Praising herself, insulting her opponents, telling lies: Edite Estrela makes a second attempt to get her report on “sexual rights” adopted

By J.C. von Krempach, J.D. | November 12, 2013

Following the defeat of her report on “sexual and reproductive health and rights”, Edite Estrela, an ultra-feminist Member of the European Parliament, is back in the offensive. In an article in this week’s edition of “Parliament Magazine”, the European Parliament’s in-house newspaper, she prepares the ground for a second attempt to get the controversial report adopted by the Parliament’s Plenary.

As readers of this blog will recall, the Plenary, in its session of 22 October, had decided to send back the report to the Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, from where it had originated. This clearly reflected the majority’s view that this report was so evidently ill-drafted that it could not possibly be subject to a vote. At the same time, this decision gives an opportunity to the Committee to improve the drafting prior to submitting it to the plenary for a second time. The message is quite clear: there is support for proposals that would really improve health, but there is no support for Mrs. Estrela’s attempt to promote abortion, curtail the freedom of conscience of medical practitioners, and impose on parents a duty to instruct their 0-4 year old children how to masturbate.

Thus, the Committee should now make a serious effort to take into account the criticism that was voiced against the report, and seek for compromises. It could remove the reference to the controversial document on “Sexual Education” in which one finds the recommendation that 0-4 year olds should be taught how to masturbate, and it could acknowledge that true sexual education includes moral principles that help children to later become good wives and husbands, and that a stable marriage is the best basis for a happy family life. It could clarify that “freedom of choice” is not for women alone: in countries where abortion is permitted, medical practitioners must have at least the freedom of choice not to be involved in abortions, without having to fear the loss of their jobs and livelihoods. It could clarify that the right to life is a fundamental human right, and that every human being is a bearer of that right, beginning from the moment of conception. It should acknowledge that fertility and pregnancy are not diseases, and that abortion is not a “therapy”.

But alas, Mrs. Estrela’s article in “Parliament Magazine” shows that no constructive effort is to be expected from her, nor from the other Committee Members who approved her original draft. The strategy is confrontation, not compromise, and she apparently hopes to muster support for her abortionist-pansexualist agenda by bullying and insulting all those who happen to have other views than hers, rather than by working on a text that really reflects the opinions of the European Parliament.

Here are some excerpts from Mrs. Estrela’s prose, to which we have added some comments:

“Due to a grubby alliance of the Right and Far-Right groups, namely the EFD, the ECR, non-attached MEPs and some of the EPP, the report was referred back to committee, where a new vote will have to take place. As I had the opportunity to state during the vote, this makes little sense, as the parliament’s women’s rights and gender equality committee members voted largely in favour of the report the first time and the same thing is very likely to happen again.”

Instead of offering arguments to convince those who failed to support her text, Mrs. Estrela fires insults at them: they are “grubby, far-right politicians” whose action “make little sense”. It also becomes clear that she will make no constructive attempt to improve her draft. Instead, she seems to think that if her report gets a majority in the Women’s Rights Committee, the Parliament’s plenary will be (at least morally) obliged to adopt it. This reveals a rather poor understanding of the Parliament’s procedures, which, given what happened two weeks ago, is rather astonishing. Mrs. Estrela is apparently unwilling to learn from experience.

“Some MEPs preferred to defer the decision despite having the opportunity to take a stand on such an important issue, only a few months before the European elections. How can these MEPs explain to voters that they don’t permit access to safe abortion even in cases of rape or when the life of the woman is at risk? How will they justify that they are against comprehensive sexual education in school, when there is evidence that it contributes to reducing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs)?”

This passage misinforms readers both with regard to the content of Mrs. Estrela’s draft and with regard to the criticism that was voiced against it. In actual fact, the draft does not limit itself to calling for “access to safe abortion in cases of rape or when the life of the woman is at risk”, but it calls for a full-fledged right to “abortion on demand”. At the same time, it is wrong to say that her opponents are “against comprehensive sexual education in school”. The truth is that the ill-fated report called for “compulsory sexual orientation in- and outside school”, and the documents it referenced deal with the education of children below school age, suggesting (inter alia) that children aged should be taught about masturbation, or that parents should be obliged to tell their children that they should have a “non-judgmental attitude” towards sexuality, which actually implies that they should put their sexuality to whatever purpose they like, as long as it feels good. By bringing forward such ideas, Mrs. Estrela not only disrespects an important human right (namely the right of parents to be the first and foremost educators of their children, which is recognized without exception in all major human rights treaties, and in particular Art. 2 of the 1st Protocol of the European Human Rights Convention!), but she also promotes the opposite of what she claims to be promoting. The “sexual education” she is advocating in fact is the opposite of education. Mrs. Estrela and her crowd reduce “sexual education” to encouraging children to masturbate and informing them about the correct use of condoms and contraceptives, but they would be the first to oppose any attempt of parents to provide to children a value-based education, in which information on sexuality is linked to the purpose of founding stable marriages and happy families.

No, Mrs. Estrela cannot claim that she is promoting “comprehensive sexual education”. It is actually her opponents who advocate comprehensive education, whereas Mrs. Estrela is promoting a reductionist and irresponsible “anti-education”, which indeed is likely to increase rather than reduce the risk of teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. If we wanted more teenage pregnancies and STIs, then Mrs. Estrela’s report certainly would show us the way how to get there.

But instead of engaging in rational argument, Mrs. Estrela prefers to continue with her name-calling:

“Many lies have been told regarding the content of the report, due to a very aggressive campaign led by the most conservative movements in Europe. The opposition to the report exceeded the boundary of rationality and common sense. If this was the reaction to a resolution, what would have happened if it had been a legislative initiative?”

