Flávio Bolsonaro admitted he was wrong to oppose extending maternity leave and apologized to Lula for a personal insult during a heated debate.

Brazilian presidential candidate Flávio Bolsonaro apologized to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva during a televised debate after Lula challenged him over his past opposition to extending maternity leave, sparking a heated exchange over social welfare, poverty and personal attacks.

RELATED: Lula Pledges Universal Full-Day Schooling in Brazil

Flávio Bolsonaro, who represents the Liberal Party (PL), acknowledged that his earlier vote was a mistake and said he would take a different position today. He also apologized for calling Lula “nine fingers,” a reference to the president’s missing finger, but followed the apology by demanding that Lula answer for his government’s record on poverty and social assistance.

The confrontation unfolded during the debate’s second segment, after Lula requested a right of reply over remarks he considered offensive. The production team had yet to rule on the request when the candidates resumed their exchanges.

Lula chose social policy as the subject of his question and returned to an issue he said Flávio Bolsonaro had left unanswered in the previous debate. He challenged his opponent to explain why he had been the only state legislator in Rio de Janeiro to vote against extending maternity leave.

Text Reads: What is the justification for voting against maternity leave? Against the rights of women and the family? Explain, Flávio Bolsonaro.

Flávio Bolsonaro defended his earlier decision by saying he had believed the measure could make employers less willing to hire women. He acknowledged that he had been wrong, adding that marriage and having two children had changed his perspective.

He said he now understood the importance of mothers staying close to their children and would support extending maternity leave beyond 180 days where possible. He maintained that he would vote differently today.

Lula dismissed the explanation, arguing that Flávio Bolsonaro had failed to support the measure when he had the opportunity and was now changing his position as women became more politically active and fought for their rights.

The president then challenged his rival over the term “Bolsa Farelo,” which Flávio Bolsonaro had used to disparage Bolsa Família, Brazil’s income-transfer program. Lula called the expression disrespectful to poor people, arguing that those removed from economic hardship often treated the poor as though they had no value.

The exchange escalated when Lula responded to Flávio Bolsonaro’s use of the nickname “nine fingers.” The president explained that he had lost a finger at age 17 while working the night shift at a factory, saying he had needed the job to afford food.

“I will not allow a militiaman to call me ‘nine fingers,’” Lula declared. He also accused Flávio Bolsonaro of never having worked, alleging that the first job recorded in his rival’s employment record was a fictitious position arranged by his father.

Flávio Bolsonaro offered an apology, saying he had not intended to offend Lula with the remark. He then turned the criticism back on the president, demanding that Lula apologize to people experiencing homelessness and recipients of Bolsa Família.

Ver esta publicación en Instagram

Una publicación compartida por teleSUR English (@telesurenglish)

Flávio Bolsonaro claimed that the number of people living on the streets had nearly doubled under Lula’s current government, citing a figure of 199,000 people as the starting point. He also accused the president of neglecting Bolsa Família beneficiaries for four years and addressing their concerns only 17 days before the election.

The candidate criticized a recent adjustment to the benefit, claiming the increase amounted to three Brazilian reais a day — enough, he quipped, to buy three eggs.

The exchange brought the candidates’ competing arguments over social policy into sharp focus. Lula pressed Flávio Bolsonaro to account for his legislative record on maternity leave, while his opponent sought to shift scrutiny toward the government’s handling of homelessness and income support.

IN THIS ARTICLE