The majority of the European Parliament adopted a resolution with a very cunning title: "Global threats to the right to abortion: the possible review of the right to abortion by the United States Supreme Court", Francesca Rivafinoli begins her article on the Sunday portal.

The title is tricky, since "right to abortion" does not exist (for now) and is not enshrined in any international treaty - the idea could be that if a certain number of resolutions are included in the title, preferably twice immediately, and then refer to the given documents in a circle , then the audience will be convinced at a given point that this right is factually given (however, if it is given, it cannot logically be tied to a deadline).

Of course, we have already gotten used to the method from Klára Dobrev: she has posted so many times in recent years that "I have just fought for the "European minimum wage" for you at the cost of heroic struggles", that it is now completely clear to her fanbase that Lácacséké would earn the same amount as In Luxembourg, only Zorbán viciously vetoes this too.

So the resolution was born , from which we can learn, among other things: "limiting or banning the right to abortion in the United States would have a disproportionate impact (...) on LGBTIQ persons". I looked to see if there was a footnote, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be one, although some explanation would not hurt here.

In the midst of the current crisis, the Parliament of the European Union is holding a two-hour debate on a decision of an independent court of a non-EU state that has not yet been made. but if that is the case, then at least it should not be published in all the official languages ​​of the EU that lesbians and gays are particularly severely affected by restrictions on abortion.

But in addition to the written text, there was also the plenary debate; let's see an episode of that too. The man from the German People's Party rises to speak and says calmly and assertively that he thinks abortion can be considered on a case-by-case basis, "OK", but overall in Europe we have the opportunity to protect life, so we should not open Pandora's box by making the right to self-determination for life placed above real law. How does the current female speaker of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (!) react to this?

Of course, he yells hysterically at her, "You're clearly speaking to me, the woman, as a man here," a man who "never has to pay" the same price, and who only believes he can imagine himself in a woman's position, so you " as a man” should listen now. (Lively applause, ovation from the ranks.)

There are many exciting moments in this, a large volume could be written about it, starting with the fact that the German government's commissioner for queer affairs recently explained that not even a doctor can determine who is what gender by looking at them, and now a supposedly progressive member of one of the German governing parties from the pulpit of the meeting hall in Strasbourg, from many meters away (with a qualification as a manual labor instructor), he describes his fellow representative as "completely clearly a man". More consistency, if I may ask.

But I would also recommend that, from now on, the members of the EP from the Hungarian ruling party quote this enthusiastically celebrated progressive speech mutatis mutandis verbatim (and, of course, with reference to the source) in all matters concerning Hungarian internal affairs and energy supply in Hungary: "You are clearly here as a German/Swedish/ he speaks to me as Portuguese/Dutch, to Hungarian. He just thinks he can imagine himself in our situation. You don't have to suffer the same consequences. So now is the point when you'll please shut up."

It is never a shame for a dictatorship to learn from popular politicians in the stronghold of democracy.

Francesca Rivafinoli's entire article can be read on the vasarnap.hu portal.

Image source: Lifenews