Another Controversial report to be considered early next year in the European Parliament

Just one week after the EU rejected the controversial Estrela report another equally controversial draft report, the ‘Roadmap against homophobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity’ otherwise known as the Lunacek report, was adopted today by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, by 40 votes to 2 with 6 abstentions.

 

It is understood that today’s report follows a number of previous demands made to the European Parliament over a three year period, to roll out a so called ‘equality strategy’ for LGBT people similar to the strategies that already exist for Roma integration, gender equality and discrimination.

The draft report, which was adopted today by the Committee was prepared by Austrian MEP Ulrike Lunacek. The report calls on the commission to make proposals for the areas of employment, education, health and access to goods and services.

It is expected that the report will come before the Parliament in plenary in February however it is still possible that it may be included in the January session.

We are currently analyzing the report and will report further on it as soon as possible

Controversial Estrela report rejected by European Parliament

The European Parliament today rejected the highly controversial Estrela Report on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights.  Two alternative texts were proposed and the second one amendment 2 was adopted by 334 votes to 327 with 35 abstentions. The fact that amendment 2 was approved meant that the original report was therefore defeated.

This result is an important victory for common sense and a victory for democracy that shows the vital importance of standing together. The cooperation of like-minded groups led to the defeat of this radical agenda.  The will of the majority held sway over the voices of anti-life and family MEP’s and pressure groups, responsible for the writing of the report, and who refused to make any significant changes to it even when it was sent back to the FEMM committee by the Parliament.

The Estrela report and resolution would not have been binding but nevertheless would, if approved, have represented a significant statement by the Parliament for the future and it also included areas beyond the competence of the EU and which are reserved for Member States, such as parental rights, sexual education, human dignity and freedom of conscience. 
The report also contained a declaration of a human right to abortion

This is just one battle in a war on life and family and we have to be alert because those who seek to impose their values on us, never rest, we need to be vigilant, there will inevitably be a counter attack, initially using the media. We are aware of another equally bad draft report known as the ‘Lunacek Report’ which is already in the pipeline.

LINK to DRAFT REPORT PR\1006230EN.doc PE521.599v01-00

On the EU Roadmap against homophobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity (2013/2183(INI))

ESTRELA REPORT: UPDATE

The controversial Estrela report, which was referred back to the Women’s Rights and Gender Equality Committee of the European Parliament (FEMM) has once again been adopted by that committee with only minor cosmetic changes and has been placed back on the plenary agenda for December 10.

This controversial report on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, promotes a right to abortion and also includes compulsory sex education for toddlers.

The Estrela Report was referred back to the FEMM committee following an intense debate about its controversial content, which includes not only the promotion of abortion and a call for restrictions on conscientious objection but also urges compulsory sexual education for children aged 0-4 onwards. (For example, children should be informed about “enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body”, “early childhood masturbation”, etc.)

Debate in the FEMM Committee meeting was heated and opponents of the report complained about a possible breach of the Parliament‘s legal procedure because an outright ban that was placed on tabling new amendments or discussing the existing an alternative resolution which had been prepared.

Although Mrs. Angelika Niebler MEP (EPP) requested to postpone the vote on the Report until the European Parliament‘s Legal Service or Constitutional Affairs Committee (AFCO) could be asked for an official opinion on the legality of the amendment ban, the Report‘s proponents argued that there was no need to further delay the vote. This push for a vote received surprising support from shadow rapporteur Michèle Striffler, a member of the conservative European People's Party (EPP) Group in the European Parliament, who agreed with the text of the Report, along with other coordinators.

The proposal to wait for informed legal opinion on the amendment ban was rejected, and the Estrela Report was adopted with 19 MEPs voting in favor of it and 15 against.

Most of the proposed amendments were rejected, but some minor changes were adopted, the changes being only in detail but not in substance, as follows: 

• The paragraph calling on EU Member States “to ensure compulsory, age-appropriate and gender-sensitive sexuality and relationship education for all children and adolescents (both in and out of school)” (§15), was amended to exclude the phrase“both in and out of school”. The word “compulsory” however still remains.

• The paragraph that reads “sexuality education must be provided in a safe, taboo-free, interactive atmosphere between students and educators” (§44), was changed to exclude the words “taboo-free”, “interactive” and “between students and educators”.

• The paragraph which reads  “emphasises, therefore, that sexuality education must be part of a broader supportive approach to young people’s emotional development so as to enable them to form mutually respectful relationships with members of the opposite sex” (§54) was amended by the exclusion of the phrase, “with members of the opposite sex”.

These amendments do not improve the report in any way, they are simply cosmetic changes. The vast majority of the radical language and proposals of the Estrela Report remain in place.

The Report has now been put on the agenda for a plenary vote in Parliament on December 10th at 11:30 a.m.

Although it’s a non-binding report, adoption of the Estrela Report would express the official opinion of the European Parliament on the matter of abortion, sexual education and conscientious objection. In each of these areas, the Report adopts a radical position that is at odds with the views of the vast majority of European citizens.

We will return to this issue at the earliest opportunity, as it is imperative that a Community wide lobbying effort should be set in motion to reject this report in plenary on December 10^th.

ESTRELA report ‘a bridge too far’ even for many Socialist and Liberal MEP’s.

In a resounding victory for common sense, following a short but lively debate in the European Parliament, a majority of MEPs voted to refer the highly controversial resolution on the Estrella report back to the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality.

The resolution on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights presented by Portugese MEP Edite Estrela, was an assault on the Sovereignty of member states that attempted to make abortion a fundamental human right, remove conscientious objection and introduce pornographic sexuality education even for young children .

The Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community, COMECE, condemned the resolution and said that the EU had no competence in the matter.

The report although presented by Edite Estrella is reported to be the work of the International Planned Parenthood Federation in Brussels. The fact that the report has been referred back to committee implies, that a revised report cannot not be presented until early next year, thus, limiting the time available to the Parliament to deal with it, prior to the next European elections.

The report and its attack on children proved to be ‘a bridge too far’ even for many Socialist and Liberal MEP’s who may already be looking to their home support bases in their re-election campaigns.

Action Alert; GENDERCIDE

-->

FAFCE, the Federation of Catholic Family Associations in Europe report that the European Parliament will vote tomorrow Tuesday October 8th on the

Report “Gendercide: the missing women?”  

Tomorrow, Tuesday 8 October the European Parliament will vote on the Report “Gendercide: the missing women?”. Whilst not binding, this report presents an opportunity to counteract this phenomenon and to strengthen the right to respect for the dignity of each person to be born.

Across the world abortions are regularly performed simply because of the sex of the child, boys are preferred to girls. A phenomenon referred to as “Gendercide”. This situation leads to a disequilibrium between women and men as outlined in a report presented by Directorate General for External Policies of the European Parliament in 2012 that states that “Some countries have for many years witnessed distorted sex ratios in the sense that the share of male population is larger than one would expect based on “natural” gender ratios at birth and mortality rates. This imbalance is often the result of son preference, rooted in cultural and economic experiences, and accentuated by declining fertility and pressures to have smaller families. With a focus on China and India, where skewed sex ratios have been highlighted by the international community and recognised by their governments, this study reviews the key literature exploring the causes, current trends and consequences of sex selective practices from infanticide and neglect to more modern sex determining and selective practices such as ultrasound tests and consequent sex selective abortions. Despite legislation regulating sex selection in both China and India, these practices are difficult to monitor, with medical practitioners and equipment suppliers reaping profits from the procedures. Skewed ratios have also been observed in other countries, such as Vietnam, Albania, Azerbaijan and Georgia.”

The draft report condemns abortion 7 times, whether forced or voluntary when it is based on prenatal sex selection, namely of the female foetus. However, it also includes several references to « Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights », a wording that implicitly includes abortion as a means of birth control.

In order to emphasise and clarify the principles set out by the EU and International law on the issue of abortion and sex selective abortion, and to strengthen the right to conscientious objection for medical staff in cases of sex selective abortion several amendments are proposed.

What can you do?

You can contact the Members of the European Parliament and ask them to support amendments 1-5, all in favour of human dignity. 

Why should they support these amendments?

·         Because the European Court of Justice that defines the human embryo as the beginning of the development of the human being (Brüstle vs. Greenpeace), the legal basis on which is founded the European Citizens Initiative One of Us.

·         Because the European Parliament recently condemned forced abortion in the resolution adopted in July 2012 by the European Parliament on the forced abortion scandal in China.

·         Because of the principle by which “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth” as set out by the Declaration of the Rights of the Child of the United Nations.

