After an e-mail campaign with fake senders and an NGO campaign with fake NGOs, now there is also an open letter from ‘leading legal scholars’ with fake science. The notorious US-based Centre for Reproductive Rights (CRR) has posted a letter from around 30 so-called ‘leading legal scholars’ on the internet, with which it apparently hopes to sway the European Commission’s decision on the ‘My Voice, My Choice’ abortion initiative at the very last minute.
It may be the case that all the signatories are professors at law faculties – but their output is such that one must seriously question their professional and characterial qualifications for this. Not only do they express themselves with extreme confidence on a matter that is essentially outside their field of expertise, but they also misquote and spread untruths that are easily recognisable for everyone. If this letter is meant to harness the prestige of the authors in support of the pro-abortion campaign, the sad conclusion that any serious-minded reader will draw that there has never been any comparable sell-out of academic reputation for the purpose of promoting an ideologically motivated political purpose.
We charitably refrain from mentioning on this page the names of those who, by signing up to this delusional and self-undermining strange piece of workmanship. Whoever wants to know who the authors are can find them listed on the CRR’s website (unless, and until, following better insight and in order to protecting the signatories from the damage they are inflicting on themselves, CRR decides to withdraw the list). On the other hand, however, and much to our regret we cannot simply leave this so-called ‘expert opinion’ uncommented.
Here is therefore the full text of the letter, with our comments in bold:
Dear President von der Leyen,
Dear Commissioner Lahbib,
[It is noteworthy that this letter, which primarily concerns the EU’s (supposed) competences in health policy matters, is not addressed to the Commissioner responsible, Oliver Varhelyi, but to Commissioner Hadja Lahbib, who has no competence in these matters and who is known to be ideologically very close to the abortion initiative. However, one would expect ‘legal scholars ‘(1) to know how responsibilities are distributed within the Commission and (2) to trust that their arguments are solid enough to be presentable also to someone who may not shair their own ideological stances. The authors of this letter apparently do not have that modicum of confidence in their own reasoning.]
We are writing as European Union lawyers, legal scholars and experts, ahead of the European Commission communication on the European Citizens’ Initiative My Voice, My Choice. We consider that the initiative proposes a concrete and legally sound way for the European Union to address critical obstacles faced by women across the European Union in accessing essential healthcare [That is precisely the question that would need to be clarified first: can the deliberate killing of a child, for the sole reason that it is unwanted, really be qualified a health service? The position seems so extravagant that it would at least require an elaborate justification. But the authors of the letter spare themselves the trouble of providing any justification – they simply make an utterly bizarre assertion and pretend it to be self-evident. This is not the level of argumentation one would expect from ‘leading experts’ in any scientific discipline. Of course, this is not a legal question for which a law professor could claim any special expertise, but a question that can be answered with normal common sense, which these letter writers seem to lack: no, killing children is obviously not a health service!],while respecting the EU’s limited supportive competence in the area of health. We strongly encourage you to issue a positive decision in response to this initiative.
As noted in the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1158 on the registration of the initiative, the EU may lawfully exercise its competence to establish a cross-border abortion financing mechanism. Such a mechanism is legally feasible within the scope of the Treaties provided it respects the supportive competence and the limits set out in Articles 168(5) and 168(7) TFEU. [This is truly unbelievable: more than 30 (according to their self-description) ‘leading legal experts’ have jointly written a letter whose core message consists of an obvious, and possibly deliberate, misquote! The Commission’s decision from which they are quoting does not actually contain the statement that the ‘leading experts’ want to attribute to it! What the decision says is not that Article 168 can be used as a legal basis to implement the proposed mechanism, but only that (after a preliminary and apparently very superficial examination) the proposal seems to ‘not manifestly’ lie outside the EU’s competences. Even at the time, this assessment by the Commission proved to be questionable and ultimately inaccurate – but certainly did the decision not contain any positive assertion regarding the ‘legal feasibility’ of the proposal. The letter is thus based on a plain falsehood, and one must seriously ask here on what merits these ‘legal scholars’ hold their university chairs – because reading comprehension and correct citation, otherwise thought to be a minimum requirement for any career in academia, do not seem to be among their outstanding abilities.]