So, those who have dared to oppose her enlightened views have been “exceeding the boundaries of rationality and common sense”, waging a “very aggressive campaign” and “telling many lies”? Unfortunately, Mrs. Estrela fails to provide any example for those “lies” and “irrationality”, so we are left to guess. From various sources it has transpired that she was upset about a briefing that exposed the implications of the “sexual education” she was promoting, and which has apparently cost her report the support even of many leftist and liberal MEPs. However, as we have set out in sufficient detail here and in a previous post, this was (unfortunately!) not a lie, but the sad truth. Rather than accusing us of lies, Mrs. Estrela might take the time to read her own draft report (which allegedly was not drafted by herself, but by the lobbyists of IPPF). Does Edite really know what is in her text? At least now, before bringing it to the Plenary for a second time, she should study it with greater care…

But while Mr. Estrela does not hesitate to use harsh words on all others, it does not seem to occur to her that she might herself be to blame. On the contrary:

“This report provides a very in-depth analysis of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights…”

Oh, does it really? Is there really nothing that could be improved?

Towards the end of her short article, Mrs. Estrela sets the focus on what must be seen as the real purpose of her non-binding report: the removal of all legal and factual obstacles for an unrestricted access to abortion. (With this, she contradicts her previous assertion that her report was only about “access to safe abortion in cases of rape or when the life of the woman is at risk”.)

“It must be noted that barriers to abortion services are also being increasingly imposed in countries even with permissive abortion laws. In the main, women have to face the unregulated use of conscientious objection of reproductive healthcare providers, mandatory waiting periods or biased counselling. Doctor’s practice of conscientious objection has denied many women access to reproductive health services, such as information about, access to, and purchase of contraception, prenatal testing, and lawful interruption of pregnancy.”

Once again, the self-described “pro-choice” lobby actually turns out to be anti-choice. The fact that people want to act according to their well-informed consciences appears to be something that Mrs. Estrela finds impossible to accept. Thus, as one might have expected, she finally plays what she thinks is her trump card: the old abortionist myth that restrictive laws on abortion cause the death of women.

“In some cases, these situations have led to tragic endings. In moments like this, it is important to remember Savita Halappanavar’s death, a week after her admission to hospital, focusing international attention on Ireland’s abortion laws. We cannot allow women to continue to die because they cannot access to legal and safe abortion services or because there is unregulated use of conscientious objection.”

So far, I have been careful not to call Edite Estrela a liar. Personalities like she are so imbibed by their ideology that they tend to lose contact to reality and wind up living in a world of their own making. One must therefore always give them the credit that they subjectively believe that what they say is true, even if it has nothing to do with any verifiable facts. And even though Edite herself does not hesitate (see above) to accuse all her critics of “telling many lies” without even attempting to specify those lies, I think there is no necessity for anyone to retort in this style.

But the absurd claim that the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar in an Irish Hospital cannot anymore be justified by mere lack of better knowledge. The incident has been investigated probably more thoroughly than any death of any other woman in Europe in the last thirty years. The results of the investigation have been published and are in the public sphere; they are just a few mouse clicks away on the internet. The truth is: Mrs. Halappanavar was pregnant, and she died while she was in hospital. But her death was not caused by her pregnancy (or rather: any complication related to it), nor would an abortion have saved her life. Moreover, if her life could have been saved only through an abortion, the legislation then in place in Ireland would have allowed it. Mrs. Estrela’s claim that Mrs. Halappanavar died because she had no access to abortion, or because there was unregulated use of conscientious objection, is thus doubly wrong: first, because it misrepresents the facts of the case, and secondly, because it misrepresents the legal situation in Ireland.

This incident having been the subject of so intense media coverage, as well as of a thorough and impartial criminal investigation, there is by now no excuse left for not knowing the real facts. There is nothing to oblige Mrs. Estrela to speak of Savita Halappanavar – but if she does, she should first avail herself of all relevant information. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that her failure to do so is mere carelessness. Instead, there is every reason to believe that she knows that her claims are not true, but that that she continues making those claims against better knowledge. For this, I think Mrs. Estrela deserves to be called a liar, even on a public forum like this one.

The question is, why do politicians like Edite Estrela (and her likeminded colleagues Michael “Blitzkrieg” Cashman and Ulrike Lunacek) continue making assertions about Savita Halappanavar’s death, which they must by now perfectly well know to be false? Why do they so strongly insist on this stupid lie, which is so easily exposed simply by looking at the results of the investigation?

The answer is: if they could promote their abortionist-homosexualist agenda without such lies, I presume they’d most gladly do so. If they knew of any other case that could be used for their propaganda, they would use that one, not the case of Savita Halappanavar. But they do not know of such cases. In reality, there are no such cases. Nought. Zero. Nada. Neither in Ireland, nor anywhere else, do women die because of restrictive abortion laws. In particular, there is no known case, not a single one, be it in Ireland or elsewhere,  where an abortion could have  saved a woman’s life, but was not provided as a result of conscientious objection. Ireland is one of the countries with the lowest incidence of maternal mortality world-wide. So is Chile, another country with restrictive abortion laws.

By contrast, many women die, or are severely injured, as a result of botched abortions. But these are more likely to occur in countries where abortion is legal, or where restrictive abortion laws aren’t enforced.

The claim that the legalization of abortion will lead to lower incidences of maternal mortality is just a myth, for which there is not only no proof, but which is clearly contradicted by all available evidence. And I suppose Mrs. Estrela is perfectly aware of this. Her assertions are not made in good faith.

This is also why her rhetoric is so aggressive and uncompromising. She knows perfectly well that engaging in a constructive and fact-oriented debate would mean to blow up the whole edifice of lies and ideology that her draft report represents. Therefore, reason and facts are just not an option for her.

How will this saga continue? We will keep you informed.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter