The major focus looks to be about abortion on demand and contraceptives and pads for girls. Although no one proved it is an issue in the first place.
Parliament encourages member states to ensure sexuality education is taught comprehensively to primary and secondary school children, as SRHR education can significantly contribute to reducing sexual violence and harassment.
This part needs explanation cause I do not understand how abortion services decrease infant mortality
safe abortion services are important elements in saving women’s lives and reducing infant and child mortality.
(Emphasis mine). That's an odd claim. How does reciting the statement "some guys like taking it up the ass, some gals prefer eating oysters" reduce sexual violence? I don't necessarily see it raising sexual violence, it could but I don't see that as a guarantee, but how does it not only reduce sexual violence, but SIGNIFICANTLY reduce it?
Bobbit out there saying "well, I was going to cut off my husband's dick for fun, but then I remembered that gay porn exists, and somehow, that makes me not commit sexual violence against my husband!".
Oh, maybe they're the type who believe women can't perpetrate sexual violence, I'm sorry, I'll just create a sex-appropriate example, and make them an offensive stereotype to make sure they listen since racism and stereotypes are the only language the Left understands...
Jumbo Jim gets back from the oil rig on his Texan farm to his wife-slave he keeps in the kitchen. Not barefoot, though, no, he binds copies of The Handmaid's Tale to her feet, instead, so she treads on her favorite story every step. He was about to jam his fist up her vagina, when he remembered his Sexuality education in school, and stopped, because fisting is what those lez-bee-ans do, and he ain't that.
That sound about right? Really, I'm not seeing how "lesbians and gay people exist" as a statement or educational curricula note will lead to less rape. Significantly less rape, notably. Are most rapists suppressed gays and lesbians or something, who rape because they weren't taught that their Self existed? Is that the EU's claim?
EDIT: Yes, I acknowledge the phrase was full of weasel words: can and contribute to, which make the phrase literally meaningless, selling ice cream can significantly contribute to reducing murder, if the "can" is contingent on a very specific situation and the "contribute to" is tangential and tenuous, say if a single incident throughout history, someone dodged a murder attempt because they went to an ice cream shop instead of their usual restaurant, then the statement would be true, "Can", because it happened once, and "signfiicantly contribute to" because in that singular instance it was a decisive factor... But I was reacting based on what they WANTED me to believe they meant, not what they likely ACTUALLY meant, which was "they could dream up some ridiculous farce of a singular example in which it significantly matters".
It's not language for the rational, critical thinking individual. Anyone who has above-room temperature I.Q., can see it for what it is: child grooming.
For the normies, the idiots, and the "allies" unwilling to parent correctly, it's weasel words designed expressly to appeal to emotion. A fallacy most normies aren't prone to pick up on and will eat it up just like some of them are convinced that they should be okay with all the interracial agitprop in media because being against it might get them labeled as a "racist".
In this case, it's legislation that linguistically foists upon them the obligation to accept... "being gay is okay because otherwise you're a bigot who condones rape culture!".
Any parent worth their salt should pull their kid from school and teach them about all the ills that come with the Rainbow Reich society. But I fear that there are far and few between willing to do so these days.