·         To strengthen the right to conscientious objection for medical staff, a principle that was recently reaffirmed by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in 2010.

·         Because the phenomenon of ‘Gendercide’ is not declining: a recent article in the Economist pointed out that Gendercide is reviving alarmingly in the Caucasus.

·         Because there is no “international right to abortion”, either by way of treaty obligation or under customary international law. No United Nations treaty can accuratedly be ctied as establishing or recognizing a right to abortion.

The debate on the report will take place this evening Monday 7 October.

The vote will take place on Tuesday 8 October at 12.00.

The names and contact information of the Members of the European Parliament from your Member State can be found here.

An article about this report can be found here.

ALERT: Conscientious Objection under grave attack in the European Parliament

European Dignity Watch report that the European Parliament is expected to vote in the near future in plenary session,  on a highly controversial Draft Reporton Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) which was adopted by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality on September 18^th. 

Despite the fact that the EU has no competence under its treaties to deal with the issue of abortion the report by Edite Estrela — a member of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats group in the European Parliament — argues strongly in favour of legalizing abortion in all European Member States with no consideration for the fundamental rights to life and conscience recognized by the EU, it also seeks to sexualize children through the introduction of so called comprehensive sexuality education.

Zita Gurmai MEP for the Hungarian Socialist Party issued a statement, following the committee vote, praising the report’s “clear stance in favour of legalizing abortion in all member states” and that in her opinion the recommendations that abortion should be made legal, safe, and accessible to all, is an encouraging position. “We Socialists have always believed that women, everywhere in Europe, should have the same opportunity and access to fully carry out their choice — a choice, which should not be determined by geographical location or by social status.”

This is not the first attempt to limit freedom of conscience in Europe.

The Council of Europe in 2010 rejected a radical attempt to limit freedom of conscience of medical practitioners, nurses, and hospital staff in a resolution introduced by Christine McCafferty, and known as the Mc Cafferty Report.

Please contact your MEP as a matter of urgency and appeal to him/her to oppose this anti life agenda.

Contact information for Irish MEP’s

Contact information for UK MEP’s  (click on your region to access names and contact details)

Tragic HIV/AIDS vote in European Parliament

John Smeaton (www.spuc-director.blogspot.com) gives a very lengthy and interesting account of the recent vote on HIV/AIDS that was taken in the European Parliament.  It is sad and worrying to note that the resolution, which called for ‘safe and legal’ abortion as a way to prevent HIV/AIDS, was carried, despite rejection of it on the part of a good number of MEPs.    

The website of European Dignity Watch reports as follows: 

‘Unfortunately, all bad passages were adopted. […] In other words, the European Parliament is of the opinion that in order to contain this epidemic, the abortion of potential carriers of the virus is a legitimate means.  Only one out of seven problematic passages was rejected by a majority of the EPP [European People’s Party] group (the group that contains Christian democrats) and about half of the Conservatives, however not enough to ban “safe and legal abortion” from the resolution.’

European Dignity Watch later wrote: 

‘ […] on the occasion of World AIDS Day, a solid majority in the European Parliament voted on a resolution declaring that official EU policy for HIV/AIDS prevention should be closely linked to “sexual and reproductive rights” – including safe and legal abortion.

‘Although a resolution to combat HIV/AIDS is indisputably worthy of parliamentary support, the amalgamation of HIV with abortion suggests an alarming underlying eugenic logic that seems to say: Possible carriers of the HIV virus should be preventively aborted in order to prevent further spreading of the disease.

‘Prior to the vote by the European Parliament, no discussion at all was held on the real risk of HIV infection or even on the medical possibilities that exist to reduce its transmission.  This is why we think it is important to give a few key facts about the medical reality of HIV in both developed and developing countries.  […]’

Meanwhile, the humanist lobby is concerned that ‘several religious organisations launched an aggressive campaign to lobby MEPs and urge them to vote against three key paragraphs in the resolution.   Their objective was to create a distinction between the fight against AIDS and reproductive rights and to make sure that MEPs removed contraception and abortion from the resolution.   This campaign more generally aimed to limit – if not prevent – women’s sexual and reproductive rights. […]’

The humanists, however, ‘fought back’, but they are very concerned that although 369 MEPs voted in favour of one of the dangerous paragraphs (no. 22), 206 MEPs voted against it, which fact – say the humanists – ‘should keep us mobilised in the future.’

