The Matić Report, full title: “Report on the situation of sexual and reproductive health and rights in the EU, in the frame of women’s health“, is a report of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality of the European Union, introduced by the Croatian MP Predrag Fred Matić (S&D) on 21 May 2021. It is expected to be voted on in the EU Parliament on 23 June 2021.

If this 28-page report is adopted, it will become a resolution of the European Parliament and would, as such, represent the European Parliament’s position on a specific issue known as “Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights” (SRHR).

The Report has no binding force, since the EU Commission would only be bound by it to the extent that it would be obliged to make a public statement this year on this report; however, if it were to be accepted, this report would have a considerable impact because it would massively influence the political orientation of all EU institutions.

The Report deals not only with the topic of SRHR, but also discusses the legal definition of marriage, artificial insemination, surrogacy and sex education for children. In addition, the subject of abortion is directly referred to several times. It is not up to the EU to issue regulations for the member states with regard to these topics, as these topics are outside the scope of the EU’s competence.

“B. whereas sexual and reproductive health and rights are based on the rights of all individuals to have their bodily integrity and personal autonomy respected; define their sexual orientation and gender identity; decide whether, with whom and when to be sexually active; decide whether, when and who to marry and when, whether and by what means to have a child or children; have access to the information and support necessary to achieve all of the above“.

The Report “invites the member states to adapt their national legal frameworks on the subject of abortion to the [alleged] international human rights standards by ensuring that abortion at the mother’s request is always legal, even if there is no threat to her life or health. “

In addition, the Report “urges” the member states “to guarantee that every schoolchild [in elementary school and in middle school] has access” to so-called “scientifically correct and comprehensive sex education according to WHO standards.” These WHO standards include, among other things, governmental programs for the promotion of early childhood masturbation.

The Report also seeks to “combat the spread of discriminatory and unsafe disinformation about SRHR”. It is therefore necessary to explain the term SRHR in more detail:

The term “Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights” was defined for the first time in the resolution of the “International Conference on Population and Development” held in Cairo in 1994. The “Program of Action” adopted on that occasion contains the following definition: “Reproductive health care in the context of primary health care should, inter alia, include: […] abortion as specified in paragraph 8.25; […]and information, education and counselling, as appropriate, on human sexuality, reproductive health and responsible parenthood.“

Based on this definition, there are two aspects of these so-called “reproductive rights”: the right to access “sexual health services” and the right to be able to make “reproductive decisions”. Although in 1994, the official goal was still the prevention of abortions primarily by way of contraception, this goal was mentioned less and less after the Conference was over. Nowadays, the term “SRHR“ quite clearly and unequivocally refers to contraception and abortion – and to a number of other things.

A brief summary of the most important points of the Matić Report

1. Abortion as a human right

The Report mentions several times that abortion is already a human right and that this fact only needs to be “recognised“, so to speak, by the member states.

„51. Calls on the Member States to exercise their competence in SRHR by striving to fully protect, respect and fulfil human rights, specifically the right to health with regard to SRHR, and to guarantee a wide range of available, accessible, high-quality and nondiscriminatory SRH services available to all without discrimination, such as treatments for fertility and for genetic diseases with gamete preservation, ensuring that the principle of non-retrogression under international human rights law is respected, including for individuals who have to travel for treatment, such as residents in remote areas and the outermost regions; condemns any attempt to limit access to SRHR through restrictive laws; strongly affirms that the denial of access to SRHR is a form of genderbased violence;“

So it should not surprise us that anyone who tries to hinder or prohibit access to SRHR would be considered a violent criminal trampling on human rights.

2. Abortion as a “pillar of democracy“

From a heading on page 20 of the Report, we learn that “SRHR are a pillar of “gender equality”, democracy and the fight to eliminate “gender-based violence”.

We are, once again, faced with the same logic that tries to convince us that abortion is a “human right”. Paragraph 55 informs us that anyone who is against SRHR undermines the “values of the EU” and the “principles of democracy”:

„55. Calls on the Commissioner for Democracy and Demography to take an evidence- and human rights-based approach to tackling demographic challenges in the EU, ensuring that every EU resident, including those residing in more remote areas, such as the outermost regions, can fully realise their SRHR, and to take special note of and confront those who instrumentalise SRHR in order to undermine EU values and the principles of democracy; “

Who and what this refers to is explained several times in the Report: all those who try to put obstacles in the way of abortion or who reject it for religious reasons or reasons of conscience – all pro-life organisations, to start with.

3. The restriction or abolition of freedom of conscience

So if a woman wants to abort her child, she must, according to this report, be given the opportunity to do so at any time, anywhere.

Even if the freedom of conscience of a physician is theoretically recognised, for example, it must never stand in the way of any treatment falling under the umbrella term of SRHR (such as, for example, abortion or gender reassignment).

