Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Bert-Jan Ruissen, representing the European Christian Political Party (ECPP), along with his colleagues, has submitted a series of questions to the European Commission regarding the decision to allow European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) funding to go to abortion services in response to the “My Voice, My Choice” European Citizens’ Initiative. ECPP opposes the decision of the Commission.
MEP Bert-Jan Ruissen:
“The Commission calls abortion “healthcare” and believes that it can therefore pay for abortions. However, the Commission cannot unilaterally extend such a definition. In a few Member States, abortion is a criminal offence and certainly not classified as healthcare. I would also like to know how far the Commission intends to go. In France, abortion is possible until the end of pregnancy in cases where Down syndrome is diagnosed. Does this mean that the Commission will pay for abortion until the end of pregnancy and thus effectively promote it? We should not want that.”
By explicitly using the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) to pay for abortions in response to ECI “My Voice, My Choice’’, the European Commission has shown its contempt of the European treaties as abortion policies are a competence of the Member States. By circumventing the treaties and legislative process, the Commission is acting outside of its mandate.
1) Could the Commission please clarify on what legal basis it has chosen to act outside of its mandate and what legal basis is used to fund abortions from ESF+?
2) The European Commission explicitly labels abortion as healthcare and refers to 168(7) TFEU and the ESF+. In many Member States, abortion is in the penal code and definitely not labelled as health care. How can the Commission unilaterally expand the definition of healthcare without unanimous consent from the Member States?
3) Given that the ESF+ is designed to combat poverty, why has the Commission opted to divert resources towards funding abortions instead of providing comprehensive support to women facing challenging circumstances enabling them to choose both motherhood and raise their children with dignity?
4) Given that the ESF+ is designed to combat poverty, could the Commission clarify how it will ensure that funds allocated to abortion-related services are used legally? What specific limits, safeguards, or monitoring mechanisms are in place to prevent misuse, and how does the Commission ensure that such financing respects the diversity of ethical frameworks and legal provisions across Member States?
5) Considering the significant differences in abortion legislation and ethical limits among Member States, how does the Commission ensure that ESF+ funding respects these national frameworks, including variations in gestational limits, medical requirements, and legal definitions of abortion?
6) In certain Member States, including France, medical termination of pregnancy may legally be carried out until term in cases of a diagnosis of Down syndrome. In light of the EU’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Articles 10, 21, and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, how does the Commission ensure that ESF+ funding does not contribute, directly or indirectly, to discriminatory practices on the basis of disability?
In accordance with Rule 114 of the European Parliament, the Commission is required to provide a response to the questions within a period of 3-6 weeks.
Photo © European Union 2025 – Source : EP
