Li jmiss 
 Test sħiħ 
It-Tlieta, 14 ta' Marzu 2017 - Strasburgu Edizzjoni riveduta

10. Global Gag Rule (dibattitu)
Vidjow tat-taħditiet

  Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dnia jest oświadczenie Wiceprzewodniczącej Komisji i Wysokiej Przedstawiciel Unii do Spraw Zagranicznych i Polityki Bezpieczeństwa w sprawie amerykańskich przepisów dotyczących tzw. global gag rule (2017/2599(RSP)).


  Christos Stylianides, Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice—President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, honourable Members, I am here on behalf of my dear colleague, Commission Vice-President/High Representative Federica Mogherini. As you know, President Donald Trump has reinstated the Mexico City Policy with a presidential memorandum issued on 23 January. This policy requires foreign non-governmental organisations to certify that they will not ‘perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning,’ as a condition for receiving US global health assistance. This also includes NGOs receiving funds from outside the US.

The policy, when in effect, applies to foreign NGOs as a condition for receiving US family planning support, either directly or indirectly. So the Commission is concerned about the possible implications for our objective of achieving universal coverage in health and reproductive health services, particularly in developing countries. Eventually, this decision might also impact on our Sustainable Development Goals, targets to reduce maternal mortality, and to empower women to take more informed decisions about their health. In the poorest countries of the world, this can put the lives of young women and girls at risk. And we do not want the progress that we have made over the past decade on women’s rights to be lost.

Let me be clear: European Union policies are driven by our own priorities and values, not by what others do or stop doing. As far as humanitarian aid is concerned, what I can say, as the Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid, is that our approach is based on needs. Our humanitarian partners which consider that abortion would be appropriate are not prevented from doing so. We have never issued instructions to the contrary. A decision on abortion will depend on various factors: the woman’s wishes after she has received all relevant information, definitely her condition, and the legal framework of the country, of course, which could influence the security of both the woman and humanitarian workers. In this context, decisions on how to treat women and girls are always better left to doctors. It is not something for lawyers to prescribe.

Let me add that we are also continuing our work to prevent sexual and gender-based violence. Focusing on the treatment of violence can only ever be a second-best. Prevention is also the reason why we have strengthened the place of gender in our humanitarian aid. Over the past decade, the Commission has allocated around EUR 200 million annually from the humanitarian budget to healthcare, including sexual and reproductive health.

In parallel, my dear colleague, Commissioner Neven Mimica, issued a press statement on 1 February 2017 underlining that the Commission will continue to play a leading role in ensuring women’s access to health and family planning services around the world. He also attended the ‘She Decides’ event on 2 March 2017 and reiterated our commitment. Several governments and private philanthropists have pledged nearly USD 200 million for family planning services. We are also assessing the potential impact of a loss of funding for the UN Population Fund (UNFPA). The funding gap could be large. Together with Member States and civil society in particular we are analysing the US contribution to the fund in order to determine the best approach to take.

We remain strongly committed to supporting global health initiatives such as UNFPA, into which we are putting EUR 20 million for 2016 and 2017; and also the Global Fund, to which we have pledged EUR 475 million for 2017 to 2019. Or GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, to which we have pledged EUR 200 million for 2016 to 2020; and the partnership programme with the World Health Organisation and Luxembourg, worth EUR 28 million, for 2016 to 2018. The informal foreign affairs and development ministerial meeting on Thursday will enable this matter to be addressed. We will have an impact only if we respond together, with a common European position.


  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, thank you so much, Commissioner, for everything you are doing.

I strongly condemn the newly instated global gag rule. We had an alarm call from Africa, through Asia to Latin America, on the serious consequences for the health of hundreds of thousands of women and girls globally. Today my thoughts really go to all these women and girls who are at risk of losing a very important health programme. This also applies to the Zika virus, AIDS prevention, on prenatal and postnatal basic assistance for babies and young women, victims of rape, and victims of female genital mutilation. The risk is that women’s mortality is going to increase and that there will be more illegal and unsafe abortion.

Last week we were marking the International Day of Women. We met fantastic women from Tunisia, Morocco, Kosovo, all over the world. We were told terrible stories of a woman that was found with a piece of a television antenna in her uterus because she wanted to interrupt her pregnancy. Another one had drunk pesticide and died. This is not to mention the victims of Isis and Daesh slavery, and the girls that come back, having been released from Boko Haram, and who are refused into their communities and cannot in the new circumstances get assistance for their basic health and reproductive rights and for their children.

What we are talking about is not whether you are for abortion or against abortion. We are talking about humanitarian law: health, safety, child protection and women’s rights are human rights. No woman or girl should have to risk her life to have a baby. That is what we are talking about.

There is a chorus of concern that is coming from NGOs, Save the Children and the United Nations. Europe has to step in. This is our opportunity to show leadership. Trump’s sexism is as bad as the problem that we have with security in Europe and with free trade with the new administration. I am glad that the ‘She Decides’ campaign has been so successful. I am glad that today we have voted to devote European funds to compensate for this setback. I hope that more pledges will come, and the test is going to be next week at the United Nations Conference on the status of women. I call on Member States to do their part and to raise their voice. Let us continue to support the Women’s March in the USA and Europe, and women’s health in the world.


  Linda McAvan, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, this is an extremely important debate, and I am glad we are having it in the week when we are debating women’s issues after International Women’s Day and just a few days after the conference in Brussels on ‘She Decides’.

This is a debate we should not really be having, because a woman’s access to family planning should not be a political football to be given and withdrawn depending on who is in government. In particular, it does not seem right to me that it is a decision that has been taken by people who will not be affected by it. People here will not be affected by this decision, and certainly the men who surrounded President Trump when he signed it into law will not be affected by this decision. It is the poor women in the world, and the poorest countries in the world, who will pay the price – the women we heard from at the ‘She Decides’ conference on 2 March.

So if we are serious – as the Commissioner said – about the SDGs and gender equality, we cannot afford the cuts that have been talked about. An estimated 225 million women globally lack access to modern contraception. Every day, 830 women die from preventable causes linked to pregnancy and childbirth. That is over 30 an hour. It is one since I started speaking to you. As we have just heard from Mrs Corazza Bildt, no family planning means other problems, such as HIV and other issues. Let us make no mistake about it: cutting this funding does not mean fewer abortions. All the evidence from the last period when the gag was in place shows that the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions increased when the global gag came in. Mrs Corazza Bildt has just told us about the consequences and what happens to women when that happens. So this policy is not a success story, and that is why she said that we must step in. But we must also step up now.

So what can we do here in the EU to counter this policy? Well, we voted today. We voted for the report by Claire Moody this morning with a very big majority, calling for EU funds to counter the cuts caused by the global gag. We can support the ‘She Decides’ initiative, and I pay tribute here to Lilianne Ploumen and the Swedish, Danish and Belgian Ministers who organised that conference and brought over 50 countries together to raise funding. We can also look at our own wider funding and prioritise SRHR spending in our own plans. We have got a review of the DCI coming up and of the EDF in the mid—term. Let us look at what we are doing already.

Commissioner, you indicated that the Commission was willing to do this and will be talking about it in the Council on Thursday with Ministers. I hope you will come back soon and tell us that the funding is being made available and that we will back the ‘She Decides’ initiative. Looking around this room, many of us here – mainly women here, but men as well – have made choices about our own fertility and if and when to have children. It is not a first world right, it is a right for every woman, wherever she lives. Commissioner, I know that you will be supportive on this, but we need the support of the whole Commission and Ministers to make sure that women are not let down after this gag comes into place.



