On 25 February, when the European Commission announces its opinion on the abortion initiative ‘My Voice, My Choice’ to the public, it will become clear what moral principles the members of the college have brought to their office. Rarely is a political decision so clearly a choice between good and evil, solidarity and raw egoism, genuine values and cynical ‘freedom of choice’.
In 2014, the Commission had the opportunity to to provide for an adequate follow-up on ONE OF US, a citizens’ initiative that was an expression of solidarity with the small and the weak. It did not take advantage of this opportunity, but arrogantly dismissed it.
Now, however, in 2026, there is a danger that the Commission, which constantly pontificates about ‘our common values’ and considers itself a moral authority of global stature, will take a decision that, by elevating the most brutal selfishness to the status of continental state doctrine, will bring great shame on the whole of Europe.
Having failed to provide an adequate response to ONE OF US, which was a genuinely self-organized and self-financed initiative, and thus a true and unfiltered expression of thevox populi, it would instead lend its ear to an initiative that has not only garnered far less support from citizens than ONE OF US did, but which has had to spend nearly ten tmes more money for each signature obtained.
If the Commission were to listen to the 1,1 million citizens who supported “My Voice, My Choice” rather than to the 1, 7 million who supported “ONE OF US”, would not only betray a rather questionable attitude towards democracy, but it would evidence that in the EU big money can buy laws and administrative decisions.
| ONE OF US | MY VOICE, MY CHOICE | |
| Slogan expresses: | Inclusiveness, unconditional solidarity: The embryo, but also all weak, sick, old, handicapped persons, and all women with unwanted pregnancies, are “one of us” | Raw egotism: I, my, me, myself. The strong affirm their domination over the weak, because his voice is louder. Noise replaces reasonable argument. |
| Signatures collected (unofficial) | 1.897.588 | 1.224.998 (= 64.55% of ONE OF US) |
| Signatures collected (validated) | 1.721.626 (= strongest turnout of all 130 ECIs so far!) | 1.124.513 (= 65.32% of ONE OF US) |
| Ready-to-use legislative proposal submitted? | Yes | No. Signatories did not know what precisely they were supporting. |
| Is the proposed within the competences of the EU? | Yes. The proposal merely asks the EU to abstain from funding abortions. Such abstention clearly is within the EU’s competences. | No. The EU has limited competences in the domain of health policies. It may support the health policies of Member States, but has no mandate to help people to circumvent or counteractMember States’ policies that fall into a quite different domain, that of criminal justice. |
| Would EU action to follow up on the proposal be legal? | Yes. The EU is under no legal obligation to fund abortions. By contrast, any funding of abortion under the research budget, the development aid budget, or the current funding of Planned Parenthood under the CERV programme are very probably illegal. | No. Funding abortion tourism from Member States with restrictive to Member States with permissive rules would be a clear violation of the loyalty that the EU owes its Member States. |
| Would the implementation entail costs for the EU budget? | No | Yes (in addition to the ca. 1 million Euro operating grant already now annually paid out to Planned Parenthood under the CERV programme). The costs have the potentioal of being enormous, because once the principle of “EU-funded abortion” is accepted, every woman willing to have a late-term abortion will be entitled to it (for reasons of “equality”). |
| Is the proposal feasible? | Yes | No, given its apparent illegality. |
| Total campaign budget | € 159,219.00 | € 923,028.42 (= 5.8 times more than ONE OF US!) |
| Euros spent per signature | 0.092 | 0.82 ( = ca. 9 times more than ONE OF US!) |
| “Ventriloquist” ECI, i.e. co-funded by the European Commission? | No. The Commission does not fund the pro-life movement, nor does it seem to fund any organization that actually provides help to pregnant women (e.g. by providing housing, food, etc.) | Yes. The Commission funds Planned Parenthood under the CERV programme, and Planned Parenthood has funded this ECI. Through this initiative, the EU is in fact lobbying itself. |
Note: all figures on validated signatures and on funding are drawn from the European Commission’s official website.
one-of-us.org 