It is reported, too, that a UK Socialist MEP, Michael Cashman, pointed out during the plenary session of the debate that ‘a holistic approach, including contraception and abortion, is therefore necessary to prevent new contaminations.’    It is horrifying to think that in this day and age anyone could consider the killing of unborn babies to be ‘holistic’.

For the interest of the Irish electorate it should be noted that the usual suspects – Prionnsias de Rossa, Nessa Childers, Paul Murphy, et al. – were conspicuous in their support for the resolution in its entirety. However, sad to report, only MEPs Liam Aylward and Pat the Cope Gallagher voted against the resolution in its entirety in the final vote. 

Slovak MEP Anna Záborská: Statement on the upcoming Irish referendum

Does the EU Lisbon Treaty really respect fundamental and non negotiable values?

Having served since 2004 as a Member of the European Parliament for a very small EU Member State (Slovakia), I am persuaded that negotiating "national guarantees" is part of the political strategy. Those guarantees do not have any legal effect in EU law, which always has primacy over national legislation. If the Lisbon Treaty is passed the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which is part of the Treaty will become legally binding, will have primacy and will confer extensive rights to the European Court of Justice. Whenever there will be a discord between the Lisbon Treaty and national laws or constitutions, the EU Court in Luxemburg will decide. Recent rulings show that the EU Court of Justice is more likely to take a stand in favour of the EU legislation. Who will protect the national legislation?

In 2005, my own Slovak government was under attack because we wanted to sign an additional protocol on objection of conscience related to our Concordat. The EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights (which at this time belongs to the EU Commission) declared that any provisions on objection of conscience would not be compatible with EU legislation!

In January 2009, the European Parliament urged Member states to recognise abortion rights among other ‘rights’, based on the provisions of EU Fundamental Rights Charter. The existing EU legislation on non discrimination would force Ireland and all the other Member States to change their national family policy to make them compatible with the so-called EU standards.

Just three weeks ago, Lithuania was been threatened by the EU Parliament because of the protection of minors in its national school law. The EU Parliament supposed that this provision could harm the principle of non discrimination on the ground of "sexual orientation". But nobody was interested in arguments in favour of the protection of the child and the rights of the parents to educate them. There was no respect for the principle of subsidiarity.

The next Member State could be Ireland or anybody else. Can the Irish government guarantee that the EU will not attack the Irish Constiution or the guarantees when the upcoming Council directive on non discrimination needs to be implemented in national law? Can the Irish Government guarantee that Ireland will not be similarly threatened on their pro-life and pro-family legislation?

I am almost certain that an Irish No to the Lisbon Treaty would not cause the collapse of the EU, as the every day experience in the institutions clearly shows.

I would invite the Irish voters to carefully consider also my arguments which intend to defend an EU society based on values which are fundamental and non negotiable, and which the Lisbon Treaty does not respect enough.

ENDS

Contact:
MEP Anna Záborská
European Parliament
ASP 3 F 357
B 1047 Brussels
Email : anna.zaborska@europarl.europa.eu

“GUARANTEES WORTHLESS” SAYS IRELAND FOR LIFE

Ireland for Life have issued the following statement on the effect of the so called guarantees on the Lisbon Treaty

“No to Lisbon is the only means of ensuring the continued protection of the right to life of the child embryo, in Ireland. On the same day as the referendum, the other EU institution, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will vote on a pro-abortion report (‘Document 11992’) ,” said the organisation’s spokesperson, Mrs. Mary Thornton.

The “guarantees” are not part of the Lisbon Treaty nor any other treaty and they have no legal effect in EU law. Declaration 17 on Primacy in the Lisbon Treaty clearly states that

“the treaties and the law adopted by the EU on the basis of the treaties have primacy over the law of the member states.”

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘The Charter’), which is attached to the Treaty, confers extensive rights upon the ECJ. The Charter, which Lisbon makes legally binding on all member countries under Article 6 of the Treaty, will have primacy.

Last June, the European Centre for Law and Justice in a written opinion stated the following;

“If the European Court of Justice were to decide that abortion is a right in interpreting The Charter of Fundamental Rights, it would appear that this decision would be binding on Ireland”

. Abortion could be claimed to be a fundamental human right.

On January 14th, 2009, the European Parliament including Irish MEPs approved a resolution urging states to recognise abortion rights among other so-called ‘rights’. The Catania Resolution was based on the provisions of The Charter.

