Estrela-Report: why and how it was rejected. A look back.

At the end of an exciting week at the European Parliament, it is now a good moment to look back on the events that led to the defeat of the so-called „Estrela-Report“, a motion for a resolution that, although non-binding from a legal view, would have expressed the Parliament’s support for the radical abortionist/homosexualist agenda that is hidden beneath the seemingly innocuous code-word “Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights”.

My purpose with this is not to comment once more on the content of the controversial draft resolution (in his regard, I direct you to my previous entries), but to shed some light, using the Parliament’s own video footage and transcripts, on the strategy that is deployed to get such content adopted by the European Parliament.

That strategy is relatively simple, but it is often successful. The Parliament’s Committee for Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, which is a kind of sheltered workshop for feminists and gay rights activists inside the EP, tasks one of its members with the drafting of a report on “Sexual and Reproductive Rights”. Some lobbyists from Planned Parenthood lend her a helping hand. What results is a lengthy document on an issue that is far remote from the Parliament’s actual competences, and in which highly controversial and radical content lies hidden below a thick layer of uncontroversial and well-sounding phrases. That document is then endorsed by the other members of the Committee (in which feminists and gays have a solid majority, given that even conservative parties have some MEPs that have this rather peculiar agenda), and transmitted to the Parliament’s plenary.
The speculation is that the controversial stuff will not be noticed before the vote has been taken. This strategy stands a good chance of success, given that (1) the document is rather lengthy, (2) it is rather boring, (3) it will have no binding legal effect even if it is adopted, (4) it contains a lot of language that everybody can agree upon, and (5) the Members of Parliament that will take the final vote have a lot of more important and more interesting documents to read.

And, of course, the controversial bits are well hidden, or maybe included only by reference. In the case at hand, for example, the draft report included a reference (on p. 4) to a document on “Standards for Sexuality Education” that probably none of the other MEPs (except the author of the draft) had ever heard of, and stated (in § 47) that all children should have access to education complying with those standards. Nowhere was it explained that those “Standards” requested, inter alia, that 0-4 year old children should be taught about masturbation(!). But this is only one example of many. The whole document is constructed in that way: it seems to speak of “health” and “rights” (who would be against?), but in reality it spells out an anti-rights agenda, undermining the right to life for children, the right of parents to be the primary educators of their children, or the right of healthcare professionals to act according to their conscience. The language is twisted, so as not to betray the intentions of the drafters too overtly.
But in order to make the success of this strategy even more certain, it is important that no substantial debate is allowed to take place in plenary, so as to avoid raising the attention of well-meaning MEPs, who would happily vote for a document that advances “health” and “rights”, but who would certainly not want to lend support to the radical agenda that lies hidden beneath.

The Parliament’s President is Martin Schulz, a German socialist, who is known to be a strong supporter of the homosexualist/abortionist agenda. It is perhaps no coincidence that he has allocated a timeslot of merely 5 minutes (!) for the discussion of the controversial report on sexual health, which is scheduled to take place on Monday evening, sometime around 8pm. The voting time has been set for 11.30 am on Tuesday.

On Monday afternoon, however, while the order of business for this week’s session is set, Bernd Posselt, a conservative MEP from Bavaria, raises his hand. (He is one of the very few who have actually read and understood the draft resolution!) Allocating five minutes to discuss such a controversial report, he says, is tantamount to a prohibition to discuss it. If there is not sufficient time to discuss the report, it should be taken off the agenda.

The President is slightly irritated. He says that, in line with the rules of procedure, the Presidency has decided, as it is allowed to do, that the draft should be the subject only of a short presentation by the rapporteur, not a discussion.

The video footage is here (see at 17:32), and the transcript is here. (Both Gentlemen speak German, but you can listen to the video in English and all other EU languages.)

Later that evening: (video, transcript)

The time has come for Mrs. Estrela to present her report. Note that the room is nearly empty, as it is already late and most MEPs have already left for dinner. Mrs. Estrela thanks to all who have supported her in the drafting of the report, including “the representatives of some NGOs” (is she referring to Planned Parenthood?). She claims that “in the name of Human Rights abortion must be legal and safe”. She asserts that in countries where abortion is not legal, many women die from unsafe abortion (the old pro-abortion stereotype, which however is never corroborated by any tangible facts…). She reports that in certain European countries up to 70% of gynaecologists and 40% of anaesthetists are conscientious objectors. (Kudos to them! One might think that the conscientious objection of so many should be sufficient reason to call in question the practice of abortion, but Mrs. Estrela does the contrary: she calls in question the moral judgment of the objectors.) She claims that such a situation, where abortion is not available on demand, stands in contradiction to “international medical norms”, but she doesn’t specify which. She claims that “it has been proven that sexuality education reduces teenage pregnancy, sexually transmissible diseases, and abortion. (Really? Who has proven that? Does it apply to the specific type of education that she is seeking to promote (see above)? How about an education that informs adolescents about the practical benefits of chastity and self-control?). Finally, she claims that the main reason for the low birth rates in EU is that women have on average lower salaries than men. (Yet another stereotype, which is often repeated, but for which no evidence has ever been provided).
Then the debate is opened. Only eight MEPs are allowed to take the floor for one minute each, and among them only three critics of the proposed report: the Croat Davor Stier, the Pole Marek Migalski, and the Italian Claudio Morganti. The discussion is not only very short, but the speaking time is distributed very unevenly.

Among those supporting the report, Ulrike Lunacek, a radical homosexuality-promoter from Austria, tries to make a mockery of conscientious objection: “I conscientiously object to allowing women to be hurt or killed because of lack of access to safe abortion, be it in Ireland (as just happened a couple of months ago) or in other parts of the world”. This is triple nonsense. First, if she claims to have a right to conscientious objection, why shouldn’t all the others have the same right? Secondly, who on Earth has ever forced her to “allow a woman to be hurt and killed”? There is a difference between being forced to act against one’s conscience, and being prevented from acting as one might want to. Third, her reference to a case in Ireland is not only wrong, but it is a DELIBERATE LIE: she is obviously referring to Savita Halappanavar, a pregnant woman who died from sepsis in a hospital in Galway, Ireland. The case was politically instrumentalized by abortion activists who claimed that an abortion might have saved Savita’s life. In response to such assertions, the incident has been subject to a thorough investigation, which resulted in the finding that an abortion would not have saved Savita’s life, but that in fact the cause of her death was medical negligence which led to a series of uncompleted checks and inadequate Procedures. The result of that inquiry was published some weeks ago and publicized widely both in Ireland and abroad, as Mrs. Lunacek must by now know perfectly well. But apparently she is one of those politicians who believe in “useful lies”.

The same can be said of the last speaker, Michael-“Blitzkrieg”-Cashman. This morally discredited man, who uses Nazi jargon to describe his own political activities, repeats the Savita story, which apparently he believes to become true through repetition.

Then the debate is over. Lunacek and Cashman have managed to waste the scarce time for discussion with the Savita myth, and with assertions over their own sexual proclivities (as if anyone were interested).

The next day, Tuesday.

The voting on the report had been scheduled for 11.30 am, but it actually begins one hour later. Rather than describing the events with my own words, I’d refer you to the video (or, if you prefer, the transcript). However, I suggest to turn your attention to the lady chairing the assembly at this moment: Vice-President Anni Podimata, a socialist from Greece. She, too, follows the line, apparently decided by President Martin Schulz, to rush the controversial report through the vote at any cost.

A  request made by the British conservative Ashley Fox  to refer the report back to the Committee is turned down no less than four times. At the end the chair realizes that the mood in the assembly has reached a tipping point: MEPs who might have voted in favour of the report are getting upset by the arrogant way in which she continues to push for a quick adoption. Visibly, an ad hoc coalition against the report is forming. (It is indeed rather rare to see Elmar Brok, a highly influential centrist Christian democrat from Germany standing up to defend the minority rights of the French Front National…) There is a risk that the report might be rejected.

Mrs. Podimata reluctantly decides that a vote must be taken on the request, reiterated by several MEPs, to refer the matter back to the committee. This is still better than an outright rejection. She opens the vote. But Hannes Swoboda from Austria makes a last ditch-attempt to prevent it from happening: the voting on the report has already begun, he says, and it is too late to refer it back to the Committee. Heckling from the floor. But it is too late: the vote takes place – and the report is referred back to the Women’s Rights Committee, from which we hope it will never return.

Conclusion: The strategy of making Members vote on a document most of them don’t know has often been successful. But it has failed this time, and it was precisely the arrogance of the Presidency, combined with the apparent unwillingness to allow an open debate on the controversial report, that has aroused awareness. After this Tuesday, everybody in the Parliament knows about this report, and Members begin to understand what it actually contains. From now on, the radical abortionist/homosexualist agenda is under scrutiny.

View online at: https://c-fam.org/turtle_bay/estrela-report-why-and-how-it-was-rejected-a-look-back/

© 2026 C-Fam (Center for Family & Human Rights).
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.
www.c-fam.org