„36. Recognises that for personal reasons, individual medical practitioners may invoke a conscience clause; stresses, however, that an individual’s conscience clause may not interfere with a patient’s right to full access to healthcare and services; calls on the Member States and healthcare providers to take such circumstances into account in their geographical provision of healthcare services;

A little further down in the text (page 27), this demand is raised again, only in much more drastic terms:

„Even when legally available, there are barriers in the access to abortion. This leads to the violation of SRHR, but also to inequalities in achieving women’s rights across the EU. One of the most problematic barriers is the denial of medical care based on personal beliefs, where medical professionals often do not perform abortions, calling upon their personal beliefs. This not only denies women of their right to health and medical procedures, but also raises the question of public referral systems. According to the EP Study on Implications of Conscientious Objection on SRHR national legislation often allows for health care professionals to opt out of providing goods and services to which they are morally opposed, including performing abortions or prescribing, selling or advising on contraceptive methods through ‘the refusal to participate in an activity that an individual considers incompatible with his/her religious, moral, philosophical or ethical beliefs. Moving forward it should be addressed as denial of medical care rather than the so-called conscientious objection. A large number of Member States (20+) provide for the right to the so-called conscientious objection, which is also recognised by UN instruments and the European Convention on Human Rights.“

If, for example, a doctor refuses an abortion for religious reasons, this would no longer count as a conscientious objection, but rather as “failure to provide medical assistance”. This report creates the prerequisites for future penalties.

4. Gender Mainstreaming

The term “gender” appears 96 times throughout the Report. The implementation of gender ideology in its most radical form is called for, and “gender mainstreaming” is also referred to quite openly. For example, the member states are called upon to abolish all obstacles to gender reassignment – even in cases where these barriers are abolished against the advice of experienced medical professionals.

“71. Believes that the EU needs to facilitate the integration of SRHR services into the national public health strategies and policies of partner countries, recalls with concern that most unmet needs for sexual and reproductive health services are among adolescents, unmarried people, LGBTIQ people, persons with disabilities, members of minorities and minority ethnic groups, and the rural and urban poor; emphasises that SRHR services should be gender-responsive, rights-based, youth-firendly and available to all, regardless of age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, social class, religion, marital status, economic resources, national or social origin or disabilities, including in humanitatian settings during conflicts and disaster;“

Even if much more important things are going on – humanitarian disasters or the like – all forms of SRHR, for example in relation to sex reassignment, must be made available at all times. Incidentally, the report also emphasises a “right to self-determination for transgender people” (paragraph 21) and states that men can also become pregnant (section N).

So while surveys show that the majority of the population in Austria and Germany rejects “gendering”, the member states are to be forced into massively promoting this inhuman ideology and imposing it on their citizens.

In the future, anyone who refuses to use “gendered” language or fails to “recognise the rights of LGBT people” is therefore to be treated as an abuser of human rights and will likely be prosecuted.

5. Corona and health

Even though it is not its main topic, the Report also demands demands that the EU and the member states buy even more “corona vaccines”:

„15. Emphasises the importance of illness prevention through education; further stresses the importance of vaccinations in illness prevention where vaccinations exist; calls, therefore, on the Member States and on the Commission to extend the EU’s purchase of vaccines to combat COVID-19 to the purchase of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, ensuring that every person in Europe can have access to this vaccine;“

It is particularly important to highlight the following parallels:

Health, according to the Report, is supposed to justify the introduction of the inhuman SRHR agenda. And since the authors of this Report are – on their own admission – so very concerned about our health, they never stop talking about the “right to health”. However, their definition of the term “health“ – which is that of the WHO – includes abortion, gender reassignment and early childhood sex education, which means that the member states must be forced to introduce these things in their territories. There is a lack of alternatives in this scenario that we recognise from the current “Corona policy”. We are told that all these measures must be implemented for our own good and because they are supposed to be good for our health. The fact that this is not the case can easily be illustrated using the following examples:

According to the data published by the WHO around 43.000.000 babies are aborted each year worldwide; all the same, the main cause of death according to the WHO is coronary heart disease (which claims approximately 10.000.000 lives every year worldwide as a result of heart attacks etc.). In other words: we know that there are four times as many deaths every year as a result of abortion as there are deaths from heart attacks or heart failure. How is this supposed to serve our health?

Another example is provided by the massive complications arising in connection with gender reassignment surgery. There are health problems associated with the consequences of surgery and of the medication that is necessary to suppress certain developments, especially in the bodies of young people who want to undergo sex changes. Studies have also shown that the extraordinarily high rate of suicide among people with gender dysphoria is not significantly lowered in those who have undergone “successful“ gender reassignment surgery. Here, again, the benefit of these treatments is more than doubtful.

SUMMARY:

The Report demands

– The abolition of freedom of conscience for doctors, nurses, etc.

– The abolition of freedom of conscience for teachers

– Free abortion as a human right

– The removal of all legal obstacles to SRHR

– The fight against all organisations that campaign against abortion etc., i.e. all organisations that aim to protect life and the family

– Massive funding of this propaganda by the member states

– The purchase of even more corona vaccines by the member states, organised by the EU

and a lot more.

The St. Boniface Institute is categorically opposed to this Report and its demands. It should not only be rejected and combated on all political and social levels; there should also be a counter-movement to demand that all political and social forces acknowledge human nature and promote and defend it. We demand an unconditional rejection of “gender theory” and “LGBT propaganda”, as well as a complete ban on abortion.