The fact is that the ECJ would not recognise any protocol which had not already been attached to the Lisbon Treaty. Most seriously of all; what would happen in the intervening period between the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the possible ratification of an accession treaty sometime, perhaps, in the distant future?

On this basis, Ireland For Life is calling for a ‘No’ vote in this week’s Lisbon referendum

European Parliament Contempt for National Sovereignty

The European Parliament has once again shown its contempt for the sovereignty of member states of the European Union and additionally for family rights and the rights of the child, by introducing a resolution castigating Lithuania. The resolution which was debated in the European Parliament today Wednesday 16th Sept. and will be voted on tomorrow, related to a law passed recently by the Lithuanian Parliament to protect minors from inappropriate information.

On 14 July 2009, the Lithuanian Parliament approved an amendment to the national Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effects of Public Information, which will come into force on 1 March 2010. Under this amendment it will be prohibited ‘to directly disseminate to minors […] public information whereby homosexual, bisexual or polygamous relations are promoted’, because it has ‘a detrimental effect on the development of minors’,

The Liberals, Greens. Socialist, and Communist group of the European Parliament tabled 6 identical oral questions to the EU Commission and the EU Council of Ministers attacking the new law and asking them to issue a statement whether or not this amendment to a national law is incompatible with human rights and fundamental freedoms as enshrined in international and European conventions and notably with freedom of expression, The whole tenor of this attack on the Lithuanian law is based on the view that non discrimination policy is more important than the rights of the child or parental rights. There was a refusal to recognize the relevant paragraphs of the international human rights instruments regarding the rights of the child and the rights of the family. Many of the speeches condemned the Lithuanian law however some MEP’s pointed out that the debate was inappropriate and reminded the Parliament that Lithuania is a sovereign nation

A particularly enlightened speech was given by Slovakian MEP Anna Zaborska who told the Parliament

˝In 2006, Slovakia was condemned by the EU institutions because of a freedom of conscience clause in its national legislation. Today a national law from Lithuania which aims to protect minors from sexualisation by society is condemned by the EU institutions.
I consider our meeting to be a manipulation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This text is not a legally binding instrument. The EU Parliament is ignoring the legitimacy of the national Parliament of a Member State. The EU Parliament also requests an Opinion of the Fundamental Rights Agency, but this Agency has no mandate to assess the legal quality of a national law.

I wonder what the Irish people will think about these procedures in advance of the upcoming referendum on the Lisbon treaty. What else can they think but that soon, Ireland also will be condemned because of its laws that protect the family and life? I profoundly regret that the European Parliament does not respect the basic principles of diversity and national culture, and that we question the protection of children and the right of parents to educate them.˝

The issue will be voted on tomorrow Thursday 17th September

European Parliament refuses to condemn Papal Statement on HIV/AIDS

Euro-fam report that the European Parliament on Thursday May 7th rejected an amendment tabled by The liberal group (ALDE) to its "Annual Report on Human Rights in the World 2008 and the European Union's policy on the matter (2008/2336 (INI))", which included a scurrilous attack on Pope Benedict XVI.

The amendment which sought to promote abortion through sexual and reproductive health rights to combat AIDS also condemned Pope Benedict's statement about the effectiveness of the use of the condom in the fight against AIDS in Africa: See previous BLOG

The text of the European parliament article with the condemnation follows,

45a. [The European Parliament] Underlines the importance of promoting sexual and reproductive health rights, as a precondition for any successful fight against HIV/AIDS, which causes enormous loss in terms of human lives and economic development, affecting particularly the poorest regions in the world; firmly condemns the recent declarations made by Pope Benedict XVI, banning the use of condoms and warning that condom use could even lead to an increased risk of contagion; is concerned that those statements will severely hamper the fight against HIV/AIDS; points out that empowerment of women also helps to counter HIV/AIDS; calls on the governments of the Member States to act together to promote sexual and reproductive health rights and education, including on the use of condoms as an effective tool in the fight against this scourge;

The amendment was rejected by 253 MEPs to 199. The total vote was only 513 as many MEP's had already left for their constituencies to pursue their re-election campaigns

The Papal statement provoked angry criticism from some countries together with UN officials and anti-family politicians but his views are supported by an increasing number of scientists who have observed an increase in the rate of HIV transmission in countries that emphasize the use of condoms as a protective measure. In contrast the only country that has succeeded in reducing its HIV/AIDS infection rate is Uganda which stressed abstention from sex before marriage and faithfulness within marriage as the two main planks of its prevention strategy.

