1

The European Parliament (EP) has adopted a resolution on gender inequalities in health. It passed with 390 MEPs voting in favor, 218 against, and 29 abstaining.

2

Alongside demands concerning, among other things, the treatment of cardiovascular diseases, the resolution recognizes so-called reproductive rights (which encompass the possibility of performing abortions) as fundamental human rights and calls for abortion to be enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

3

Parliament classifies the denial of “abortion care” as a form of gender-based violence, without addressing the conscientious objection of medical personnel.

4

The resolution calls for “detecting, investigating and preventing” the influence of so-called anti-gender movements in cooperation with digital platforms.

On September 16, the European Parliament (EP) adopted a resolution on gender inequalities in health, specifically as regards gender-specific conditions. The document covers a wide range of issues: from women’s participation in clinical trials and the collection of medical data, through the diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular diseases, cancer, endometriosis, and menopause symptoms, to mental health, perinatal care, and the funding of research from EU resources. Alongside these demands, however, the resolution contains an extensive section devoted to so-called sexual and reproductive health and rights. In Parliament’s view, abortion is part of fundamental human rights. MEPs call for it to be enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and classify the refusal to perform it as a form of gender-based violence. The resolution also sets out demands concerning “transgender persons,” comprehensive sexuality education, and countering the influence of so-called anti-gender movements.

Abortion as a “fundamental human right”

Parliament devotes a considerable part of the resolution to so-called sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR). It recognizes them as “fundamental human rights” (para. 44) and describes access to them, including to “safe and legal abortion services,” as “a fundamental pillar of gender equality” (recital Z). According to the resolution, more than 20 million women in the EU are unable to obtain an abortion because some states maintain “harmful and discriminatory regulatory and procedural barriers” (recital AA). A footnote to that recital shows that this figure is based on the number of women living in Poland and Malta, as well as on restrictions in other Member States.

The resolution firmly supports the “My Voice, My Choice” citizens’ initiative and reiterates its call for “the right to safe, legal and accessible abortion” to be enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (para. 46). It also welcomes the Commission’s communication of February 2026, in which that body allowed abortion to be funded from the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+), including the travel and accommodation costs of persons who do not have access to it in their own country. Parliament “urgently calls on” Member States to use the ESF+ for this purpose (para. 47).

The document also contains demands concerning the availability and funding of products used for abortion and contraception. Parliament calls on the Council of the EU to recognize abortifacient and contraceptive medicinal products as “medicinal products of common interest” under the Critical Medicines Act and to consider including them in the Union list of such medicines (para. 30). It demands that SRHR be funded from the European Competitiveness Fund (para. 44), as well as “dedicated and traceable” funding for “sexual and reproductive health care” (para. 66). It also wants funding for SRHR organizations to be ensured under the European Competitiveness Fund and the AgoraEU program (para. 67).

Denial of “abortion care” as “violence”

In para. 24, Parliament lists “denial of abortion care” as a form of gender-based violence, alongside female genital mutilation, forced abortion, and forced sterilization. It calls on the Commission to swiftly issue a recommendation on preventing harmful practices, intended to complement Directive (EU) 2024/1385 on combating violence against women and domestic violence. It also calls for the establishment of independent complaint, reporting, and accountability mechanisms (para. 24). At the same time, the resolution does not address the issue of conscientious objection by medical personnel.

“Anti-gender movements” under scrutiny

The resolution calls for closer cooperation with healthcare providers, civil society organizations, and digital platforms in order to “detect, investigate and prevent” the spread of fraud, fake “miracle cures,” and “misleading information,” as well as “the growing influence of anti-gender movements in the EU.” It defines them as movements aimed at undermining gender equality as “a fundamental value of democracy” and “the rights of LGBTIQ+ persons,” as well as at “restricting access to SRHR” (para. 11). The Ordo Iuris Institute has already described how it was itself classified among the most significant anti-gender organizations in Europe. At the same time, Parliament demands increased funding for organizations working for health and so-called sexual and reproductive rights, while expressing concern about “the shrinking space for civil society” (para. 67).

“Gender” and sex education

The resolution juxtaposes biological sex with gender (paras. 7, 15, and 16). It also uses the category of “gender-diverse persons” as well as transgender, non-binary, and intersex persons (recitals G and J, paras. 2 and 19). It calls on the European Medicines Agency to adopt guidelines on the participation in clinical trials of, among others, “gender-diverse and intersex” persons (para. 14), and on the Commission and the Member States to ensure “healthcare tailored to the needs of trans persons” (para. 48).

Parliament further calls on the Commission to adopt a recommendation on banning so-called conversion practices, which include, among other things, measures aimed at “changing, suppressing or repressing sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression” (para. 48), and to issue recommendations and guidelines to Member States on “comprehensive sexuality education” in line with UNESCO standards (paras. 10 and 49).

