Pro-abortion Commissioner Hadja Lahbib thought she was “smart” when she announced that the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) could be used by Member States to finance abortions. But now it turns out that that wasn’t such a smart move. MEPs keep asking questions about the European Commission’s controversial sweetheart reply to the pro-abortion ECI “My Voice, My Choice” and the implicit claim that abortion – the deliberate killing of a healthy child inside the womb of a healthy woman – can be qualified as healthcare.
At first, Commissioner Lahbib still had the temerity of making that claim, notably in her response to written question E-001971/2026(ASW), in which she affirmed that “the European Social Fund+ can support initiatives that aim to ensure and enhance equal and timely access to healthcare services, including safe abortions“, and in her reply to question P-000838/2026, where she claimed that “the ESF+ can support initiatives, selected at national level, that aim to ensure and enhance equal and timely access to healthcare services, such as abortion“.
But the more precisely the MEPs’ questions are worded, the more vague and evasive Mrs Lahbib’s answers become. She is in real trouble now.
In parliamentary question E-002536/2026, seventeen MEPs of the ECR group, referring to Mrs. Lahbib’s earlier claims, note that her assertions raise “serious concerns regarding both the original objectives of the ESF+ and the very notion of healthcare”, because “Article 3(a) of Directive 2011/24/EU on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare defines healthcare as services provided to patients ‘to assess, maintain or restore their state of health’. It is therefore controversial to equate with this definition a practice that deliberately brings an end to a human life at the prenatal stage.”
They are calling the bluff. Mrs. Lahbibs assertion are in apparent contradiction with EU law.
The MEPs have asked the Commission to “clarify the following:
- In the absence of specific pathological conditions or particular medical prescriptions, does it consider a pregnant woman to be in a situation in which it is necessary ‘to assess, maintain or restore’ her state of health?
- How does it reconcile its interpretation of abortion as a healthcare service with the definition of healthcare set out in Article 3(a) of Directive 2011/24/EU?
- In the light of the above, does it intend to amend its communication C(2026)3225[3], issued on 26 February 2026 in response to the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘My Voice, My Choice’?”
These questions were submitted on 18 June. Mrs. Lahbib’s response has been received yesterday, nearly three months later. It runs:
“The Commission has clarified that Member States may use the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) under their national or regional programmes as a way to contribute to the objectives of the ‘My Voice, My Choice’ initiative, as ‘enhancing equal and timely access to quality, sustainable and affordable services’, including healthcare services, is one of the objectives that may be supported by the ESF+ as set out in Article 4(1)(k) of the ESF+ Regulation.
In its case law, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has observed that the Treaty provisions on the freedom to provide services include the freedom for recipients to travel to other Member States to receive healthcare services, including medical treatment. With regard to medical termination of pregnancy performed in accordance with the law of the State in which it is carried out, the CJEU has found that this constitutes a service within the meaning of Article 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.”
It appears that the Commissioner is gradually becoming aware that her pro-abortion policy stands on very shaky legal ground.
Her earlier affirmation that “healthcare services include abortion” is not repeated. Rightly so, because abortion isn’t a healthcare service.
She avoids a reply as to how these earlier affirmations could be reconciled with the definition Article 4(1)(k) of the ESF+ Regulation. Because she knows that these affirmations stand in contradiction to that definition.
She does not contradict the MEPs’ suggestion that the Commission’s response to the pro-abortion ECI may have to be corrected. Because she knows that it contains a blatant falsehood.
This response is a terrible embarrassment for the Commission.