  Branislav Škripek, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, yes, women must have good quality health care – especially when it concerns the unique contribution to our society of having babies. So my opinion is, why would anyone – especially those calling themselves feminists – complain that a global abortion industry is losing some of its funding? Why are EU Member States wanting to step up and fund a practice that harms women and babies? That is genocidal, economically disastrous and anti-democratic, anti-feminist and anti-woman. And if someone has a different opinion, if President Trump decided on a different approach, it would have to be respected. There are reasons. And also there are reasons which come from reverence: reverence to life, reverence to dignity of life, reverence to the right to be born and to live, and reverence to those who cannot speak for themselves – for those who are unborn yet and cannot speak for themselves.

So I strongly disagree with the Commission’s intent to spend millions to export this barbarism to developing nations. Abortion has no healthcare benefits. There are none. And it cannot be called health care. Abortion is not a health initiative, as Commissioner Stylianides has named it, because it cannot be called a basic health care. All of those valuable resources should be immediately redirected to provide real and maternal care to women so that we can benefit from the next generation and not mourn them.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))


  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE), blue-card question. – Mr Škripek, can I ask you whether you have ever spoken to a woman who got pregnant, even though she did not want to? Maybe the man she had sex with did not want to use a contraceptive or it broke or she might have been raped. That even happens within families. It happens with brothers, husbands, etc. Have you ever spoken to anyone who said no, she did not want to have that child? Just another question: have you ever imagined what would happen if you were able to get pregnant and you did not want to become pregnant? Maybe, in such dire circumstances as we have in many countries in this world, would you then not decide that you did not want that and you wanted to have safe access to abortion, given that otherwise both you and the child could die?


  Branislav Škripek (ECR), blue-card answer. – I do not know if I will manage two questions in 15 seconds; probably you need to answer in 30 seconds.

Of course I did speak to a lady who was in a difficult situation. What I condemned on this industry is that it is a mixed thing; all, all, all, all reasons into one. Let us help children to be aborted, let us fund it. But the other side does not speak about the very different approach which admires life. This is what I am missing on this pro-life and pro-choice debate. A lady does not kill her own body, cannot decide about her own body, because it is not her body. If she kills her body, she dies. After abortion a baby dies, not a lady.


  Sophia in 't Veld, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I am not sure what to say to Mr Škripek, because I do not have the illusion that we are going to change his mind. But maybe I would rather address the citizens of the European Union, who should understand that the agenda of the so-called populist parties is not just about nationalism, anti-EU or national sovereignty; it is also very much about sexism and misogyny. It is against women’s rights. So keep that in mind when you go to the ballot box, and know what you vote for – like the Trump administration, who reinstated and expanded the gag rule, and the Helms amendment, which was still in the background. It is very necessary that the European Union gives a strong response, and I very much welcome the very positive attitude of the European Commission. You have our support, because the European Union must not only accept standards imposed by third countries; we must lead in the world, we must set the standards. We are the strongest actor in the world, and we have to make sure that we impose the standards and do not accept. That is why I very much welcome the ‘She Decides’ initiative. It sends a very strong signal to the Trump administration and women around the world. We need to go further.

First of all, I would like to ask the European Commission about the 2015 letter about women who are pregnant as a result of rape in conflict, and you consider that that is covered by international humanitarian law. But now we need to make sure that these guidelines are actually transmitted through the practitioners in the field so that people know that they have the backing. Women should know what their rights and their options are, so I would call on the Commission to do this proactively.

Secondly, we need to fill the funding gap that was left by President Trump, but not only in response to him reinstating the gag rule. But it has to be structural. If we want to lead, it has to be structural.

Finally, we are going to table amendments to the budget this year in order to strengthen the funding. I also expect those EU Member States who have pledged funds to the ‘She Decides’ initiative in the budget procedure to give support to amendments, increasing the budget for sexual and reproductive health and rights – and not only in situations of conflict. Because, dear colleague Škripek, I firmly believe that women should decide on their own bodies. Always.


  Przewodniczący. – Panie Komisarzu! Padają pytania i propozycje, tak że proszę uprzejmie w czasie przewidzianym dla Pana wziąć to pod uwagę.


  Malin Björk, för GUE/NGL-gruppen. – Herr talman! Varje republikansk presidentadministration i USA har infört denna gag rule, men den här är värre än de flesta andra. Den går ännu längre. Den stryper i stort sett allt stöd till kvinnors sexuella och reproduktiva hälsa. En god sexuell och reproduktiv hälsa är en fråga om liv och död för kvinnor runtom på det här klotet.

Det är emellertid också en fråga om att kunna leva ett helt eller att kunna leva ett halvt liv, att ha kontroll över sin kropp och sin sexualitet eller att inte ha det. Denna munkavleregel innebär ett så djupt förakt för kvinnor, för vår hälsa och för vårt välbefinnande. Men precis som våra kolleger från USA sa som jobbar för Pro-choice: Vi kommer inte att vara tysta, vi kommer inte att bli munkavlade. Precis som olika medlemsländer står upp för kvinnors rättigheter måste EU nu också göra det.

Jag välkomnar She Decides-initiativet. Det är en del av svaret, men det räcker inte. Det är för tyst från kommissionen, och det är för tyst från rådet. Min fråga är vad EU kommer att göra, inte bara på politisk nivå utan även vad gäller finansiering. Europaparlamentet har agerat. Vi har röstat både förra och den här sammanträdesperioden. Vi vill se mer finansiering, ökad finansiering till kvinnors sexuella och reproduktiva hälsa och rättigheter.

Nu vill vi dock se att också rådet och kommissionen agerar. Vi behöver tydliga rekommendationer till våra partnerorganisationer hur de ska garanteras att de kommer att kunna fortsätta utföra viktig och livsviktig abortvård. Vi behöver öka biståndsbudgeten till kvinnors hälsa och sexuella och reproduktiva hälsa och rättigheter.

Jag skulle vilja säga så här, nämligen att ens engagemang och uppriktighet sätts på prov när det är motigt. Om EU menar allvar med kvinnors rättigheter är det nu man måste stiga fram och gå till konkret handling.

Vi ska därför fördöma EU:s gag rule, vi ska ta striden i internationella fora, och vi ska skjuta till mer pengar! Jag ser fram emot de besluten, både i rådet och i kommissionen.


  Terry Reintke, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, we call it the Global Gag Rule, but what are we actually talking about? We are talking about the lives and the well-being of millions of women worldwide. We are talking about girls getting support after being victimized by female genital mutilation. We are talking about maternity care for pregnant women. And, Mr Škripek, I think it shameful that you are insulting family planning organisations here by calling them an abortion industry, whereas sometimes they risk their lives and their well-being to help women who are at risk of serious health damage.

I find that unbelievable and we should not accept it as parliamentarians in this Chamber: these organisations are doing great work. We are talking about access to contraception here. We are talking about providing sex education, but we are also talking about giving women power over family planning and hence their freedom to decide about their own lives and be an equal part of society. We are talking about progress within societies. We are talking, indeed, about the Sustainable Development Goals, and, sadly, we are talking about an old white man in the White House who, in one of his first actions in power, has threatened all of these things. Approximately USD 600 million could be lost. We cannot let this happen. So, Commissioner, I urge you to increase the EU funding, to counteract and fill this decency gap, and also to take a very clear message to our colleagues in the US: we, as the European Union, will fight for the freedom and self-determination of women and girls all over the world.


  Przewodniczący. – Faktem jest, że pan Škripek zgłosił się przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki, ale ja chciałbym prosić, aby to nie była dyskusja czy debata między paniami posłankami a panem Branislavem i abyśmy jednak uznali, że każdy już raz z procedury niebieskiej kartki skorzystał.


  Beatrix von Storch, im Namen der EFDD-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Es geht heute um die Finanzierung von Abtreibungsorganisationen. Die USA haben beschlossen, Abtreibung nicht mehr zu finanzieren, und jetzt will die EU in diese Lücke springen.

