Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-12-Speech-3-270"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030212.9.3-270"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I should like to say a few brief words to present the amendments tabled by my group and to ask for the support of the House.
Four of them, from Mrs Montfort and Mr Mauro, deal with the specific and important question of the need to have special provisions in favour of extensive access to services that cater for and support future mothers in distress so as to help them bear their children.
In a regulation covering reproductive health in developing countries, it would be difficult to understand where our policies are heading if support for motherhood and special care for mothers in distress were not properly taken into account.
The other specific issue is a sensitive one which must be addressed clearly: is the European Union going to fund abortion worldwide or not? This is a key aspect of the text on which we will vote. I know that in substance our views are different and that laws differ from one Member State to another. I do not want to open a debate that is not in the competence of the Union.
We cannot accept, however, that European Union funds would be applied in abortion-oriented policies. The matter still requires clarification. The official policy of the EU must be open and clear to everyone, not disguised or covered up. Ambiguity is very wrong here. Our Amendments 49 and 53 are in the direction of clarification.
I was pleased to hear Commissioner Nielson in committee, the day the report was adopted, assuring us that it is not correct to say that the EU is trying to develop an abortion policy and that those who imply that are ill-informed or wish to distort the reality. I would be even happier if I could be reassured tonight. The EU should not promote abortion.
There are details that raise concern. For instance, on an official Commission website on the development sector, the term 'population' is defined as: 'an umbrella term now used to describe issues relating to demography and reproductive and sexual health and rights which can include issues such as abortion'. This raises concerns. Who adopted such a biased and twisted definition in the Commission and what are the implications?
It is not a secret that an NGO, Marie Stopes International, actively worked with Parliament to prepare this legislation. I have here a message, sent a few days ago to several MEPs, that indicates that Marie Stopes was working at the secretariat of the European Parliament Working Group on Population. Once out and in the open this, though a bit awkward, might not be such a big problem. But in a report published by Euro NGOs, the representative of Marie Stopes states that her organisation is a major provider of abortion that is working with Vietnam and in other countries where abortion may be illegal. This raises huge concerns. The apparent active involvement of Marie Stopes in the preparation of this legislation reinforces the need for crystal clear clarification in our debate and in the text of the regulation. That is what we are asking for in Amendments 49 and 53."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples