The principle of subsidiarity violated” “

On 3 July the European Parliament discussed and approved (280 votes in favour, 240 against, 28 abstentions) the report and draft resolution of the Belgian Socialist Anne Van Lancker on “Sexual and reproductive health and rights” (cf. SirEurope no.19 of 16/5/2002). The document, adopted in the Commission for women’s rights and equal opportunities on 6 June with 19 votes in favour, 11 against and 2 abstentions, was subjected to a long and heated debate on the proposals put to the governments of the member states and of the candidate countries, aimed, on the one hand, at guaranteeing “easy and affordable” recourse to “emergency contraception” (i.e. the so-called “day after pill”) and, on the other, ensuring that “with a view to safeguarding women’s health, abortion be legal, safe and accessible to everyone”. After the approval of the report in the Commission, the political groups of the European Parliament presented 34 amendments. The plenary session accepted only 9 of them, which have no influence on the significance of the report as a whole: in particular, amendment no. 27 presented by the European right (UEN) and aimed at cancelling the paragraph on the legalization of abortion was rejected. By contrast, amendment no. 1 presented by the European People’s Party was passed, albeit by only one vote: it affirms that the juridical regulation of reproductive rights is the competence of the member states “and that the principle of subsisidarity is applicable to the sector”.The text of the report and of the resolution are available on the EP’s website, www.europarl.eu.int. We asked Father Pierre de Charentenay , director of OCIPE (“Office Catholique d’Information et d’Initiative pour l’Europe”) in Brussels to comment on he result of the vote. How do you evaluate the report on sexual rights and reproductive health approved by the European Parliament? “The report contains some ideas that can be shared and others that cannot. For example, in principle, it is right and proper that steps be taken to protect the health of women, and it’s therefore a good thing that the report should draw our attention to these aspects. Nonetheless, recommendations are made in the document that are contrary to Christian morality, such as the recommendation to member states and to the candidate countries to legalize abortion with a view to the protection of the health of pregnant women. The basic problem, however, is the fact that the EU ought not to intervene in the legislation of the member states on so delicate a matter as that of abortion”. Has the principle of subsidiarity been violated? “I would say so. The approval of this document is clearly a violation of the principle of subsidiarity. In fact, the report recommends the governments of the member states and even those of the candidate countries to adopt measures for which the EU has no competence. It should, on the contrary, be recalled that everything that concerns personal ethics cannot be the responsibility of the European Union. The tone of the document clearly shows, moreover, that the pro-abortion and anti-religious and anti-Catholic lobbies are still very active within the EP: these organizations use the concept of anti-discrimination to override the principle of subsidiarity. We need, on the contrary, to promote respect for diversity”. How do you comment on the result of the vote? “The presence within the European Parliament of a significant number of MEPs favourable to pro-abortion legislation is confirmed. But what is ever graver, I repeat, is the fact that the MEPs themselves have not taken the principle of subsidiarity into consideration: and yet it is they who are the first to affirm that national sovereignty must be the object of absolute respect. I believe that by acting in this way and approving the Van Lancker report they have contradicted the fundamental rights of the European Union, of peoples and of states. In this way we are faced by a Europe ‘insupportable’ in the eyes of citizens, a Europe that demonstrates the will to have a voice on the matter even when – as in the case of questions connected with ethics and morality – it has no right on the matter at all”.