Abtreibung ist keine Zuständigkeit der Europäischen Union. Wir können doch nicht etwas finanzieren, für das wir gar nicht zuständig sind – wo kommen wir denn da hin? Außerdem ist in Deutschland Abtreibung immer noch eine Straftat! Sie ist nur in Ausnahmefällen nicht strafbar. Das einzige Gute an dieser Debatte ist, dass wir endlich wahr werden und Sie aufhören, von reproduktiver Gesundheit, von Humanität und Kinderschutz zu sprechen. Es geht um Abtreibung! Es geht um das Beenden des Lebens ungeborener Kinder – das kann man, glaube ich, ganz objektiv so sagen, das werden nicht mal Sie bestreiten.

Die EU ist dafür nicht zuständig. Abtreibung ist eine Straftat. Hören wir auf, diese Dinge finanzieren zu wollen, für die wir nicht zuständig sind und die strafbare Handlungen sind, sondern kümmern wir uns um den Schutz des Lebens, anstatt es zu beenden!

(Die Rednerin ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)


  Eleonora Forenza (GUE/NGL), domanda "cartellino blu". – Volevo chiedere all'onorevole se considera il diritto delle donne all'autodeterminazione qualcosa di cui l'Unione europea si debba occupare, se considera il diritto all'autodeterminazione qualcosa che le Nazioni Unite hanno sancito come un diritto fondamentale, un diritto umano fondamentale e un diritto delle donne.

Io la prego di considerare che continuare a negare il fatto che le donne possono scegliere sul proprio corpo, questo sì, non ha nulla a che fare con l'Unione europea.


  Beatrix von Storch (EFDD), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Also die Global Gag Rule – da geht es exakt und präzise um Abtreibung. Da geht es nicht um das ganze Andere, da geht es um Abtreibung, um das Beenden von Leben. Und wenn Sie die ganze Zeit davon reden, ob die Frauen ein Recht über ihren Körper haben: Ja, aber vielleicht auch mal vor der Zeugung. Dieses Reklamieren eines Rechts über den eigenen Körper setzt doch schon vor der Zeugung ein, und in 98 % der Fälle ist es eben keine Vergewaltigung, die zu einem ungewollten Leben führt.


  Przewodniczący. – Chciałem się zwrócić do pani in 't Veld. Pani Poseł! Chciała Pani zadać pytanie, ale mam prośbę: jedno pytanie przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki do jednego mówcy. Zatem jeżeli wystąpienie któregoś z mówców sprawi, że Pani pytanie nadal będzie aktualne, to proszę zadać je następnemu mówcy, dobrze? Proszę o wybaczenie, ale musimy się jakoś zorganizować.


  Marie-Christine Arnautu, au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, décidément tous les prétextes semblent bons dans cet hémicycle pour attaquer le nouveau président américain que vous vouez aux gémonies, tout comme vous n’avez de cesse de lancer d’ailleurs des anathèmes contre le président russe, au motif qu’il mène dans son pays une politique familiale qui ne vous convient pas.

Je comprends votre frustration de voir votre modèle de société rejeté et je m’en réjouis. Les États-Unis ne chercheront plus à imposer au reste du monde, par le biais d’ONG, comme le planning familial international, des normes politiques héritées de la révolution culturelle de mai 68. Et c’est une bonne nouvelle. La volonté américaine de bouleverser les structures familiales traditionnelles et sa promotion agressive de l’avortement urbi et orbi n’étaient pas en effet acceptables. Mais l’Union européenne n’a manifestement pas cette sagesse. Le rétablissement par M. Trump de la «politique de Mexico» – adoptée par les présidents républicains depuis Reagan et interdisant le financement des ONG pro-avortement – est un signe que notre vieux monde s’écroule et cela vous effraie. À tel point d’ailleurs, que le gouvernement socialiste français s’est cru obligé de faire voter une loi visant à interdire les sites internet qui présentaient simplement des solutions autres que l’avortement. D’ailleurs, je n’ai pas entendu, à ce moment-là, les habituels chantres de la tolérance s’indigner de cette atteinte manifeste à la liberté d’expression.

En revanche, pour faire la morale à M. Trump, la gauche, sa cohorte d’associations idéologisées et la droite molle se mettent toutes en branle. Mais c’est le droit le plus strict des États-Unis de choisir leurs propres critères de financement des ONG.

Les instances européennes, de concert avec les médias et les associations politisées, n’ont pas à instrumentaliser cette affaire pour nuire au président américain, élu démocratiquement, je vous le rappelle. Ce sont les mêmes qui sans cesse invoquent le droit international pour forcer les États à se soumettre au dogme libertaire qui, ici, ignore superbement, à la fois la souveraineté des États et les engagements internationaux.

À l’heure où près de 50 millions d’avortements sont pratiqués chaque année à travers le monde, la réduction du recours à l’avortement devrait réellement devenir un objectif de santé publique, comme le stipulent les engagements internationaux pris lors de la conférence du Caire en 1994.

(L’oratrice accepte de répondre à une question «carton bleu» (article 162, paragraphe 8, du règlement))


  Hilde Vautmans (ALDE), "blauwe kaart"-vraag. – Collega, ik vind dat u in dit debat twee dingen heel erg door elkaar hebt gehaald door Trump te vergelijken met Poetin. Laten we hier op het halfrond bij het debat blijven. Het gaat er vandaag om dat wij als Europa de president van Amerika laten weten dat vrouwenrechten voor ons allemaal gelden en dat wij vrouwenrechten over heel de wereld moeten respecteren.

Dus als u nu zo optreedt tegen abortus – ook al kennen wij natuurlijk allemaal al heel lang uw standpunt – dan betekent dat eigenlijk dat u tegen het zelfbeschikkingsrecht van alle vrouwen bent. Weet u, mevrouw, dat er elke minuut ergens ter wereld een vrouw sterft door een onveilige uitvoering van een abortus? Dit moet Europa een halt toeroepen.


  Marie-Christine Arnautu (ENF), réponse "carton bleu". – Madame le député, il ne vous aura pas échappé que je suis une femme et je suis un député français élu au Parlement européen. Ce que je vois, c'est que dans mon pays, depuis 20 ans, il y a 200 000 avortements par an et que, malgré toutes les campagnes d'information, ces avortements ne diminuent pas.

Je vous dis aussi qu'il y a eu énormément de campagnes d'information et que, contrairement à ce que vous dites – et c'est une contre-vérité –, nous ne sommes pas contre le droit à l'avortement, ni contre le droit à l'information. Je dis simplement que nous sommes pour le droit d'informer les femmes des autres possibilités qui s’offrent à elles. D'ailleurs, puisque vous parlez beaucoup de droit international, je vous rappelle que, justement, une obligation contractée par la France et la plupart des États de l'Union européenne en droit international, par rapport à cette convention du Caire, était de soutenir justement les enfants avant comme après la naissance, et de prendre des mesures appropriées pour les femmes, justement pour essayer de ne pas avorter.

Voilà ce que j'ai dit, rien de plus, rien de moins.


  Branislav Škripek (ECR). – Mr President, I would just like to mention that, according to Parliament’s rules, I was named by Mrs in ‘t Veld and Mrs Reintke by name and I had the right to react.


  Przewodniczący. – Jeżeli chce Pan zareagować, bardzo proszę, po zakończonej debacie może Pan w granicach 3 minut wygłosić swoje osobiste oświadczenie. Zgoda?


  Marijana Petir (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, gospodine povjereniče, ova politika SAD-a nije nikakva novost, ona postoji još od 1984. godine i u potpunosti je u skladu s međunarodnim konvencijama – programom djelovanja donesenim na Međunarodnoj konferenciji o stanovništvu i razvoju održanoj u Kairu te Pekinškom deklaracijom i platformom za akciju.

Ključno u tim dokumentima jest da pobačaj nije metoda planiranja obitelji i novac je pritom uskraćen isključivo organizacijama koje promoviraju pobačaj kao metodu planiranja obitelji. Sredstva nisu nestala niti su smanjena, kako se pogrešno navodi, ona su i dalje tu i primat će ih organizacije koje se bave zdravljem žena i djece. Pobačaj kojim se spašava život majke nije podložan ovoj politici. Također, pobačaj u slučajevima silovanja ili incesta nije obuhvaćen ovom zabranom, kao ni post-pobačajna njega.

Ne postoji financijska praznina koju treba popuniti kada je u pitanju financiranje usluga planiranja obitelji. Financijska praznina stvorena je samo u odnosu na pobačaj kao metodu planiranja obitelji, a što je zakonom zabranjeno u većini zemalja u razvoju. Stoga, ako se nevladine organizacije drže zakona u tim zemljama i ne provode nezakonite pobačaje, ovom politikom ne bi trebale biti oštećene.

Apsolutno se protivim ideji da EU financijski potpomaže organizacije koje promoviraju pobačaj kao metodu planiranja obitelji u trećim zemljama. Novac od strane Europske unije treba biti dodijeljen organizacijama koje brinu o zdravlju žena i djece, a ne onima koje otvoreno promoviraju pobačaj kao metodu planiranja obitelji.


  Arne Lietz (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Es ist eine Schande, dass die neue US-Regierung unter Trump die Projekte zur Familienplanung in Entwicklungsländern nicht mehr finanzieren möchte. Die neue US-Regierung nimmt damit in Kauf, dass die bereits 18 Millionen unsicheren und illegalen Abtreibungen und die Müttersterblichkeit in den Entwicklungsländern zunehmen werden. Das bedeutet auch, dass im Falle von Vergewaltigung keine sicheren Abtreibungsdienste mehr zur Verfügung stehen. Dass Frau von Storch von der AfD das egal ist, ist erschreckend und zeigt, welch Geistes Kind sie ist. Deshalb fordere ich von der US-Regierung, ihre Entscheidung schnellstmöglich zurückzunehmen.

Ich begrüße zudem die Initiative der niederländischen Regierung, die entstehende Finanzlücke mit anderen Ländern – inklusive US-Stiftungen – schließen zu wollen. Über 20 Länder haben sich bereits dazu bereit erklärt. Deutschland hat leider noch keine Position dazu bezogen. Ich fordere die Europäische Kommission auf, die Mittel in diesem Bereich kurzfristig aufzustocken. Ebenso müssen die für den EU—Haushalt 2018 bereitgestellten Mittel hier für den Bereich der sexuellen, reproduktiven Gesundheit erweitert werden.

Die Welt ist hier gemeinsam in der Verantwortung, so wie wir die entwicklungspolitischen Ziele gemeinsam verabschiedet haben. Das Recht auf eine gute Gesundheit zählt auch für Frauen – das ist ein Menschenrecht!


  Marek Jurek (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Wstrzymanie przez prezydenta Donalda Trumpa finansowania praktyk aborcyjnych na świecie to wspaniały przykład niegasnącej młodości amerykańskiej republiki, natomiast atak na Stany Zjednoczone, który tu się odbywa, to kolejna konwulsja chorej Europy. W oficjalnym tytule tej debaty określono zablokowanie przemysłu śmierci jako „globalny knebel”. Tak nazwaliście amerykańskie zaangażowanie na rzecz cywilizacji życia, w chwili gdy socjalistyczne władze Francji wprowadziły drastyczną cenzurę sięgającą po kary więzienia, żeby zakneblować apele w obronie życia nienarodzonych. Europę niszczy dziś populizm, tak, Wasz populizm, populizm władzy, populizm, który powtarza społeczeństwom Europy „nie ma prawa moralnego prócz waszych życzeń”. Czas stawić mu czoła, jeżeli Europa ma dalej żyć.


  Charles Goerens (ALDE). – Monsieur le Président, prenons un exemple concret pour illustrer le drame créé par la règle du bâillon mondial: pour sauver la vie d'une femme enceinte en zone de conflit, le médecin responsable de son traitement ne voit plus d'autre solution que l’interruption de grossesse, en accord avec sa patiente. Est-ce qu'il doit expliquer les dispositions de la législation américaine à cette femme ou est-ce qu'il va la soigner? En pratiquant l'IVG en question, le médecin sauve une vie, mais il expose l'ONG pour laquelle il travaille, au risque de la voir privée, dorénavant, de toute aide publique venant des États-Unis.

Nous abordons ce thème aujourd'hui pour signaler à ce médecin que nous le soutenons, que nous trouvons ahurissant que son choix soit remis en question par la règle du bâillon mondial. S’il sauve une vie, il affaiblit son ONG. S’il veut que son ONG puisse continuer à fonctionner, il laisse mourir la femme enceinte.

Quiconque a la moindre idée des drames que vivent ces femmes, renonce à pratiquer le chantage que subit le secteur humanitaire du fait de l'application de cette loi. Laissons agir le médecin, en accord avec sa patiente. C'est ce que fait l'Union européenne et nous l’encourageons à persévérer dans cette voie.

Il y a quelques instants, j’ai entendu un fervent plaidoyer de Mme Storch pour le respect de la vie. Je me demande où était son légendaire humanisme lorsqu'elle a dit qu'il serait indiqué, de temps à autre, de fusiller les demandeurs d'asile au passage de la frontière.


  Ángela Vallina (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente. Desde luego, el nuevo Gobierno de los Estados Unidos ha declarado la guerra al feminismo. Y lo ha hecho cortando la financiación a ONG que trabajan para garantizar información y ayudar a las mujeres que desean interrumpir su embarazo de forma segura. Es inaceptable y, por ello, necesitamos responder con fondos estatales y de la Unión al desafío humanitario planteado por los Estados Unidos.

Señor comisario, recuerde que este Parlamento ha aprobado el mes pasado unas recomendaciones para que denuncien enérgicamente esta ley mordaza global en la reunión de la semana que viene de las Naciones Unidas sobre la condición jurídica y social de la mujer. Deben hacerlo, porque los derechos y las libertades de las mujeres no son moneda de cambio que dependa del color político de un gobierno o de quién gane las elecciones. Dentro o fuera de la Unión Europea. Deben ser derechos conquistados y permanentes. Es un derecho que cada una pueda ejercer libremente el control de su cuerpo. Nadie obliga a nadie.


  Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, President Trump’s global gag rule goes much beyond and much further than his predecessor’s, another Republican President, Mr Bush. We do not quite yet know how far it goes but we can estimate that the work of non-US-based NGOs in all areas of global health assistance, including family planning, will be jeopardised. And this will directly threaten the lives of hundreds of millions of women and girls in the world.

We know also that the Bush rule, during its eight years, added 36 million unwanted pregnancies to the world, and it added 15 million abortions. Is this what you want? This is certainly not what I want. I want to get rid of these kinds of hypocritical interventions which are calling for a total ban or even criminalisation of abortion in the name of some obscure ideology in defence of life. What we need is to look at what really works, and what really works we can see, for instance, in Nepal. In Nepal, abortion was legalised in 2002, and we have seen that immediately, maternal deaths started to go down in numbers. We can also say that a good-quality sexuality education with a permissive abortion legislation is the best way to bring the numbers of abortions down. If that is what you want, then change your thinking.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))


  Marek Jurek (ECR), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Zdaniem Pani Poseł państwa, które chronią życie już przed narodzinami, to państwa obskuranckie. Ja chciałbym zapytać, czy Pani uważa, że Alcide de Gasperi albo Robert Schuman byli takimi obskurantami? Czy obskurantyzm panował w Europie wtedy, kiedy ci przywódcy zawierali traktaty rzymskie, których rocznicę będziemy niedługo obchodzić?


  Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE), blue-card answer. – Schuman certainly was a great European politician. I am not disputing that. But I am sure that in order to get what you want, you have to look at figures. You should not just say ‘ban abortion’ or ‘stop supporting abortion services’. And, as I said, what we are seeing now is that this is also about stopping family planning.

We can all be very proud that the European Union fought against this rule during the Bush era, and I am convinced that the European Union will have a sensible and courageous approach on the question even now.


  Raymond Finch (EFDD). – Mr President, while I believe it is an obvious right that women’s health issues should be a concern for us all globally, I also believe it is the right of every nation to spend its taxpayers’ money in the way it sees fit. The fact of the matter is this is a decision for the government and people of the United States of America, and to call it war on feminism as someone did, is hyperbole and just demeans their argument.

We must look back in history and acknowledge that this legislation is a political football, even in the United States. Its origins go back as far as the Reagan administration. It has been brought in and rescinded by previous administrations as the republican and democratic fortunes have waxed and waned. The powerful religious factions who support this in the United States have a precise analogue here in Europe, where the Catholic Church strongly opposed Parliament’s own Sandbæk report.

Issues of this kind are heavily emotive and each person must reach into their own moral core to decide how to speak and vote. In the end, I believe it is not for the European Parliament to tell the US Government what to do. You would not be pleased if the positions were reversed, so I would urge you to consider these points.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))


  Sophia in ’t Veld (ALDE), blue-card question. – Just to clarify one misunderstanding, we are not actually debating the US budget here. We are debating the EU budget. We may deplore what the United States has decided, but we cannot change it. But if you say that every state – or entity in this case, when we are talking about the EU budget – has the right to set its own priorities and decide on its own budget, I count on you being on my side when we table amendments to raise the budget for the issues we are discussing today.


  Raymond Finch (EFDD), blue-card answer. – The fact is that it is entirely up to the EU how it spends its budget. As you are doubtlessly aware, I am not in favour of the EU having a budget, but I would be greatly in favour of individual nations – and I do not believe this is a nation – doing so, if that answers your question.


  Constance Le Grip (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, à mon tour de m’inquiéter fortement de ce Global Gag Rule, cette règle du bâillon mondial que le président Trump vient de remettre au goût du jour de la manière la plus sévère et la plus sinistre possible, bien plus sévèrement que tous ses prédécesseurs.

Avec l’entrée en vigueur de cette règle du bâillon mondial, des organisations internationales, des associations internationales qui s’occupent de planning familial, qui développent des actions en matière de santé sexuelle et reproductive pourront se voir privées de tout financement en provenance des États-Unis d’Amérique.

Les signaux d’alerte ont été immédiatement lancés par toute une série d’organismes, par de grandes associations en Afrique, en Asie, en Amérique latine, par le United Nations Population Fund, par la grande association Save the Children: ce sont des centaines de milliers de femmes, de jeunes filles, de petites filles qui courent le risque de se voir privées d’accès à des soins de santé ou de planning familial, qui pourraient se voir à nouveau obligées d’affronter l’enfer des avortements clandestins qui sont – on le sait – terriblement dangereux pour la vie et la santé des femmes et des jeunes filles.

D’une façon plus générale, avec ces coupes budgétaires, c’est toute une série d’actions de prévention contre, par exemple, le virus du SIDA ou le virus Zika, qui pourraient se trouver menacées.

Il s’agit donc de faire face à nos responsabilités. Il revient à l’Union européenne et à ses États-membres de continuer de développer des actions humanitaires, ainsi qu’une politique de développement qui prenne en compte les nécessités de promouvoir des actions en faveur de la santé reproductrice et sexuelle partout dans le monde.


  Elly Schlein (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, di fronte al vergognoso attacco dell'amministrazione Trump è indispensabile un impegno forte dell'Unione europea a tutela dei diritti sessuali e riproduttivi delle donne.

Le politiche dell'amministrazione americana non colpiscono solo i principi cardine dell'Unione sulla parità di genere ma avranno ripercussioni disastrose sulle ONG e i programmi che diffondono la contraccezione, che prevengono la trasmissione di malattie, che tutelano il diritto all'aborto e promuovono la pianificazione familiare e la salute di madre e di bambini anche nei paesi in via di sviluppo.

La global gag rule crea un deficit di finanziamento attorno a 600 milioni di dollari. L'iniziativa "She decides" di fund raising globale lanciata dalla ministra olandese per controbilanciare gli effetti della global gag rule merita tutto il sostegno delle nostre istituzioni. Non basta l'indignazione! Mi rivolgo in particolare agli Stati membri: devono tradurre la condanna di questa norma in un aumento significativo dei finanziamenti e che siano risorse nuove, non spostate da altre priorità.

Le donne devono decidere sul proprio corpo, come abbiamo urlato in tante l'8 marzo alla women's march, "My body, my choice!".


  Angelika Mlinar (ALDE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Mit einem einzigen Federstrich hat der Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten die Agenda für nachhaltige Entwicklung bis 2030 in Gefahr gebracht, und Frauen werden weltweit unter den fatalen Konsequenzen dieser sinnlosen Aktion leiden müssen. Denn hier geht es nicht um potenzielle Einsparungen, sondern darum, dass der weibliche Körper und die Rechte der Frauen wieder einmal als politisches Kampfgebiet genutzt werden. Doch solche politischen Spiele können lebensbedrohliche Konsequenzen nach sich ziehen. Denn unsichere Abtreibungen sind einer der fünf häufigsten Gründe für Müttersterblichkeit weltweit.

Daher, sehr geehrte Kollegen und Kolleginnen: Es ist höchste Zeit, aufzustehen. Es liegt jetzt an uns, an der Europäischen Union, Taten zu setzen und eine globale, progressive Allianz weltweit anzuführen. Wir können nicht einfach zusehen, wie solch zerstörerische Art, Politik zu machen, zur Normalität wird. Die EU und ihre Partner müssen ihre Anstrengungen zum Schutz der sexuellen und reproduktiven Gesundheit weiter steigern. Hierzu gehören sowohl eine Erhöhung der Entwicklungshilfe in diesen Bereichen, als auch eine stärkere Verfechtung dieser wichtigen Thematik in diplomatischen Beziehungen.


  Eleonora Forenza (GUE/NGL). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, per fortuna in questa discussione sono già intervenute centinaia di migliaia di donne, che l'8 marzo sono scese in piazza per il Feminist strike, per la Marcia mondiale delle donne, strappando quell'orrenda fotografia con cui il presidente Trump, circondato da uomini, voleva decidere – e vuole decidere – sul corpo delle donne.

Io sono sinceramente furiosa per aver ascoltato anche oggi in quest'Aula parole di deputati che vogliono negare a me, donna, a noi donne, il diritto di decidere sul nostro corpo.

Credo che dobbiamo aver chiaro che questo taglio di 10 milioni di dollari avrà un effetto negativo sulla vita di circa 460 000 ragazze, per lo più le ragazze più deboli e più povere. Credo che non ce lo possiamo permettere.

Voglio ancora ricordare che nell'Unione europea 14 paesi non hanno ancora sottoscritto la Convenzione di Istanbul. Noi dobbiamo prendere le distanze dalla politica del presidente Trump ma abbiamo anche noi, ancora, moltissima strada da fare.


