My Voice, My Choice? Why the EU Should Not Finance Abortion

The European Parliament’s support for the “My Voice, My Choice” initiative illustrates how far the debate on abortion at EU level has drifted away from the legal framework established by the EU Treaties and international law. Although the initiative has been presented as a grassroots demand for “access to healthcare,” its actual objective is to establish a mechanism for financing abortion from EU funds, in direct contradiction to the principle of conferral, the principle of subsidiarity, and the sovereignty of the Member States¹.

Registered as a European Citizens’ Initiative after collecting more than 1.12 million signatures, “My Voice, My Choice” calls for the creation of a so-called voluntary financial solidarity mechanism. This mechanism would enable the financing of abortion, including the costs of procedures, travel, and accommodation, for women from countries that have chosen to protect prenatal life.² While described as “voluntary,” the proposal in practice constitutes a form of political pressure and an attempt to circumvent national constitutional orders.

Abortion is not a human right

First, and contrary to what the promoters of this “My Voice, My Choice” initiative would want us to believe, it is of fundamental importance that abortion is not recognized as a human right in any binding instrument of international law. The Programme of Action of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development explicitly states that abortion should not be promoted as a method of family planning and that states should strive to reduce the number of abortions³. There is likewise no international treaty establishing so-called “sexual and reproductive rights” as a legally binding category of rights. Attempts to portray abortion as a human rights standard are therefore ideological rather than normative.

Equally significant is the right to life. Core human rights instruments, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child⁴, the European Convention on Human Rights⁵, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights⁶ – do not exclude prenatal life from protection. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly emphasized that the Convention does not establish a right to abortion and that states enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in this area⁷. Consequently, EU-level public funding of abortion stands in clear contradiction to settled case law and the existing international legal consensus⁸.

Read also:

Abortion Access Is Not a Human Right—and Here’s Why

Financing access to abortion at EU level goes against the EU treaties

From the perspective of EU law, the problem is even more fundamental. Abortion remains an exclusive competence of the Member States. Article 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union clearly provides that, in the field of human health protection and improvement, the EU holds only supporting competences⁹. Moreover, Article 168(7) TFEU obliges the Union to respect the responsibility of the Member States for the organization and delivery of their health policies.¹⁰ This means that the EU has neither the authority to regulate abortion nor to indirectly impose access to it through financial instruments.

Any potential “European abortion fund” would necessarily be financed from public resources, including contributions from taxpayers in countries that, in accordance with their constitutional identity, protect life from conception. Such a mechanism would force citizens of those countries to finance practices that contradict their legal orders and fundamental ethical principles. This would not only violate national sovereignty but would also demonstrate a lack of respect for constitutional pluralism within the European Union.¹¹

These proposals are also incompatible with the principle of subsidiarity, one of the cornerstones of EU law. Under this principle, the Union may act only where objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States at the national, regional, or local level. It is difficult to identify any rational justification for claiming that the regulation or financing of abortion requires action at the EU level. On the contrary, this is an area closely linked to constitutional identity and the democratic choices made by individual states.

A dangerous precedent

Prior to the plenary debate and the public hearing on the “My Voice, My Choice” initiative held in the European Parliament on 2 December 2025, the Ordo Iuris Institute submitted a memorandum to Members of the European Parliament¹², highlighting the lack of legal basis for the proposed solutions and calling for a vote against any attempts to introduce EU-level financing of abortion. These arguments remain valid after the vote and should set clear limits on any further action by the European Commission.

The European Parliament’s resolution does not create new legal norms. It does, however, establish a dangerous precedent: the instrumental use of EU mechanisms to advance ideological objectives at the expense of law, competences, and the sovereignty of Member States.

1 European Citizens’ Initiative “My Voice, My Choice”, official website:
https://www.myvoice-mychoice.org.

2 Ibid.

3 International Conference on Population and Development, Programme of Action, Cairo 1994, para. 8.25:
https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/files/documents/2020/Jan/un_1995_programme_of_action_adopted_at_the_international_conference_on_population_and_development_cairo_5-13_sept._1994.pdf.

4 Convention on the Rights of the Child, Preamble:
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child.

5 European Convention on Human Rights, Article 2:
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG.

6 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 6:
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights.

7 European Court of Human Rights, A., B. and C. v. Ireland, Judgment of 16 December 2010, Application no. 25579/05: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-102332%22]}.

8 ECtHR case law confirming the absence of a Convention right to abortion, including Vo v. France and Tysiąc v. Poland: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int.

9 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Articles 6 and 168(7): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT.

10 Treaty on European Union, Article 4(2) (respect for national constitutional identity): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012M/TXT.

11 Treaty on European Union, Article 5(1)–(3) (principle of conferral and subsidiarity): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012M/TXT.

12 Ordo Iuris Institute, Memorandum on the European Parliament vote concerning the “My Voice, My Choice” initiative, 1 December 2025: https://ordoiuris.pl/en/press-newsdesk/european-parliament-debates-institutional-taxpayer-funded-abortion-tourism-across-eu-in-new-attack-on-national-sovereignty/.

Source of cover photo: iStock