Intrusion into the field

Can there be such as thing as “the right to abortion”? Can conscientious objection be limited when it is becomes an “obstacle” to a supposed “right to abortion”? Such major ethical and political distortions are contained in a Report on “Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights” (signed by Portuguese MP Edite Estrela) presented in plenary sitting at the European Parliament October 22 after the document had been adopted by the Commission for women’s rights. But the document – which in any case has no cogent legal value – was voted to refer back for further committee work, sparking off a veritable clash in Parliament.  When it was the time to vote, an alternative resolution marked by pro-life stances, was rejected by a large majority; but MEPs also decided to halt the Estrela report, voting for a referral back to committee, where it could be re-discussed, modified and re-launched, or dropped. Carlo Casini, president of the Committee for Constitutional Affairs of the EU Assembly, argues, quite rightly, that with the “referral back to the committee, the European Parliament has said that it is time to end the oblique, arrogant” and “deceptive” approach with which “the bioethical issues are constantly presented “to the attention of the Parliament”. The text addresses numerous topics ranging from the fight against HIV in sexual education, to the protection of migrant women, to the relations between the EU and developing countries in the socio-medical fields. The report contains points which are highly acceptable, for example when it states that “socio-economic and employment conditions of women and young couples often hinder the choices of maternity and paternity” or that “maternal mortality continues to be an item of concern in some Member States”. The resolution, which the Parliament in Strasbourg voted to refer back for further committee work, also contains – in addition to an undertone of claims that are far from advocating the promotion of human life – a chapter titled “unplanned and unwanted pregnancies: access to contraception and safe abortion services”, from which emerges, through the termination of pregnancy, a desire for unnatural “family planning”. It also targets “the practice of conscientious objection” accused of denying “access to reproductive health services”, including “lawful pregnancy interruption”, to a large number of women”. Before the tug of war broke out in Parliament, causing unexpected stands and divisions among Countries and within political groups, the Secretariat of the Commission of Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community (COMECE) had sent an authoritative opinion. “EU citizens should not be misled. The EU has no competence in regard to abortion”. Referring to the EU Treaty – which stipulates Member States’ competence in the field of health policies – COMECE called upon the EU to “respect and not interfere in decisions” that fall within the responsibility of Member States, also in view of the fact that abortion is illegal or subjected to shared restrictions in some EU countries. Moreover, COMECE deplores the fact that “the Report put to vote may confuse EU citizens”. “With elections to the European Parliament on the horizon, EU citizens need to be reassured that the EU will stick with its legal competences,” avoiding first and foremost all actions that pose a threat to the fundamental right to life. While the adjournment can be described as a “close call”, there are other long-term issues which deserve attention, of which at least two must be mentioned.The first was highlighted by the COMECE bishops, namely, that there are areas in which the EU and the Member States should not “exceed their competence”.In fact, it is a question of respecting EU Treaties, the subsidiarity principle and the motto of the European Union, namely, “unity in diversity”. The “common home” can be erected if the differences between Member States are preserved and enhanced, not if they are denied in the name of forceful and non-respectful forms of diversity. The second question is equally crucial. It is largely believed that pro-life stances do not enjoy support by EU Parliament majority, and if the resolution were up for a second debate in the Assembly it may obtain a majority vote, as it happened in the past. Yet the European parliament is elected by European citizens: so should we think that MEPs are representative of a widespread feeling that turns its back to the culture of life, to the promotion of family values that are part of the Christian heritage of the continent? This triggers a reflection on the wide field of Christian witness in the public domain that is called to follow, for the present as for the past (according to the example of the “founding fathers” Schuman, Adenauer and De Gasperi), the path of cultural, social and political commitment. European Parliament elections are drawing near. Will the faithful be able to be on the frontline, thereby incorporating evangelical values and Church teaching within the European construction process?