  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, meine Damen und Herren! Sie erinnern sich wohl alle daran, als Trump die Global Gag Rule unterschrieben hat, umgeben von lauter alten, älteren – vielleicht auch ein paar jüngeren – weißen Männern. Das bedeutet, dass in Zukunft pro Jahr ungefähr 600 Mio. Dollar nicht mehr verfügbar sind. Und da geht es nicht nur um Abtreibungen – lassen Sie sich das einmal gesagt sein: Da geht es um Verhütungsmittel, da geht es um Aufklärung, da geht es um HIV/AIDS-Prävention.

Diese Gag Rule bedroht das Leben von Mädchen und Frauen, von schon geborenen Mädchen und Frauen. Und wissen Sie: Ungewollte Schwangerschaften beziehungsweise unsachliche Abtreibungen bei Engelmacherinnen, das ist die zweithäufigste Todesursache von Mädchen und jungen Frauen zwischen 15 und 19. Und Sie, die dagegen argumentieren, wollen das noch verstärken.

Wir – und da danke ich auch der Kommission – auch wir hier im Europaparlament, die Mehrheit unterstützt das Programm „She decides“, diese neue Initiative, angeführt von der niederländischen Entwicklungsministerin plus Belgien, Dänemark und Schweden, dass es hier weitergeht. In wenigen Wochen wurden schon über 180 Mio. Euro dafür gespendet. Das muss noch weitergehen.

Ich bin enttäuscht, dass mein eigenes Heimatland, die Regierung Österreichs, nicht bereit ist, hier mitzuzahlen. Ich glaube, das wäre die Aufgabe jedes EU-Mitgliedstaats, dazu beizutragen, dass hier tatsächlich mehr getan werden kann. Denn das Prinzip der Feministinnen aus den 70er-Jahren gilt auch heute: Mein Körper gehört mir, und ich entscheide selbst.


  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). – Mr President, documentation and analysis of the impact of the global gag rule has shown that the policy restricts a basic right to speech and the right to make informed health decisions, as well as harming the health and lives of poor women by making it more difficult to access family planning services. It has also been found that the policy does not reduce abortion.

I strongly believe we cannot make any compromise on gender equality. It is the world’s poorest women and girls who will bear the brunt of any funding cuts. The EU has to ensure the effective implementation of its international aid programmes, in view of the restrictions imposed by partner donors. In the light of the current developments, the European Union’s role in defending the rights of women and girls through its international aid becomes even more important.




  Linnéa Engström (Verts/ALE). – Fru talman! Herr kommissionär! Det här går ut till president Donald Trump och alla er som tar er rätten att bestämma över kvinnors kroppar. Ingen ska ta ifrån en kvinna rätten att avsluta en graviditet om hon så vill. Att göra det svårare för kvinnor att göra abort leder bara till fler illegala aborter som utförs med stora risker för kvinnors liv och med stora kostnader för samhället. Det handlar verkligen om liv och död.

Jag är redo att ta upp kampen för kvinnors rättigheter, sexuella och reproduktiva rättigheter och friheten att välja. Två miljoner flickor föder barn innan de har fyllt femton år. De flickorna behöver inte mindre stöd, utan de behöver mer. Det handlar precis om det som president Trump och flera andra abortmotståndare inte vill ge kvinnor rätten till – rätten till den egna kroppen.

Vilka regeringar i Europa ställer sig upp och säger: ”Nu får det vara nog. Hon bestämmer alltid”? Sveriges regering tillsammans med ett 50-tal länder samlades i mars på konferensen She Decides i Bryssel. Konferensen samlade in 180 miljoner euro från en mängd länder världen över för sexuella och reproduktiva rättigheter. Motståndet växer mot the global gag rule. Tillsammans är vi starka.


  Iratxe García Pérez (S&D). – Señora presidenta. Se calcula que 225 millones de mujeres en los países en desarrollo desearían prevenir o retrasar el embarazo, pero no tienen acceso a los métodos anticonceptivos y a los servicios de salud disponibles. Más de 800 mujeres y niñas mueren a nivel mundial por causas prevenibles relacionadas con el embarazo y el parto todos los días, incluyendo abortos inseguros.

No nos confundamos. No estamos ahora ante un debate sobre aborto sí o aborto no. La ley mordaza de la Administración del señor Trump lo que hace es bloquear la financiación de todas aquellas organizaciones que están trabajando en el ámbito de la salud, salvando vidas de mujeres y facilitando el acceso a los métodos de planificación familiar —prevención de embarazos no deseados—. Por lo tanto, creo que es necesario que se traslade la sensibilidad de este Parlamento hacia una medida que está poniendo en peligro la vida de millones de mujeres.

El señor comisario nos ha trasladado el compromiso que existe por parte de la Comisión Europea con respecto a fondos destinados a esta materia. Pero nosotros pedimos más. Queremos que haya un compromiso de compensar también la falta de fondos provocada por esta ley mordaza. Damos la bienvenida a la iniciativa «She Decides» del Gobierno neerlandés para compensar esta falta de fondos. Y, además, esta misma mañana, en un informe aprobado en el Parlamento Europeo de forma mayoritaria, hemos pedido una mayor contribución por parte de las instituciones europeas en esta materia.

Estamos hablando de la vida de millones de mujeres que no pueden acceder a estos servicios de planificación familiar si no es gracias a la labor que hacen estas organizaciones no gubernamentales, que creo que se merecen hoy, aquí, un gran agradecimiento por la labor que están desarrollando.


  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – Kaip žinote, Europos Parlamentas vasario mėnesio plenarinėje sesijoje patvirtino savo rekomendacijas Tarybai dėl Europos Sąjungos prioritetų 61-ojoje Jungtinių Tautų Moterų padėties komisijos sesijoje ir jose Parlamentas labai griežtai smerkia vadinamąją visuotinio nutildymo taisyklę, nes iš tikrųjų mano, jog ši taisyklė yra tiesioginis išpuolis, tiesioginis žingsnis atgal moterų ir mergaičių teisių srityje. Be to, ši taisyklė praktiškai gali reikšti, kad finansiškai nukentės daugelis susijusių sveikatos apsaugos ir ligų prevencijos programų trečiosiose šalyse, tokių kaip, pavyzdžiui, motinos ir vaiko sveikatos, kovos su Zikos virusu ar kovos su AIDS. O to mes tikrai neturime teisės leisti, todėl tikrai manau, kad Europos Sąjunga, esant tokiai situacijai, tiesiog privalo stiprinti savo teikiamą paramą trečiosioms šalims šeimos planavimo srityje per humanitarinę pagalbą ir pagalbą vystymuisi.


  Maria Arena (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, le 23 janvier, l’administration Trump prend la décision d’arrêter le financement d’ONG, uniquement en raison du fait que ces ONG financent des services qui servent les droits des femmes et le droit à l’éducation sexuelle et reproductive.

Cette décision va priver d’accès des millions de femmes du monde entier à des moyens de contraception. Elle va accentuer le recours à l’avortement clandestin, qui est risqué – on le sait – pour les femmes. Elle va augmenter le nombre de décès, qui sont des décès maternels, mais aussi augmenter le nombre de maladies gynécologiques, telles que les fistules, ou soulever la question de la prévention en ce qui concerne le SIDA. Nous ne pouvons donc que prendre une position au niveau européen, c’est-à-dire non, nous ne critiquons pas la question américaine, nous disons «quel rôle avons-nous à jouer sur la scène internationale en matière de droit et de droits des femmes?».

Je pense que c’est notre devoir de pouvoir compenser ce que les Américains ne font plus aujourd’hui. Aujourd’hui, «She decides» a réussi à récolter des fonds pour un montant de 180 millions. Je pense que nous devons compléter les moyens qui ont été obtenus par «She decides».


