European Citizens’ Initiatives (ECI) were introduced in 2009. Over 110 initiatives have been correctly registered since then, but only 12 have succeeded in reaching the one million signatures, with two of those still being verified at the moment.
But success does not guarantee legislation. The Commission is only required to consider a proposal once the threshold has been reached, and can simply choose to discard it just as easily, like the majority of the ten initiatives that so far have cleared verification and reached the Commission’s table.
Incidentally, the most successful ECI with nearly 1.9 million signatories, asking the EU to ban the “financing of activities which presuppose the destruction of human embryos, in particular in the areas of research, development aid, and public health” was also rejected.
The big question facing the My Voice, My Choice campaign now is not whether it will clear all the formal requirements, but whether its proposed legislation is even legally and ethically feasible.
The idea is that countries with more liberal systems would opt to join voluntarily, and then receive EU funding that covers the medical expenses of uninsured, foreign EU citizens seeking an abortion. The patients would only need to take care of travel costs.
While the EU cannot legally interfere in member states’ abortion care, the organizers hope that this loophole would easily bypass that restriction, as no national legislation would be directly challenged or modified.
Legal experts, however, are not all convinced of the soundness of the argument.
“It’s hard to see how the EU could legally do what these people are requesting,” Nick Fahy, director of health and wellbeing research at the RAND Europe institute commented. “It’s money, not law, but at the same time it would be the EU directly affecting the allocation of resources to health care, and that’s explicitly not allowed under [the EU treaties].”
The EU rules allow Brussels to support member countries financially, but its actions must respect the competencies and responsibilities of member states, including and especially in matters concerning public health and medical care.
Therefore, funding of “abortion tourism” from countries with more conservative laws would unavoidably be seen as a political move. Conceding to the demands would not be “a neutral act by the European Commission; that’s the [Commission] directly interfering in something highly politically sensitive,” Fahy explained.
As for the Commission’s own opinion on the matter, the EU executive body seemed to be on the fence. In its official communication, the Commission said that “there seems to be no straightforward targeted interference” with member state competences, but setting up the proposed mechanism “could nonetheless result in such interference.”
Despite the apparent concerns, the Commission still allowed the ECI to be registered. In its decision, the EU executive argues that the petition can only go forward as long as the mechanism does not aim to or result in “the undermining of the public order legislation” or even the “healthcare and ethical choices” of member states.
Apparently, the Commission was either unable to answer this question or chose not to at this point, allowing the initiative to go forward and see whether it was able to produce the required numbers by April next year before having to decide.