A cross-border abortion financing mechanism would serve to protect and improve human health of many EU inhabitants by addressing urgent cross-border health care needs that current EU law on cross-border healthcare does not adequately cover. [See above: if one has started with making false assumptions, the entire argument based on them will be by necessity false. Abortion is not a health service, but an act of killing – which, moreover, in the majority of cases is directed against completely healthy children.] It would support Member States that provide safe and legal abortion care to patients from other Member States, thereby advancing women’s dignity, equality and human rights and public health across the EU.
The principle of free movement of services safeguards the freedom to receive lawful health services [this is incorrect, because in many states the fact of not being punishable does not make the abortion ‘lawful’, as many of the authors, especially those originating from Germany, should be expected to know.] in another Member State. [However, this does not mean that his Member State cannot also punish abortion, which is undoubtedly not a health service but a homicide tolerated under certain conditions, with extraterritorial effect, even if it is not punishable at the place where it takes place.] Any limitations arising from Article 168(7) TFEU must be applied consistently against this principle. The EU can design a financing mechanism that neither seeks to or has as its effect the harmonisation of abortion laws nor interferes with the organisation of national healthcare systems. Such a mechanism would remain within the scope of the limitations placed on the EU’s supporting competence and would offer clear added-value. [This statement is again based on the false premise already refuted at the outset. In fact, abortion is generally punishable in all Member States – differences exist only with regard to the conditions under which criminal liability is waived. The rationale underpinning the criminalisation of abortion is that human life is a supreme legal good in all legal systems and must be protected by adequate means. The proposed mechanism would therefore interfere much less with the ‘health policy’ of the Member States than with their criminal justice systems. What is more, it would do so in a “hostile” manner by enabling people to thwart the objective pursued by the criminal law provision. It is remarkable that the ‘leading experts’ do not even recognise this self-evident problem, let alone address it.]
The participation of Member States would be voluntary, in respect for the allocation of competence under the Treaties. [At this point, the argument reaches a real peak of dishonesty. The ‘voluntary nature’ referred to by the letter’s authors (or the initiative) only applies to the use of funds from the fund that the Commission is to set up – but of course they want all Member States and all taxpayers to pay for this, which is why there is absolute no question of voluntariness in this regard. An honest debate would require to franckly and honestly present one’s own position such as it is, but that is something these ‘legal scholars’ seem neither capable nor willing to do.]
The mechanism could establish a common framework for coordination and financing among participating Member States. On the basis of neutral, pre-defined eligibility criteria set by the European Commission, participating Member States could access dedicated funding to cover the provision of abortion care to cross-border patients. [Here it becomes apparent: the so-called ‘voluntary participation’ is meant to provide access to funds that all Member States are required to provide (involuntarily!).] By directing funding to participating Member States to ensure the delivery of abortion care to cross-border patients by existing providers, under applicable national rules, and as part of the ordinary health system of the treating Member State, this approach would respect the bounds of the limited EU competence in Article 168(5) and 168(7) TFEU. The prospective allocation of funds would ensure predictability, while reporting and accountability requirements would align with standard EU budgetary rules.
The Commission’s response to the initiative presents a critical opportunity to demonstrate responsiveness to over one million citizens, and to heed the European Parliament’s calls for EU action on a persistent cross-border health challenge. [Here, the ‘legal experts’ are lying by omission: they do not mention that many more EU citizens supported an initiative calling on the EU to refrain from funding abortions!]
The European Union has both the competence and the democratic mandate to propose a targeted proportional financing mechanism that complements and supports Member States’ efforts on reproductive health. Firmly grounded in the EU’s values of gender equality, public health, and the effective enjoyment of free movement, such a proposal would rest on a sound legal basis and send a clear message that the European Commission is prepared to act on urgent and ongoing cross-border women’s health challenges across the EU. [Obviously, the contrary is the case: the democratic mandate (1,7 million signatures for ONE OF US against 1,1 million for “My Voice, My Choice”) is to abstain from funding abortions. The proposed funding of abortion tourism has no basis in the EU’s competences and would, in an outright provocative way, counteract the policies that Member States have adopted in a domain falling within their own exclusive competence. This would constitute a clear misuse of EU funds, to the point of possibly even engage the criminal liability of the responsible decision makers! The advice given by these eminent ‘legal experts’ could turn out very dangerous, if not damaging, for those unfortunate enough to follow it…]
(Signatures)
one-of-us.org 