  Edouard Martin (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, la règle du bâillon mondial a été l’un des premiers décrets de Trump. Il n’a pas seulement décidé de réintroduire cette réglementation draconienne, mais aussi d’en élargir le périmètre. Désormais cette règle frappe non seulement les organisations de planification familiale, mais également toutes les ONG qui, dans le cadre d’une approche de santé globale, offrent ou orientent vers des services de santé sexuelle et reproductive. On est donc bien au-delà d’un simple fléchage de subventions publiques américaines. Les ONG doivent s’engager à ne pas parler ou à ne pas proposer d’avortement, même sur leurs fonds propres. Cette règle privera de fonds toute organisation qui refusera de s’y plier et de s’autocensurer, d’où la notion de bâillon. Résultat: ce sont 600 millions d’euros sur les quatre prochaines années qui sont menacés, selon les Pays-Bas, qui ont lancé un fonds de campagne et de collecte. Nous soutenons cette campagne et cette collecte-là, et nous poussons pour que l’Union européenne et les États membres qui sont restés silencieux abondent également ces fonds.

C’est la liberté de choix qui est bâillonnée, ce sont des millions de vies de femmes qui sont menacées, alors Monsieur le Commissaire, quelle initiative entendez-vous prendre pour apporter une réponse collective et solidaire?


  Paul Tang (S&D). – Donald Trump schreeuwt van alles in en tegen de media. Maar de details over zijn global gag rule komen stilletjes aan naar buiten en die zijn ontstellend. Ziekenhuizen die abortussen uitvoeren, komen niet meer in aanmerking voor fondsen. Op deze manier wil Trump 600 miljoen bezuinigen en dat raakt direct aan de gezondheid en de keuzevrijheid van de meest kwetsbare vrouwen ter wereld.

De rechten van deze vrouwen mogen echter niet afhangen van wie er in het Witte Huis zit. Daarom geef ik een pluim aan Lilianne Ploumen, die direct na de aankondiging van Trump She Decides heeft gelanceerd, en aan alle landen, personen en organisaties die al meer dan 200 miljoen euro hebben toegezegd.

She Decides verdient alle mogelijke steun om Trumps decreet terug te draaien en tragedies te voorkomen. Ik hoop dat de Commissie en de nog ontbrekende lidstaten nu ook met een directe, substantiële bijdrage zullen komen.


Catch-the-eye procedure


  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, Evropská unie je známá jako největší donátor pro humanitární a rozvojovou pomoc a zdravotní péče do těchto programů samozřejmě patří. Jsem pro to, aby EU financovala lékařskou pomoc proti epidemiím a především zdravotní lékařskou péči, která v těchto afrických zemích často chybí. Nesouhlasím s tím, aby se z prostředků EU financovaly potraty nad rámec života zachraňujících zákroků. Pokud má EU něco financovat, pak to musí být zdravotní péče, která život lidí chrání, zachraňuje a ne ničí. EU by měla financovat vzdělávání, osvětu a základní zdravotní a preventivní péči. Potrat, milé dámy, není prevence. Nesouhlasím s financováním těchto programů.


  Julie Ward (S&D). – Madam President, Donald Trump is certainly proving the substance of his misogyny to the world because stifling global funds for women’s reproductive health was one of his first acts as President. The fact of shutting us up, keeping women and girls subordinate, and starving women’s health programmes in the poorest countries of the vital money they need to save lives, is in itself an act of violence. Therefore I applaud the European governments which have come together and pledged to replace US aid money that is being pulled away worldwide.

Let us all commit here to replace every dollar withdrawn with money from Europe. I hope that the Commission and all the EU governments will step up to the mark.

However, my own UK Government has not yet committed to the initiative. I think that Theresa May’s holding hands with President Trump, hoping for a trade deal at any cost, shows that she has lost international credibility on issues such as this. It is only through solidarity and cooperation that we can turn back this misogynist tide.

Let us show this un—President Trump that this is about our bodies, our choice, our rights.


  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, νομίζω ότι από τη συζήτηση προκύπτει ένα αβίαστο συμπέρασμα, ότι το κενό που εμφανίζεται πλέον στη χρηματοδότηση λόγω της πολιτικής των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών θα πρέπει να το καλύψει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, θα πρέπει να το καλύψουν τα κράτη μέλη, θα πρέπει και η ίδια η Ευρώπη να αναζητήσει τρόπους για να ευρεθούν οι αναγκαίοι πόροι, διότι είναι δεδομένο ότι χρειάζεται η βοήθεια από ευρωπαϊκής πλευράς στον Τρίτο Κόσμο, χρειάζεται να υπάρχει ενημέρωση των πολιτών στις περιοχές αυτές, χρειάζεται να υπάρχει διαπαιδαγώγηση στα ζητήματα που έχουν σχέση και με τη σεξουαλική υγεία, χρειάζονται πολύ συγκεκριμένες παρεμβάσεις. Άρα λοιπόν, αντί να αφιερώνουμε πολύ χρόνο στο να κάνουμε κριτική στην πολιτική των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών, οφείλουμε μάλλον να αναζητήσουμε τους τρόπους με τους οποίους η Ευρώπη μπορεί να καλύψει πραγματικά αυτό το κενό, και νομίζω ότι σε αυτή την κατεύθυνση πρέπει να πάμε όλοι μαζί.


  Hilde Vautmans (ALDE). – President Trump was nog maar amper een week president toen hij de global gag rule uitgebreid invoerde. Omringd door – dat mag ik toch wel zeggen, collega's – oude grijze mannen.

Nu dat is niet zo uniek: zijn Republikeinse voorgangers hebben hem dat voorgedaan. Maar hiermee, in combinatie met zijn seksistische uitspraken, denk ik dat hij ons allemaal, alle vrouwen hier op het halfrond, heel erg hard raakt.

We weten allemaal dat Amerika een wereldspeler is. Daarom moeten we als Europa harder optreden. We moeten als Europa zeggen: het kan niet zo zijn dat we raken aan verworven vrouwenrechten. Want daar gaat het hier om: hij schroeft financiering terug, maar doet ook seksistische uitspraken.

Dus ik steun de collega's die ervoor hebben gepleit om She Decides te steunen, ik steun de Belgische minister Alexander De Croo. Wij waren daar, ik was op dat symposium. Wat je daar voelde was fenomenaal. Dát zou ik hier in het Europees Parlement willen voelen.

Daarom, meneer de commissaris, mijn vragen: wat gaan we doen om de effecten tegen te gaan? Gaan we She Decides aanvullend financieren? Wat gaan we doen om op te treden tegen seksisme?


  Τάκης Χατζηγεωργίου (GUE/NGL). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, είναι μια απόφαση αυτή η οποία επηρεάζει κυρίως τις φτωχές γυναίκες. Είναι γι’ αυτό που πρέπει να αντισταθούμε. Έχουμε χρέος ως Ευρωκοινοβούλιο να στηρίξουμε αυτές τις γυναίκες. Το Gag Rule του κυρίου Trump προσβάλλει το σύνολο των γυναικών παγκόσμια, και δεν συμβιβαζόμαστε με αυτή τη μείωση των πόρων αλλά αναζητούμε ταυτόχρονα τρόπους αναπλήρωσής τους, διαφορετικά μιλάμε χωρίς αποτελέσματα. Η μείωση των πόρων οδηγεί σε εκτρώσεις εκτός οργανωμένων ιατρικών κέντρων, με δυσάρεστα, πολλές φορές, αποτελέσματα. Πρέπει να πάει σαφές μήνυμα στον κύριο Trump.


