EU Committee: Denial of Abortion Is Violence; Pro-Abortion Organizations Must Be Funded

On January 21, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) adopted an opinion (SOC/848-EESC-2025) on its own initiative, entitled “My Voice, My Choice: For Safe And Accessible Abortion.” The decision was preceded by work in the Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which approved the draft document on November 26, 2025. The rapporteur for the opinion was José Antonio Moreno Díaz, and the work was supported by women advisors representing EESC Group II and Group III. The opinion was adopted by 195 votes in favor, with 12 against and 11 abstentions. This document constitutes the EESC’s response to the European Citizens’ Initiative “My Voice, My Choice”.

In the section titled “Conclusions and Recommendations,” the EESC commends the European Citizens’ Initiative as— in the Committee’s view—a pragmatic tool for ensuring that women in the European Union have access to abortion. The Committee says that the initiative falls within the EU’s supporting competences and may serve as a basis for further action at the EU level. In points 1.2–1.4 of its opinion, the EESC wrongly contends that abortion is a human right that encompasses many other rights, including the right to health, privacy, bodily autonomy, equality, and non-discrimination. The Committee emphasizes that the exercise of this right should be genuine and effective and should take into account the perspective relating to the situation of women in particularly difficult social or health circumstances.

Further in its conclusions, the EESC calls on the European Commission to present proposals for financial support for the Member States. In accordance with points 2.3–2.7 of the opinion, these measures would enable women who do not have access to so-called safe and legal abortion in their own country to obtain it in another Member State, in accordance with the law in force there. The Committee points out the possibility of establishing an opt-in mechanism that states could join voluntarily.

In points 1.6–1.8, the EESC states that the denial of or obstruction of access to abortion care constitutes a form of gender-based institutional violence within the meaning of the Istanbul Convention and Directive (EU) 2024/1385. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that member states include access to abortion in their gender-based violence prevention systems and in public health care systems.

The opinion repeatedly refers to the EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In points 3.4–3.7, the EESC points out that Articles 2 and 8 of the Treaty on European Union, the relevant provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 1, 3, 21 and 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union are—in the Committee’s view—interpreted as confirming the Union’s obligation to ensure access to so-called safe and legal abortion as part of the protection of women’s dignity, integrity and equality.

In the “General comments” section (points 2.1–2.7), the EESC describes the social and economic consequences of a lack of access to abortion. The Committee notes that restrictions in this regard have—according to the arguments presented—a negative impact on women’s physical and mental health, and also lead to increased economic and social pressure, especially for women in precarious life circumstances.

The EESC also emphasizes the importance of sex education. In points 1.8–1.12, the Committee refers to Article 14 of the Istanbul Convention, the EU strategy on the rights of the child and UNESCO guidelines, indicating the need to introduce comprehensive, age-appropriate sexuality education into school curricula. In the EESC’s view, such education should prevent unwanted pregnancies, promote gender equality, and combat sexual violence.

In the “Detailed comments” (points 3.1–3.18), the EESC presents a false but comprehensive argument in favor of recognizing abortion as a human right. The Committee refers to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Istanbul Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In points 3.6–3.9, the EESC cites the positions of UN treaty bodies, including the Human Rights Committee and the CEDAW Committee, noting that the criminalization of abortion has been recognized by these bodies as a violation of women’s rights and a form of gender-based violence. The Committee also points to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, in particular Goals 3.7 and 5.6, as part of the international policy context.

Read also:

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

In the following points (3.10–3.14), the EESC draws attention to the uneven access to abortion in the Member States, pointing to geographic, economic, and cultural barriers that—in the Committee’s view—hinder women’s access to this service even where it is formally legal.

The opinion also includes references to the international situation. In points 3.15–3.18, the EESC expresses concern about the global reduction in funding for “family planning and reproductive health services” and calls on the EU to strengthen its role on the international stage in this area.

In the final section of the document, the EESC calls for increased funding for civil society organizations working to ensure access to abortion, legal protection for individuals involved in providing such services, and the collection of statistical data by the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) and Eurostat. The opinion concludes with a call on the European Commission to approve the “My Voice, My Choice” initiative, ensure its implementation, and present a timeline for next steps.

“The opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee shows how this EU advisory body attempts to entrench controversial interpretations of international and EU law without amending the existing Treaties. They consistently present abortion as a human right and as an obligation of the European Union, despite the lack of basis in binding sources of law. This document is part of a broader process of using ‘soft law’ instruments to exert political and financial pressure on member states in areas that remain within their competence,” observes Julia Książek of the Ordo Iuris Center for International Law.

Read also:

• Abortion funded by taxpayer dollars? The “My Voice, My Choice” project and the European ideological offensive