My Voice My Choice: Has the European Commission decided to fund cross-border abortions within the EU?

Officially submitted to the Commission in September 2025, after gathering over a million signatures from European citizens, the ECI My Voice My Choice is part of a campaign to improve access to abortion within the European Union. More specifically, it called on the Commission to propose the establishment of a funding mechanism enabling women to seek an abortion in another Member State when this is not possible in their country of origin.

This initiative is based on national disparities in abortion legislation. It thus invokes the arguments of equal access to healthcare and freedom of movement to justify European intervention on a matter that nevertheless falls within the competence of Member States.

A favourable response… on the surface

In its official communication, the European Commission does not state that it is rejecting the request made by MVMC. It highlights the use of the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+), as a mechanism for EU funding to Member States, as a tool enabling the coverage of costs associated with abortion procedures. Consequently, the Commission does not consider it necessary to establish a new specific funding mechanism dedicated to covering the costs of cross-border abortion. 

In reality, as certain partner organisations of My Voice My Choice have pointed out, this Commission communication amounts to a negative response to the request made in the European Citizens’ Initiative. 

An implicit extension of the EU’s powers?

The Commission considers that it cannot propose a legal act in line with MVMC’s wishes, due to the limits of its powers, particularly in the field of health.

This refusal might, at first glance, appear to be a reaffirmation of the principle of subsidiarity, according to which matters relating to health and the organisation of healthcare fall primarily within the remit of the Member States. 

However, a careful reading of the response reveals a more subtle development. By referring to existing financial instruments (the ESF+) and the possibilities they might offer, the Commission seems to suggest that the European Union has, at least indirectly, levers for action regarding access to abortion. 

According to the Commission, Article 168 §5 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, which grants the Union competence in matters of ‘financial support for healthcare services’, would encompass ‘sexual and reproductive healthcare that is authorised in a Member State, including services related to legal abortion’. However, the inclusion of abortion within the category of ‘healthcare’ constitutes a political and ethical choice that is by no means self-evident. 

From this perspective, the reasoning put forward by the Commission can be interpreted as an implicit assertion of a form of EU competence in an area that is nevertheless considered to fall within the democratic and sovereign choice of each Member State. 

The European Social Fund Plus (ESF+): a misappropriated instrument?

The existing financial instrument presented by the European Commission as potentially capable of effectively meeting the MVMC’s request is the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+). Designed to support employment, social inclusion and training within Member States and certain regions, this instrument could, according to the Commission, be mobilised to finance the costs associated with an abortion. It would then be up to each Member State to make such a decision on the matter, without this being imposed on all countries benefiting from ESF+ funds. 

Such use of the ESF+ has attracted several criticisms. On the one hand, it does not correspond to the original purpose of the ESF+, as adopted by the Member States. On the other hand, it could constitute a form of circumvention of democratic processes, by allowing the funding of sensitive policies without explicit approval from national legislators, or even from the European Parliament or the EU Council of Ministers. 

Furthermore, it appears that the national and regional funding covered by the ESF+ is intended to apply indiscriminately to all persons present within the territory of the relevant state or region, regardless of their nationality or place of residence. Following this logic, the coverage of abortion-related costs via the ESF+ would only be possible if this option were available to any woman wishing to have an abortion in the country in question, and not just to women coming from abroad. 

As the Commission states in its response, ‘any EU funding mechanism must remain entirely neutral with regard to the place of origin or residence of patients and cannot specifically target women from Member States in which the abortion in question is not permitted by law’. In other words, whilst presenting the ESF+ appeal as a means of funding cross-border abortion as requested by MVMC, the Commission specifies that this financial instrument should, in practice, be available to any woman wishing to have an abortion in the country in question, whether or not she is a resident there. 

More symbolic than practical implications?

At this stage, the concrete consequences of the Commission’s decision remain uncertain. Whilst it appears that certain states or regions are already visibly using the ESF+ to fund abortion services within their territory, it remains to be seen to what extent this confirmation by the Commission of such use of the ESF+ will encourage other states to follow suit, particularly with regard to women from abroad. 

More fundamentally, beyond the largely hypothetical nature of its concrete impact, the Commission’s response carries significant symbolic weight, insofar as it suggests that abortion falls within the EU’s sphere of competence, and that the EU is legitimately able to permit the circumvention of national legislation on the matter. By providing financial incentives for cross-border access to this practice, which is sensitive in many respects, the Commission is, in a sense, endorsing the idea of free movement and ‘bioethical tourism’ within the EU, thereby rendering the choices made by each Member State on this matter ineffective. 

Furthermore, underlying this initiative and the Commission’s response in favour of easier access to abortion across the EU, there remains a real lack of concrete support policies from the UE – including financial, but also social support – for pregnant women in highly vulnerable situations facing an unplanned pregnancy.