But it wasn’t just Paulo Núncio’s speech that clashed head-on with the subsequent reaction of the leader of the coalition he represented there; Also the allegations of Pedro Frazão, the other guest present at the session, Chega’s deputy since 2022 and head of the party’s list for Santarém, contradict what was said later by its leader, André Ventura, who declared that he was there to represent.
In fact, if Ventura this Wednesday asserted that he did not have on his horizon to criminalize abortion again – the decriminalization of which he even defended in 2020, in an interview with Publicas Núncio recalled -, Frazão responded to the first question asked by the moderator about whether the political forces present there would be capable of “building bridges” in the matters at stake (abortion, euthanasia, fight against gender discrimination, classes citizenship) with great enthusiasm. “I am very happy to be here today in defense of life. We have to join hands and we have to reverse iniquitous policies that were won by the murderous Marxist left in recent decades and we cannot be afraid of words because in fact the murderous Marxist left has won this cultural battle.”
Repeating the expression “murderous left” five times in a row without anyone present reacting, and specifically mentioning the right to terminate pregnancy as one of the “wicked policies” to be reversed, Frazão proclaimed: “To win this fight we cannot invoke red lines, Chega never invokes red lines on the right. We must row in the same direction to combat the wicked laws of the left.”
Something similar, although in less aggressive language, had been said by Paulo Núncio in response to the same question: “I think it is possible, in the name of a set of fundamental values, to build bridges. The left has taken steps to attack life and the family and it is important that all possible bridges are built in order to reverse the measures introduced in recent times.”
The answers pleased the moderator, who summarized the conclusion drawn without being contradicted: “I’m glad you’re willing to join forces for this cause.” Still, he would return to the charge at the end of the conversation, asking Paulo Núncio for certainty: “Do we have the guarantee that on structural issues – euthanasia, abortion, freedom in education – the AD, the vote in the AD, will be in favor of life against these maneuvers, these social engineering?”
The representative of the coalition led by Luís Montenegro referred to its agreement: “What I can guarantee in an entirely clear way are the principles and values that are included in the coalition agreement, and where four absolutely decisive themes are identified. Firstly, place the dignity of the human person at the center and as a priority of political action; secondly, valuing the family as a fundamental cell of life in society; thirdly, invest in birth policies that reverse the demographic winter; and fourthly, to focus on freedom and demand in education, against the indoctrination of our young people and children.” And, he repeated, “it is necessary to take into account the history of the parties”.
It should be noted that the leader of the CDS-PP also went public this Thursday to contradict Núncio, certifying, in statements to DN (and despite recognizing “the position of the CDS is the same as always, the CDS has not changed”) that “ this topic [o do aborto] is not included in the coalition agreement. It is not a topic for the next legislature.”
But the “coalition agreement” would again, at the meeting on the 20th, be invoked by Núncio when, in the final period of public questions, he was confronted with the fact that the AD program (as indeed, it should be noted, if passed with the electoral program of the PSD/CDS-PP coalition for the 2011 legislative elections, which did not prevent it from changing the abortion law) “speaking zero times about abortion, euthanasia and gender ideology”. The centrist politician, fourth on the list for Lisbon in the March 10 elections and who at one point confessed that he did not understand how it was even possible for Yes to win the 2007 referendum – “God Our Lord will know why Yes won” -, it even seemed to mean that it is not the electoral program that counts: “There was a coalition agreement between the parties and these matters are included in the coalition agreement.”