  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, το σοβαρό πρόβλημα των αμβλώσεων, το οποίο ήρθε στην επιφάνεια με την πρόσφατη απόφαση της κυβερνήσεως των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών να μη χρηματοδοτεί τις ΜΚΟ που υπερασπίζονται τις αμβλώσεις, είναι ένα θέμα το οποίο δεν επιλύεται ούτε με πολιτικές ούτε με οικονομικές αποφάσεις. Δεν υπάρχει αμφιβολία ότι η γυναίκα έχει το δικαίωμα να αποφασίσει εκείνη για το αν θα διακόψει την κύησή της ή όχι. Δεν υπάρχει όμως και αμφιβολία ότι με την έκτρωση διαπράττεται ένα έγκλημα, μία δολοφονία ενός αθώου και ανυπεράσπιστου πλάσματος. Αντιλαμβάνεστε λοιπόν σε τι τρομερό ψυχολογικό δίλημμα βρίσκεται μια γυναίκα όταν κληθεί να διακόψει ή όχι την κύησή της; Μπορεί να φανταστεί κανείς τι επιπτώσεις –όχι τόσο σωματικές όσο κυρίως ψυχολογικές– θα έχει στη γυναίκα αυτή η οποιαδήποτε απόφαση της; Εάν λοιπόν θέλουμε να αντιμετωπίσουμε το πρόβλημα, να στηρίξουμε την οικογένεια, θα πρέπει να διαπαιδαγωγήσουμε σωστά τα κορίτσια μας και να ενημερώσουμε τις νέες γυναίκες σε όλο τον κόσμο, ούτως ώστε, εάν ποτέ χρειαστεί να βρεθούν σ’ αυτό το δίλημμα που ανέφερα προηγουμένως, να το αντιμετωπίσουν με σοβαρό τρόπο.


(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


  Christos Stylianides, Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, thank you for this timely discussion – very constructive and very productive. Also thank you for your suggestions and questions. I will try to meet your concerns and your worries.

First of all, you may be assured that the European Commission will remain alert on this issue. We have to remain alert on this issue. But also let me reiterate once again: our action is not dependent on others. And I would like to be clear: our policies are driven by our own priorities and by our own values, not by what others do or stop doing.

At the same time, if we see a funding gap in development and humanitarian aid, we look into stepping up our assistance to health and gender-based violence projects, should that be needed. And of course, I count also on your – the European Parliament’s – support to reinforce the budgets.

My final point, last but not least. Some colleagues referred to the need to inform our partner organisations on the ground. As far as I am concerned we have over 200 humanitarian partners on the ground, in the humanitarian and development field, registered in the EU. And they know better what to do on the ground to help women in need. I have witnessed their knowledge and their action in my missions on the ground around the world. On the other hand, our partners work with local implementing organisations. If there is an information gap there, I stand ready to discuss with our partners how best to address this without compromising humanitarian access and the overall safety of the people in need and of the humanitarian workers. This is my promise regarding the formation of our humanitarian partners and, of course, regarding the possible funding gap.


  President. – Before I close the debate, Mr Škripek has asked to make a personal statement under Rule 164, which we will now invite him to do. But I would just say that, as you will be aware, you may not speak on the substantive matter but obviously address observations or rebut remarks that were made about you in person. So I now give you the floor under Rule 164.


  Branislav Škripek (ECR). – Madam President, I did not answer the question I was given because I objected to the fact that I was named by Mrs in 't Veld and Mrs Reintke. I was named because of the content of the debate, so I feel that I have the right to answer. Please explain your objection to me speaking about the content of this debate. Mrs in 't Veld did not attack me. She asked me a real question about this debate, as did Mrs Reintke. So I do not feel attacked, but challenged by the question and they named me by name.


  President. – Mr Škripek, as you know, I was not in the Chair during that exchange. Rather than addressing this now (because the debate is almost formally finished), I propose that you address the issue that was raised in the Minutes of the sitting. If I had been in the Chair I could perhaps be more specific, but because this was left to the end of the sitting, and under Rule 164 there are very particular issues that can be addressed rather than the substance of the debate, with your permission, if you would be happy to address this in the Minutes of the sitting, we could accommodate that.


  Branislav Škripek (ECR). – So what I want to say should be in the Minutes?


  President. – If it was a question that was raised in the format of normal questions – blue cards – then it should have been addressed at the time of the debate. I was not in the Chair so I cannot make that judgment now, but I would ask you to talk to the services and we will address your concerns in some other manner rather than at this point. Thank you for your understanding.

The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 162)


  José Blanco López (S&D), por escrito. – 225 millones de mujeres en los países en desarrollo desearían prevenir o retrasar el embarazo, pero no tienen acceso a los métodos anticonceptivos y a los servicios de salud. Más de 800 mujeres y niñas mueren cada día en el mundo por causas prevenibles relacionadas con el embarazo y el parto, incluyendo abortos inseguros. No estamos ante un debate sobre aborto sí o aborto no. La «ley mordaza» de la Administración Trump lo que hace es bloquear la financiación de todas aquellas organizaciones que están trabajando en el ámbito de la salud, salvando vidas de mujeres y niños y facilitando el acceso a los métodos de planificación familiar para prevenir embarazos no deseados. Es muy importante que este Parlamento denuncie una medida que está poniendo en peligro la vida de millones de mujeres. Damos la bienvenida a la iniciativa «SheDecides» del Gobierno neerlandés para compensar la falta de fondos. Hemos aprobado un informe que pide una mayor contribución por parte de las instituciones europeas en esta materia. Estamos hablando de la vida de millones de mujeres que solo pueden acceder a los servicios de salud gracias a la labor que hacen las ONG, que se merecen nuestro agradecimiento y ayuda.


  Eider Gardiazabal Rubial (S&D), por escrito. – 225 millones de mujeres en los países en desarrollo desearían prevenir o retrasar el embarazo, pero no tienen acceso a los métodos anticonceptivos y a los servicios de salud. Más de 800 mujeres y niñas mueren cada día en el mundo por causas prevenibles relacionadas con el embarazo y el parto, incluyendo abortos inseguros. No estamos ante un debate sobre aborto sí o aborto no. La «ley mordaza» de la Administración Trump lo que hace es bloquear la financiación de todas aquellas organizaciones que están trabajando en el ámbito de la salud, salvando vidas de mujeres y niños y facilitando el acceso a los métodos de planificación familiar para prevenir embarazos no deseados. Es muy importante que este Parlamento denuncie una medida que está poniendo en peligro la vida de millones de mujeres. Damos la bienvenida a la iniciativa «SheDecides» del Gobierno neerlandés para compensar la falta de fondos. Hemos aprobado un informe que pide una mayor contribución por parte de las instituciones europeas en esta materia. Estamos hablando de la vida de millones de mujeres que solo pueden acceder a los servicios de salud gracias a la labor que hacen las ONG, que se merecen nuestro agradecimiento y ayuda.


  Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto (S&D), por escrito. – 225 millones de mujeres en los países en desarrollo desearían prevenir o retrasar el embarazo, pero no tienen acceso a los métodos anticonceptivos y a los servicios de salud. Más de 800 mujeres y niñas mueren cada día en el mundo por causas prevenibles relacionadas con el embarazo y el parto, incluyendo abortos inseguros. No estamos ante un debate sobre aborto sí o aborto no. La «ley mordaza» de la Administración Trump lo que hace es bloquear la financiación de todas aquellas organizaciones que están trabajando en el ámbito de la salud, salvando vidas de mujeres y niños y facilitando el acceso a los métodos de planificación familiar para prevenir embarazos no deseados. Es muy importante que este Parlamento denuncie una medida que está poniendo en peligro la vida de millones de mujeres. Damos la bienvenida a la iniciativa «SheDecides» del Gobierno neerlandés para compensar la falta de fondos. Hemos aprobado un informe que pide una mayor contribución por parte de las instituciones europeas en esta materia. Estamos hablando de la vida de millones de mujeres que solo pueden acceder a los servicios de salud gracias a la labor que hacen las ONG, que se merecen nuestro agradecimiento y ayuda.

Avviż legali - Politika tal-privatezza