Karystianou Denies Reports – Karystianou on Abortions

Maria Karystianou attempted to respond to the criticism she received over her remarks on abortions with a lengthy post on social media.

She spoke of the “stripping bare” of the media and accused them of selectively rebroadcasting her interview on OPEN. She claimed that her statement on the issue of abortions was “deliberately distorted” by individuals engaged in what she described as an “organised effort to undermine” her and who are “engaging in character assassination”.

Her statement is marked by contradictions, as on the one hand she writes that “no human right can be subject to consultation and negotiation”, while on the other she essentially contradicts what she herself said on Monday morning.

In her own words:

“I know that abortions have been legalised, but I am speaking about the moral issue. Issues that concern how our society functions must be resolved through public consultation.”

We assume that the television channel on which Ms Karystianou spoke did not engage in any “editing tricks”.

Nor is criticism of the statements of someone who enters politics, a priori, a matter of blanket “petty politicking” by the media or “character assassination”. Anyone who chooses to engage in politics will also be judged politically, as should and must be the case for anyone seeking the people’s vote. Such sweeping generalisations are typically a tactic of misdirection, something history itself confirms.

In today’s post, Ms Karystianou proceeds with clarifications that she should have emphasised during her initial public statements. As she notes: “The need for public dialogue that I referred to concerns the real social causes that lead thousands of women to this extremely difficult decision: inadequate education for young people, the absence of systematic sex education, limited access to modern contraceptive methods and, above all, the gaps in social welfare.”

On these points, we fully agree. That said, the “editing” she denounces was, in effect, carried out by herself.

Admittedly, in political life the acknowledgment of a mistake is not common practice, yet it always counts positively when it is done sincerely. This is something Ms Karystianou should bear in mind, especially now that, by her own choice, she is entering the arena of parliamentary politics.

In practical terms, no one “distorted” her statements. The clarifications she now provides, however, are in the right spirit, and it would be preferable to focus on them without demonising “imaginary enemies”. It should also be noted that the legislator she invokes has indeed “provided”, as she rightly acknowledges, for safeguarding women’s right to self-determination, and reopening issues related to “bioethics” does not help frame the institutional changes she herself is calling for.

As for the remaining positions of the party formation she intends to announce, we await the clear positions and programme of the “movement” once it is officially unveiled.

In any case, the entire debate surrounding the “Karystianou party” — and the terms on which it has been conducted — is expected to be exploited as seen fit by those seeking to weaken the demand for justice over the Tempi train disaster. This is the truly regrettable aspect of the affair, and democratic citizens must ensure that it is not allowed to happen.

Maria Karystianou’s post in full:

“I waited stoically until last night, watching the complete ‘stripping bare’ of the media.

Unfortunately, the majority of the media (with very few exceptions that I must acknowledge) SUPPRESSED ALL THE INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES highlighted in my interview yesterday with Messrs Stravelakis and Karamitros, and focused EXCLUSIVELY on the untimely question about abortions — a question that the journalists asking it deemed more important in their list of priorities than the problems plaguing our country: namely, the major scandals of the Mitsotakis government, the ongoing institutional deviation, the destruction of farmers, soaring prices and the impoverishment of citizens, the collapse of healthcare and education, and so many other critical issues we are experiencing.

My answer yesterday on the issue of abortions was DELIBERATELY DISTORTED by those who are engaged in an organised effort to undermine me and who ruthlessly participate in a political contract of character assassination.

No human right is SUBJECT TO CONSULTATION, is NOT an object of negotiation, nor a field for political games, as some are attempting to present it.

Those attacking me on the pretext of a multifaceted medical and legal issue for which the legislator has already made provisions, do not care about the position of women today, nor about their problems, nor about support for motherhood, nor about low birth rates, nor about the demographic problem, nor about children’s rights, nor about the family and its survival.

Nor have they reflected on why a woman or a couple is led to abortion — let alone on bioethics.

What mattered most to them was, and remains, to halt by every means possible the intensive ‘gestation’ of a major movement that could change the discussion and place society once again at the centre of public debate and decision-making.

The need for public dialogue that I referred to concerns the real social causes that lead thousands of women to this extremely difficult decision: inadequate information for young people, the absence of systematic sex education, limited access to modern methods of contraception and, above all, the gaps in social welfare.

For this reason, meaningful dialogue must focus on: creating comprehensive social welfare structures for pregnant women and new mothers; free access to family planning and contraception services; support for single-parent families; and benefits and services that allow a woman not to be torn between pregnancy and work or studies.

The demographic and existential crisis facing the country cannot be addressed through restrictions on rights, but through a strong social state that offers real choices and genuine support to citizens.

Women’s freedom becomes substantive only when it is accompanied by economic security, access to healthcare, decent working conditions and the protection of motherhood.

This is the consultation we must open: a discussion in terms of public health, social welfare and respect for institutions, so that no woman is driven into a dead end by fear, ignorance or abandonment.

With a sense of responsibility towards women, children and the future of the country, I believe in a society that supports them through prevention, education and solidarity — not through division.

Thank you.”