Over 1.2 million people sign petition to EU calling for financial support for abortions
MORE THAN 1.2 million signatures have been collected by a pro-choice campaign calling on the European Commission (EC) to propose financing 'safe and legal abortion'.
The
My Voice, My Choice
campaign started collecting signatures exactly a year ago and today is the last day that people can add their support.
This is a European Citizens' Initiative, which, if over one million are collected, requires the EC to officially reply to the petition, outlining its legal and political conclusions as well as any actions it will take in response.
The campaign aims to 'make women's lives freer, safer, and better; wherever they live in our union'.
Veronika Povž, communication director of the campaign said that 'those with enough money can travel for an abortion — there's always a way for them'.
But it's the marginalised groups and those who can't afford it who suffer the most.
Instead of interfering with laws and regulations of Member States, the initiative instead asks the Commission:
'To submit a proposal for financial support to Member States that would be able to perform safe termination of pregnancies, in accordance with their domestic law, for anyone in Europe who still lacks access to safe and legal abortion.'
It proposes that this would be a voluntary 'opt-in mechanism' for each country.
Effectively, that means that support would be provided in countries with more liberal abortion access to enable them to provide care for women travelling from areas with more restrictive laws.
Advertisement
Thousands of women continue to travel to access care, as reported by
The Journal Investigates
earlier this month in our
Exporting Abortion
investigation.
We revealed that
over 5,000 women in Europe travel from their home countries
across borders for abortions each year.
Few successful citizens' campaigns
More than a decade after the creation of the European Citizens' Initiative, the EU's common petitioning system, it is clear that gathering a million signatures for or against a cause is a major challenge.
Even among the 27 million inhabitants of the EU, to reach this high bar requires a lot of campaigning and funding.
Each country has set thresholds for signature number, dependent on population size, and campaigns must get support from at least seven EU countries to be considered.
For this pro-choice initiative, 19 out of the 27 Member States were over their set threshold. That included over 12,500 people from Ireland, far more than the 9,165 threshold.
The highest number of signatures per population came from Slovenia (over 65,000) where the campaign started. Over 200,000 signed the initiative in France, with over 150,000 from Germany and Italy.
Bulgaria, Luxembourg and Lithuania had the lowest proportion of signatures.
Significant funding was required to get over the line. My Voice, My Choice declared over €830,000 in sponsorship since February last year.
However, though this particular campaign has successfully collected the required signatures, it is only the 11th European Citizens' Initiative to do so since it started 13 years ago.
In that time, 95 initiatives have failed — 68 failed to obtain the required signatures and 27 were withdrawn by their initiators — out of a total of 119 accepted by the European Commission to collect signatures.
Related Reads
'I'll never forgive my country': Women on the trauma of having to travel to UK for terminations
'The most vulnerable are still being exported': Why and how women have to travel for abortions
Over 5,000 women in Europe have to travel abroad for abortions each year
Signatures to be verified
The pro-choice campaign is not done yet as the next step once the signature collection closes later today is verification.
A Commission spokesperson told us that 'Member States will have 3 months to perform the verification' of the statements of support.
Once that is done, and there are at least one million signatures remaining, then My Voice, My Choice can submit it to the EC for examination. The Commission then has six months to officially reply. The spokesperson said:
'Where the Commission intends to take action in response to the initiative, including, where appropriate, the adoption of one or more proposals for a legal act of the Union, the Communication shall also set out the envisaged timeline for these actions.'
—
Maria Delaney is the editor of
The Journal Investigates
.
This article was produced in the framework of the
PULSE
cross-border journalistic cooperation project. It was developed with György Folk, Brussels (EUrologus) and Viktória Serdült (HVG) Budapest.
Our investigative unit is dedicated to lifting the lid on how Ireland works. This takes time and it takes resources. Find out how you can help:
Support The Journal Investigates
Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.
Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Learn More
Support The Journal
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
German immigration clampdown ruled illegal by federal court
Germany 's tough new migration approach, which involves turning asylum seekers back at the border, has been described as unlawful by Berlin's federal administrative court. The ruling, which cannot be appealed, undercuts a pledge by Chancellor Friedrich Merz and his government, sworn in last month, to cut immigration numbers. Monday's case was taken by three Somali nationals, two men and a woman, turned back on May 9th by German border police at the railway station in Frankfurt an der Oder to Poland. The police, acting under a new regulation passed by the federal interior ministry, refused to allow the three to file for asylum in Germany and returned them to Poland the same day. The police sent them back, the government ruled in court, because they were coming from a safe third country. READ MORE On Tuesday the court said the border police actions, and the regulation they were following, ignored necessary legal steps and violated asylum provisions. [ EU warns Poland for suspending Dublin migrant regulation Opens in new window ] 'Persons who express the wish to seek asylum while at a border check on German territory may not be sent back,' the court ruled. At least, it added, until it is known which European country has frontline responsibility for their asylum application under the EU's Dublin system. Until Monday the interior ministry had cited emergency provisions and a danger to public order as its justifications for setting aside EU law. In court it argued that one quarter of the 230,000 asylum applications filed last year in Europe were filed in Germany. The court dismissed this argument, saying 'it remains open what these numbers mean for public order or security'. It also criticised the unilateral nature of Berlin's new policy as contradicting the 'loyal co-operation' required of EU member states 'to look, in a serious way, for common solutions'. The opposition Green Party called the ruling as a 'severe defeat' for Chancellor Merz and his interior minister, Alexander Dobrindt . [ Germany increases border checks: Alexander Dobrindt oversees radical policy shift Opens in new window ] 'Merz and Dobrindt ignored the warnings and broke EU law, and have now run into a brick wall,' said Katharina Dröge, Green co-leader. Green Bundestag parliamentary floor leader Irene Mihalic called the ruling a warning to the government 'to abide by the law in the future and not to knowingly exceed its own powers for populist purposes'. Germany's police union also welcomed the ruling, saying 'the approach was legally iffy from the start'. Immigration lobby group Pro Asyl said an 'unlawful practice of national unilateral action in asylum policy has failed, this nonsense must now come to an end'. Mr Dobrindt insisted on Monday evening he would stick to his policy. 'There is a legal basis for it, regardless of individual case rulings,' he said, adding that the three plaintiffs had sought to enter Germany three times previously. .
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Challenge by X to Irish media regulator's online safety rules set to begin this week
A legal challenge brought by Elon Musk's social network platform against the online safety code introduced by the country's media regulator is scheduled to commence on Tuesday. Twitter International Unlimited Company, which operates X , alleges in High Court proceedings that Coimisiún na Meán engaged in 'regulatory overreach' in its approach to restrictions on certain video content. Coimisiún na Meán is contesting the case. The company contends that the new online safety code contradicts Irish law requirements for protecting and balancing fundamental rights, particularly freedom of expression. READ MORE The company wants the court to quash the commission's decision last October to adopt certain sections of the code, which applies binding rules to video-sharing platforms headquartered in Ireland. It obliges the platforms to protect people, especially children, from harmful video and associated content. It is also seeking the court to overturn the commission's decision to apply the code to X. Coimisiún na Meán, in a statement late last year, in advance of the court action, said that as Ireland's regulator for online safety it had developed rules and regulations rooted in Irish and EU legislation following extensive consultation. [ Media regulator made 'big mistake' in not tackling algorithms in online safety code, Dáil hears Opens in new window ] 'We will engage in this litigation process and will defend the online safety code and its objective of keeping people, especially children, safe online,' it said at the time. At the launch of the code last October the then Minister for Media Catherine Martin said it represented 'a big step forward in online safety' that would 'make all of us, but particularly our children, safer online'. She said the rules would introduce 'real accountability' for online video-sharing platforms and require them 'to take action to protect those that use their platforms, including by having robust complaints-handling procedures and introducing effective age-verification'. The legal case brought by Twitter International takes particular issue with a section of the code that requires video-sharing platforms to preclude users from uploading or sharing video the code defines as 'restricted'. Falling under the code's 'restricted' heading is video content that bullies or humiliates a person or that promotes eating disorder behaviour, suicide, self-harm or behaviour prejudicial to the safety of children, including dangerous challenges. Twitter International claims the definition is 'broadly framed' and capable of encompassing a 'wide spectrum of content, including legal content'. The company notes that the EU's audiovisual media services directive draws a clear distinction between illegal content, which includes incitement to hatred, and 'legal but harmful' content. [ How can we keep our kids safe online? Here are some tips for parents Opens in new window ] Twitter was renamed as X in July 2023 following its acquisition by Mr Musk, one of the richest men in the world and a close ally and supporter of US president Donald Trump. Over recent months the Trump administration has strongly hit out at what it sees as attempts to censor free speech on US-owned social media platforms. Last week, US secretary of state Marco Rubio said his country would impose visa bans on foreign nationals it deemed to be censoring Americans. He suggested the new policy could target officials regulating US tech companies. Mr Rubio said in a statement that a new visa restriction policy would apply to foreign nationals responsible for censorship of protected expression in the US. He said it was unacceptable for foreign officials to issue or threaten arrest warrants for social media posts made on US soil. 'It is similarly unacceptable for foreign officials to demand that American tech platforms adopt global content moderation policies or engage in censorship activity that reaches beyond their authority and into the United States,' he said.
Irish Independent
4 hours ago
- Irish Independent
David W Higgins: How the Occupied Territories Bill could risk triggering Ireland's own damaging trade war
David W Higgins: How the Occupied Territories Bill could risk triggering Ireland's own damaging trade war If Ireland can remove all involvement with Israel, why wouldn't it do the same to us? People protesting outside Leinster House in Dublin, calling on the Government to enact the Occupied Territories Bill. Photo: Sam Boal /Collins David W Higgins Today at 03:30 The Trump trade war continues. The EU has joined China with a 90-day reprieve. A burst of dealmaking is unfolding behind the scenes. Exporters are continuing to count the fallout. Everyone has more questions than answers.
