Some days ago we informed our readers of an announcement by Lilliane Ploumen, the Dutch Minister for Foreign Aid, that her government wanted to compensate Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers for the loss of subsidies they were going to suffer as a result of US President Donald Trump’s decision to reinstate the so-called “Mexico City” policy. Our comment was then that it was of course the Dutch government’s business to decide how to spend Dutch taxpayers’ money, but that even in abortion-friendly Dutch society there would be little enthusiasm to foot this bill.
It now turns out – and in fact it was to be expected from the outset – that the politicians behind this newest assault against the lives of innocent babies in developing countries, are not in fact planning to spend their own health budgets on this (for which they might be held responsible by their respective electorates), but instead want to siphon EU funds to Planned Parenthood and other baby-slaughterers (so that the responsibility would come to lie with the entire EU, an institution on which citizens and their votes are well known to have little or no influence…).
This is the purpose of a letter that the Danish Minister of Development, Ulla Tørnæs, has addressed to the European Commission (Commissioners Mogherini and Mimica), deliberately putting some, but not all, of her homologues in copy, and about which we have learned from a source that we do not intend to reveal.
Among the Member States to which the sinister minister has not addressed her letter are Malta, Poland, Hungary, Croatia, and Lithuania. Apparently the idea is to confront these countries, which she seems not to expect to be supportive, with a “fait accompli”, so that they learn of this initiative only at the moment when it will be decided. Not really the most elegant way of making politics…
This idea of using EU funds to finance abortions abroad is particularly shameful – and indeed provocative – given that there is no other matter on which EU citizens have ever expressed their will with similar clarity: although it has been arrogantly, and on the basis of completely flawed presumptions, been turned down by the European Commission, the European Citizens’ Initiative “One of Us”, which explicitly demanded to adopt legislation that would make such abortion-funding technically impossible, is and remains the most widely supported citizens’ initiative in the history of the EU.
The Danish Minister’s letter is as follows:
Madam High Representative, Mr Commissioner,
With this letter we wish to underscore our firm support for human rights, gender equality and universal access to sexual and reproductive health [note the Orwellian newspeak: what she really wants to promote is not anyone’s health, but the abortion of healthy children…] and rights and our strong commitment to the European Union’s Council Conclusions on Gender in Development of May 2015 and the Gender Action Plan 2016-2020 of October 2015. We would also like to restate our commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with the clear objective of leaving no one behind, and to the empowerment of women and girls [“empowerment” means giving them the “right”, as well as the means, to kill their own children…] as key drivers of sustainable development.
We are concerned over the US reinstatement of an expanded version of the Mexico City Policy. We believe in the right of every woman and every girl to decide freely about matters relating to her own body and life […including when such a free decision involves the taking of the life of an innocent human being]. The EU’s commitment to sexual and reproductive health and rights remains particularly important and relevant in the current political climate.
Almost 225 million women and girls have an unmet need for contraception. Every day, over 800 women and girls die from preventable causes related to pregnancy or child birth. Annually 22 million unsafe abortions occur. [No, in fact more than 500 million unsafe abortions occur every year. Every abortion, besides being lethal for the child, also carries serious health risks for the mother. A “safe abortion” is an oxymoron – like a tall dwarf, or a round square … no abortion is safe.] With less funding for sexual and reproductive health information, services and supplies, these numbers are expected to rise further. [Bogus. Less funding means less abortions. Less abortions means less babies killed, and less women injured and traumatized.]
Collectively we have a responsibility not to allow this to happen. [Got that? She thinks that the EU has a collective responsibility to ensure that the number of abortions never falls… perhaps that’s how she hopes to curp immigration from the countries concerned?] A number of EU Member States are longstanding and strong political and financial supporters of the SRHR agenda. Additionally, several new initiatives have been taken by individual EU Member States [What those Member States do on their own is their own business. But why should others be obliged to go along?] including fundraising and plans for a Ministerial Conference ‘She Decides’ to increase political and financial support for the agenda. We are also reaching out to ministerial colleagues in other regions globally to build an alliance with them.
We expect the EU to show solidarity with the millions of women, girls and adolescents who need access to modern methods of contraception, information and services. In this regard, we wish to remind you of the ‘fill the decency gap’ [seriously! The abortion thug has the cheek of qualifying the slaughtering of babies as “decent”! We are in a madhouse…] approach adopted by the Commission in 2001 at which time the EU increased support to affected organisations to counter the impact of the US policy. [So, even before Pres. Trump manages to outsource the cost for his wall to Mexico, he will have succeeded in outsourcing the cost for reducing birth-rates in developing counties to EU taxpayers…] We call upon the European Union to increase its funding for and make greater use of its influence in support of sexual and reproductive health and rights. It would be very timely to take stock on these matters at our informal meeting in March.