensive, but rather as an attempt to roll back the most restrictive measures introduced in some EU member states during the COVID-19 pandemic. In other words, the resolution goes back to the pre-COVID-19 status quo.
Nor does the article mention the negative influence of religion and conscience (the so-called “conscience clause,” for doctors to refuse help to women) on the position of women who want to have abortions. Abstaining from abortion can endanger women’s rights and lives.
The private opinion of the socialist MEP from Croatia Predrag Fred Matić, who makes a comparison between pro-life activists and flat earthers, does not belong in an overview, much less in the headline. Matić wrote the resolution. This is tendentious and unnecessarily tries to sharpen a serious debate about abortion and women’s rights.