Respect for competences vs. imposing an ideological agenda

The resolution repeatedly gives assurances that it respects the principle of subsidiarity and the responsibility of Member States for organizing their healthcare systems (paras. 3, 5, and 7). It presents the “My Voice, My Choice” initiative as respecting the division of competences under the Treaties (recital AA). At the same time, the European Parliament calls on the Commission to “make full use of its competences in health policy” and to support Member States in ensuring “universal access to SRHR,” and reiterates its call for the so-called right to abortion to be enshrined in the Charter (para. 46). Funding abortion from the ESF+ is, moreover, to take place “without interfering with national laws and regulations” (para. 47).

Disease prevention

In the document, the European Parliament points out that medical research has historically focused on men, which has led to an insufficient understanding of women’s health and of sex-based differences (recital G). It notes that in 2020 only 5 percent of global research and development funding was allocated to research on women’s health (recital H), and that women experience adverse drug reactions 50 to 75 percent more often than men (recital I). The EP also stresses that diagnosing endometriosis takes on average 6 to 10 years (recital AJ), that diabetes is diagnosed in women on average 4.5 years later than in men (recital AK), and that cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of death in the EU, with higher mortality among women (recital X). The resolution further notes that 85 percent of women experience menopause symptoms (recital AH) and that postpartum depression affects 12 percent of mothers in the EU (recital AF).

On this basis, Parliament calls for the development of an EU-wide action plan on endometriosis (para. 56), the integration of menopause care into primary healthcare (para. 54), and the inclusion of sex differences in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases (paras. 39 and 40). It also demands high-quality perinatal care (paras. 9 and 52), EU-level initiatives on postpartum depression (para. 52), and access to care in cases of infertility and miscarriage (para. 53). While supporting the participation of pregnant women in clinical trials, the resolution stipulates that it must not jeopardize the safety of the mother-to-be and the child (para. 14). The document’s first paragraph, in turn, requires health policy to be based on “objective biological facts about women and men” (para. 1).

How did Members of the European Parliament vote?

The resolution was adopted with 390 MEPs voting in favor, 218 against, and 29 abstaining. The document was backed by the Socialists, the liberals, the Greens, and the Left. Almost the entire European Conservatives and Reformists group and Europe of Sovereign Nations voted against. The European People’s Party was divided: 69 of its members voted in favor, 74 against, and 12 abstained.

Of Poland’s 53 MEPs, 47 took part in the vote. Nineteen voted in favor of the resolution, 26 against, and two abstained. The resolution was supported by most MEPs elected from the lists of the Civic Coalition (KO), including Ewa Kopacz, Bartosz Arłukowicz, Borys Budka, and Michał Szczerba, as well as by MEPs of the Left (Lewica) – Robert Biedroń, Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus, and Krzysztof Śmiszek – and by Michał Kobosko of Poland 2050. KO MEPs did not, however, vote uniformly: Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz and Bogdan Zdrojewski voted against, while Hanna Gronkiewicz-Waltz and Andrzej Halicki abstained. Also voting against were Polish People’s Party (PSL) MEPs Krzysztof Hetman and Adam Jarubas; all the voting MEPs of Law and Justice (PiS), including Beata Szydło, Adam Bielan, and Patryk Jaki; the representatives of the Confederation (Konfederacja) – Tomasz Buczek, Marcin Sypniewski, and Stanisław Tyszka; and Grzegorz Braun.

Ideology under the guise of concern for health

The European Parliament’s resolution is an example of a strategy in which real and widely recognized health problems serve as a pretext for imposing ideological demands that strike at human life in its prenatal stage of development and at the sovereignty of EU Member States. The late diagnosis of endometriosis and insufficient research on menopause and heart disease in women require a sound response and could become the subject of a cross-party agreement. Combining these issues in a single document with the demand that abortion be recognized as a fundamental right aptly illustrates this mechanism.

The document is, moreover, internally inconsistent. It refers to objective biological facts, while at the same time blurring the concept of woman by placing the category of gender alongside biological sex. It declares respect for Member States’ competences and gives assurances that funding abortion from the ESF+ does not interfere with national law, even though in practice such funding is intended precisely to circumvent national regulations protecting unborn life. It is also telling that the data on barriers to accessing abortion are based primarily on the situation in Poland and Malta.

The resolution’s provisions treating the denial of abortion as violence also raise numerous concerns. Classifying it alongside female genital mutilation and forced sterilization creates a basis for undermining doctors’ conscience clause. The call for “detecting, investigating and preventing” the influence of anti-gender movements in cooperation with digital platforms is also troubling. Lumping together groups that defend life and the family with fraudsters raises serious questions about freedom of speech and freedom of association. Although the resolution is not binding, like Parliament’s earlier positions it paves the way for the Commission’s financial decisions, as exemplified by the opening of the ESF+ to abortion funding in February 2026.

Patryk Ignaszczak – analyst at the Ordo Iuris Center for International Law

See also:

Source of cover photo: iStock