Is the European Commission funding abortions in developing countries? Commissioner Piebalgs answers evasively.

In the aftermath of the successful European Citizens’ Initiative “One of Us”, which inter alia requests the EU to stop funding abortions in third countries, Anna Zaborska, a Slovak Member of the European Parliament, addressed the following question to the European Commisson:

In 2012, the NGO European Dignity Watch (EDW) published a report on ‘The Funding of Abortion Through EU Development Aid — An Analysis of EU Sexual and Reproductive Health Policy’, in which it claimed that the EU’s Development Aid and Public Health budgets were being used to fund abortion in developing countries. The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) ‘One of Us’ collected almost 1.9 million signatures for a petition that proposes a modification of the EU Financial Regulation in order to prevent EU money being used, either directly or indirectly, to finance abortion. On 22 October, the Commission published a call for proposals on ‘Promoting sexual and reproductive health and rights — Universal Access to Reproductive Health’. This call for proposals does not appear to explicitly exclude the financing of projects that involve the provision or promotion of abortion in the countries concerned. Against this backdrop, could the Commission please respond to the following:

• Has the Commission ever commented on the EDW report? If not, could it do so now?
• Given the success of the ECI ‘One of Us’, is the Commission contemplating any interim measures, such as a moratorium, to ensure that no EU funds are used for projects involving the provision or promotion of abortion in the countries concerned?
• According to the findings, the Commission did indeed fund NGOs providing abortion services in third countries where abortion is subject to constitutional restrictions. What is the Commission’s policy on respecting the national sovereignty of third countries when dealing with development aid?
• If, contrary to EDW’s findings, the Commission has never funded abortions in third countries — either consciously or through negligence — and if it has no intention of doing so in the future, why are NGOs which provide abortions still able to apply for SRHR programmes and funding, and why do the calls for action not explicitly mention the exclusion of abortion-related activities as a condition in any future call for proposals relating to sexual and reproductive health and rights?

Writing on behalf of the Commission Development Aid Commissioner Andris Piebalgs has answered as follows:

The Commission notes that the question from the Honourable Member is similar to questions already asked by fellow parliamentarians. To this end the Honourable Member is kindly referred to the replies to questions E-12531/2013, E-005275/2012 and E-005269/2012  which clarify the EU’s financing policy on abortion and our respect for partner countries’ policies and legislation in this matter.

As to the European Dignity Watch report, it is founded on erroneous analysis of the EU’s policies on funding health care and abortion in third countries and includes inaccurate interpretation of the International conference on population and development (ICPD). The Commission does not intend to comment further on this report.

The European citizen’s initiative ‘One of Us’ (ECI(2012)000005) is currently subject to verification of statements of support by the competent national authorities. Once it has been officially received by the Commission, it will be examined according to the appropriate procedure. No interim measures have been planned.

One can deduce from this answer that the Commission has no intention to stop funding abortions.

With regard to the “EU’s financing policy on abortion and our respect for partner countries’ policies and legislation in this matter”, what the Commissioner apparently means to say is that with regard to an earlier Question by another MEP he had already said the following:

The EU‑funded activities implemented by the partner organisations are conducted in respect of the legislation of the countries where they take place. Close attention is paid to ensure that EU development funds are used according to the national laws of the partner country when project proposals are evaluated and funding decisions are made. Programme implementation is also closely followed, including respect for the agreed contractual terms.

In simpler words: the Commission sees no problem in financing abortions in a third country, provided that abortion is legal in that country.

But while it is true that this practice would not be in breach of the legislation of the country at question, it remains nevertheless highly questionable whether the funding of abortion can ever be considered an appropriate use of funds that are earmarked for “development aid”.

Indeed, Commissioner Piebalgs’ reply reveals a very strange understanding of what he calls “our respect for partner countries’ policies and legislation in this matter”. The fact that a partner country (perhaps under diplomatic pressure from the EU and/or some of its Member States, as has been reported in some instances) allows abortion means that abortions will not be punished in that country, but it does not mean that the EU must, or should, finance them.

With regard to the report on the Commission’s funding practices that was published by the NGO European Dignity Watch in 2012, it is remarkable that Commissioner Piebalgs does not directly deny the allegation that “the Commission did indeed fund NGOs providing abortion services in third countries where abortion is subject to constitutional restrictions”. But the allagation is so serious that the Commissioner would certainly have denied it – provided, of course, that he were able to do so without telling a lie.

What instead he says is different: he claims that this report “is founded on erroneous analysis of the EU’s policies on funding health care and abortion in third countries and includes inaccurate interpretation of the International conference on population and development (ICPD)”.

It is most unfortunate that the Commissioner, whose style of writing is definitely reminiscent of the Soviet Union in which he was born, fails to provide even the slightest trace of an explanation why the report’s analysis is “erroneous”, or its interpretation “incorrect”. His statement suffers from a complete lack of argument, while the report he criticizes has at least the merit of substantiating the claims it makes. In particular, it reveals (at pp. 15 and ss.) that legislation banning abortion is often circumvented by a procedure that is called “menstrual regulation”. This practice consists in practicing an abortion without having verified that the woman is really pregnant. In this way, both the provider (i.e., an organization like IPPF, IPAS, or Marie Stopes International) and the financer (i.e., the European Commission) can claim that they had no intention of providing abortions.

I recommend you to read the report and judge for yourself.

As a conclusion, one must read the Commissioner’s answer as an avowal that the European Commission has indeed financed abortions in third countries (possibly including in countries where abortion is illegal), and that it has no intention of changing this policy.

View online at: https://c-fam.org/turtle_bay/is-the-european-commission-funding-abortions-in-developing-countries-commissioner-piebalgs-answers-evasively/

© 2026 C-Fam (Center for Family & Human Rights).
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.
www.c-fam.org