European Parliament Debates Institutional Taxpayer-Funded Abortion Tourism Across EU in New Attack on National Sovereignty

EU-wide access to abortion with public funds?

Public hearing of the “My Voice, My Choice” initiative took place on December 2 in Brussels, at a meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (also called FEMM Committee). The Ordo Iuris Institute sent a memorandum to Members of the European Parliament, outlining the initiative’s potential legal consequences, including constitutional issues, limitations on state sovereignty, and the impact of financial mechanisms on systems protecting life and health.

“My Voice, My Choice” is a European Citizens’ Initiative that seeks to change European Union policy in order to increase access to abortion. The main proposal is to establish an EU financial mechanism supporting abortion for women from countries whose laws protect human life from conception (e.g., Poland, Malta), enabling them to access abortion in countries where it is legal by covering costs such as transportation and lodging.

Alleged violation of women’s protection

EU Commissioner for Equality, Preparedness and Crisis Management Hadja Lahbib, who attended the session, acknowledged that the response to the “My Voice, My Choice” initiative must take into account the competence constraints arising from the EU Treaties. It was noted that Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that the protection of health, including so-called reproductive and sexual health, remains within the competence of the Member States. The Commissioner pointed out that the Member States are responsible for defining healthcare standards and organizing healthcare systems. At the same time, she noted that the EU has competences to support and complement actions at the national level, including in the area of women’s reproductive and sexual health.

During the hearing, representatives of the “My Voice, My Choice” initiative presented the goals and demands of the document, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that all women citizens of the Union have full access to abortion, regardless of their place of residence. Nika Kovač, a representative of the initiative’s organizers, spoke. She emphasized that in some countries the law may send a signal that a woman is “not sufficiently protected.” As an example, she cited a case from Croatia, where a doctor refused to perform an abortion in the seventh month of pregnancy, as a result of which the woman had to travel to Slovakia to have an abortion on a seven-month-old child there. Kovač also pointed to cases in Poland where—according to her—women in similar situations died in hospitals, while in other countries they could have survived.

Read also:

Despite Pro-Abortion Protests in Poland After 2021 Maternal Death, Medical Errors—Not Laws—Were to Blame; Poland Maintains One of the Lowest Maternal Mortality Rates

At the same time, she acknowledged that the European Union lacks the authority to interfere in national law, which, as she explained, became one of the main reasons for creating the initiative. She added that only a small minority opposes the initiative and called on MEPs to support her proposal.

Although she fully supported the initiative, Mirosława Nykiel of the FEMM Committee raised concerns about certain organizational and communication issues. She pointed out that some of the initiative’s comments and activities are ideological in nature, going beyond the project’s main goal. She emphasized that citizens’ negative opinions, including unpopular ones, should be taken into account, and that members of her group (the European People’s Party) were referred to by the organizers on social media as extremists. She also noted that citizens have the right to know what safeguards will be implemented, and that the initiative’s political strategy should be transparent and open to diverse opinions. She said: „I must also address situations in which some members’ attempts to express their opinions were portrayed in a negative light. This type of dynamic does not strengthen women’s cause. On the contrary, it undermines the democratic credibility of the initiative that is calling for it. The same applies to social media posts that labeled members of my political group as extremists. Such characterizations are not conducive to constructive dialogue and risk turning an extremely important issue into a political battleground.”

Voices in defense of life

However, a significant portion of the votes was strongly opposed to the initiative. During the hearing, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión (Patriots for Europe group) took the floor, presenting a critical assessment of the “My Voice, My Choice” initiative from the perspective of protecting national law and legal certainty. She emphasized that national laws reflect the decisions of national parliaments and deserve respect. She noted that the initiative promotes access to abortion without budgetary constraints, without a medical diagnosis (including for minors), and without a requirement for parental consent, which, in her view, would be accepted by only a small portion of EU societies. The Spanish MEP pointed out that by proposing to finance such trips from EU funds, the European Commission is supporting the provision of such “services,” which may cause public concern. Margarita de la Pisa Carrión pointed out that women often make decisions about abortion without complete information, and that promoting the initiative may lead to situations in which the value of human life is marginalized. The MEP also emphasized that the number of people supporting the initiative (about 1.2 million signatures) cannot be considered representative of all women in the EU, a block with almost 450 million inhabitants. She also pointed out the funding of organizations that benefit from the initiative’s activities, which may create a potential conflict of interest.

Laurence Trochu of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) said: “When it comes to abortion, the Left and the Center are not engaging in a political debate, only an ideological one. Those who oppose abortion are treated as traitors to women. I was also the target of an attack, specifically from your side. And here it’s about an obsession without borders. These actions go beyond the sovereign choices of the Member States. The Commission should not accept this. And besides, this fight is the fight of the radical left. So look at who you really are.”

Another ECR representative, Paolo Inselvini, further noted: When we tried to organize events to criticize this initiative—which, I think, we are perfectly entitled to do—we were subjected to public condemnation. Everyone who went to such an event was filmed. This seems unacceptable to us. ECR believes that abortion should remain a matter of national competence. Any initiative by the Commission in this area would be a deliberate and serious political act on a matter that lies outside the Union’s powers and would therefore constitute a breach of the Treaties (…). We cannot pit women against children, children against women, or women against men, but we should all work together.”

Tomasz Froelich from Europe of Sovereign Nations emphasized: Every life is very precious, which is why I am absolutely disgusted by the debate over the right to abortion. There is no right to abortion, only the right to life. I am all the more shocked by the European Union’s multimillion-euro support for the abortion lobby, including support for the “My voice, my choice” initiative. This initiative trivializes abortion, as seen in many campaigns. For example, we have a poster that explains why Barbie supports abortion. (…) Second, in times of demographic catastrophe, shouldn’t precisely the opposite approach be the appropriate one? Why do organizations like the International Planned Parenthood Federation receive funds from the European Union when they already receive millions from Soros and Gates? Why should European taxpayers pay for abortions carried out abroad that cannot be performed in their own country? And finally, why do 201 out of 245 organizations not disclose their sources of funding?” – the MEP pointed out.

Violation of the principle of subsidiarity and sovereignty

Meanwhile, Fernand Kartheiser, on behalf of the non-attached members, said: We talk a lot about the rule of law. I believe the Commission should adhere to the principles of the Treaties and the cardinal principles, and should also ensure compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular Article 2 concerning the right to life. This morning I read the list describing the scope of the Commissioner’s duties, and there was no mention of sexual or reproductive health, because no such right exists in any international convention. There is no right to abortion there either. We are dealing here with a surprising interpretation of Article 168 of the Treaty, which is intended to support the state, not to bypass democratic decisions or replace them. We cannot accept such an interpretation, because it violates the principle of subsidiarity and the sovereignty of the Member States. The Treaty should be applied in good faith, because the harm to the Union would be significant if the European Commission were to join this initiative and thereby violate the EU Treaties.”

The hearing was an important step in the legislative process. Following the presentation of the initiative and the discussion, the committees are to prepare recommendations for the plenary votes in the European Parliament.

“The hearing showed that the at the very least controversial “My Voice, My Choice” initiative is the subject of intense scrutiny by Members of the European Parliament and at the same time raises questions about the limits of interference in national legislation on the protection of life. The Ordo Iuris memorandum aimed to draw attention”to the potential effects of financial mechanisms on the sovereignty of EU member states and to issues concerning the protection of life. We will closely monitor the further progress of the procedure, including the preparation of the committee’s recommendations and the vote at the plenary session, which may have long-term consequences for legal certainty in the area of the protection of life in Europe,” notes Julia Książek from the Ordo Iuris Center for International Law.