The Belgian Parliament has already denounced the statement by Pope Benedict and the Spanish Congress is currently considering a similar motion.

Ireland’s day for life: Cork Conference celebrating 25th anniversary of the pro-life amendment

Held at Frankfield/Grange parish centre in Douglas Cork, the conference was organised as a series of four panels dealing with different aspects of the pro-life amendment of the Constitution and its implications for Ireland . The event included campaigners from the 1983 referendum as well as medical, economic, legal and ethics experts from all over Europe.

Speaking on this historic anniversary, Kathy Sinnott, who is Vice President of the Bioethics Intergroup and the Intergroup on Family and Protection of Childhood in the European Parliament, said,

The laws protecting life are fragile and need ongoing commitment from our lawmakers, especially in a Europe where many consider such protection obsolete.

The first panel looked at the historical perspective and was presented by a panel of pro-life activists from the Munster region, who looked at the issues involved in first establishing the pro-life protection and then maintaining it despite the myriad attacks which have wounded but not overturned it

The second panel looked at the medical social and economic benefits of the pro-life amendment over the 25 year period. Dr John Monaghan pointed out that that the level maternal care in Ireland is excellent and as a result Ireland’s maternal mortality rate is the lowest in the world. Patrick Fagan of the Family Research Council produced US Federal statistics which clearly show that the safest and most beneficial place for children is to grow up in an intact home having a married mother and father who are regular church attendants. From the social science perspective the more an individual practices religious beliefs the more he/she thrives in education, health and mental health, marriage and family and the less likely is he/she is to be involved in crime, addiction, abuse or a host of other ills.

The third panel looked at the legal and legislative challenges to its pro-life ethos, faced by Ireland from the EU, the UN, the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, the World Health Organisation and international NGO’s. Roger Kiska from the European Centre for Law and Justice outlined the current challenge to the Irish Constitution, the ABC case currently before the European Court of Human Rights The fourth panel, which looked at the constitutional protection, consisted Of Kathy Sinnott Bernadette Goulding of Rachael’s Vineyard and Fr Brian Mc kevitt, editor of the Alive newspaper

Crackdown on Small Groups in European Parliament

Kathy Sinnott, pro-life Irish MEP

A report by Labour MEP Richard Corbett has called for new rules for political groupings in the European Parliament, which would eliminate small groups. The current rules for groupings within the parliament require that they have representation from one fifth, 20% of the member states and have a minimum of 20 MEPs. In a parliament with 15 member states this meant representation from three states. In the new situation of 27 member states with others waiting in the wings this already implies representation from 5/6 countries. Under the proposed new rules however groups would require representation from 25% of member states and have a minimum of 30 members. This report, which will come before the parliament in the July plenary is aimed at groups such as INDEM (Kathy Sinnott's group), the Greens and UEN the group to which Fianna Fail belong.

Should this vote be carried it would be a major setback for pro-life and pro-family deputies who are able under the current system to propose amendments to anti-life anti-family resolutions. The importance of the Pro-Life-Coalition of MEPs within the parliament has been clearly evident during various debates and shows that it has always been the small groups which tabled sensitive amendments on pro life, bioethics and family-issues. INDEM and the Greens in particular were outstanding in the fight against the use of embryonic stem cells and human cloning. The larger groups, (apart from a small number of deputies) do not support pro-life or pro-family policies. Efforts to block the proposal in the Constitutional Affairs Committee (AFCO) were only partially successful and the entire issue will now be voted on in the July Plenary after the Irish Referendum.

In the meantime every effort is being made to keep this from becoming an issue for the Irish electorate prior to next week's referendum vote. During the debate on the issue this anti democratic measure was reasoned away by the PSE and EPP speakers who suggested that the abolition of small groups would lead to a coherent increase in the work of the parliament and that such a move would best serve democracy. They also blandly stated that members of those groups could either be non-aligned or should join the larger groups. Either option would remove their right to propose amendments. The two largest groups in the parliament - the centre-right European People's Party and the leftwing Socialists - have 64 percent of all the MEPs and may be able to push the changes through despite the combined opposition. All of which leads to the question do they really understand that real democracy is 'of the people, by the people, for the people?