Executive summary

Key message: abortion is not an opinion, it's a right. The ECLJ and its allies want to restrict women's freedoms in the name of religious morality. Yet science, European law and the majority of citizens support abortion as a fundamental right. The real question is not "pro-life" or "pro-choice", but: do we want a Europe where women are free to decide about their bodies? Or a Europe where religious lobbies impose their dogmas on everyone? Let's take action to make the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) "My Voice, My Choice" a reality!

AEPL's arguments

a) The European Citizens' Initiative "My Voice, My Choice": a movement for women's autonomy

L'European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) "My Voice, My Choiceregistered in April 2024, is a historic movement spearheaded by over 300 feminist and human rights organisations across Europe. Its aim: guarantee access to safe, legal and accessible abortion in all EU Member States. The ECI collected more than one million valid signatures, well over the threshold required to be examined by the European Commission.

This initiative is a response to the glaring inequalities in access to abortion in Europe. In some countries, such as Poland and Malta, legal restrictions force thousands of women to resort to clandestine abortions or to travel abroad, often in precarious and expensive conditions. "My Voice, My Choice" calls on the EU to set up a financial support mechanism to enable women to have access to safe abortions, in accordance with national legislation, and to making abortion a fundamental rightprotected by the European institutions.

The organisers, includingSlovenian Institute on 8 Marchemphasise the importance of a global approach These include sex education, free access to contraception and strong social policies to reduce recourse to abortion. Their message is clear: women's bodily autonomy is non-negotiable. The European Commission's response is expected by 2 March 2026.

 

b) The ECLJ's freedom-destroying activities: who are these ultra-conservatives?

The European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ) is a non-governmental organisation founded in 1998 and affiliated to theAmerican Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ)an American conservative evangelical legal lobby. Led by Grégor Puppinck and Jay Alan Sekulow (Donald Trump's former lawyer), the ECLJ presents itself as a defender of "human rights" and "human dignity", but its agenda is clearly anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage and anti-euthanasia.

What you need to know

• Grégor Puppinck French lawyer, Director General of the ECLJ, known for his[1] for his stance against abortion, PMA for homosexual couples and "gender theory". He defends a vision naturalist and Christian of law, as opposed to moral relativism.
• Jay Alan Sekulow : American lawyer, founder of the ACLJ, close to[2] conservative evangelical circles. He has appeared before the US Supreme Court to defend religious causes.
• Financing : The ECLJ is funded primarily by the ACLJ, which raises millions of dollars from American evangelical donors. In 2019, the ACLJ contributed more than $1 million to the ECLJ.

Their anti-abortion lobbying

The ECLJ is conducting a aggressive campaign against abortion in Europe, organising conferences, publishing reports and appearing before the European Court of Human Rights. European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Their strategy is based on :

• Manipulating testimonies At a conference at the European Parliament in October 2025, the ECLJ invited women to talk about their "post-abortion suffering", citing a 2020 IFOP survey which found that 92 % of women would say that abortion leaves traces that are difficult to live with. However, this study is disputed by the scientific community for its lack of methodological rigour.
• Promoting pro-birth policies ECLJ: ECLJ praises the policies of Hungary and Italy, where financial aid is granted to families, but it does not consider that these policies are sufficiently effective. without guaranteeing women's autonomy. Their aim: abolish European funding for pro-IVG programmes and redirect these funds to "alternatives to abortion".
• Influencing MEPs At their conference, eight MEPs (including members of the EPP and ECR) supported their positions, demonstrating their commitment to the cause. ability to influence institutions.

Misleading and dangerous rhetoric

The ECLJ describes abortion as an "ideological trap" and an "act that is always traumatic". And yet, data from the WHO and the American Academy of Pediatrics show that the majority of women feel a relief after an abortion, especially when the decision is free and accompanied. Their rhetoric aims to making women feel guilty and restrict their rightsunder the guise of "protecting life".

 

c) Abortion, a fundamental right recognised by the European Union

L'Voluntary termination of pregnancy is a fundamental rightprotected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and European case law.

Legal bases

1. Human dignity (Article 1) The right to bodily autonomy is a pillar of dignity. Just as forcing a woman to have an abortion when she doesn't want to, forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy is a violation of her human dignity. violation of his physical and mental integrity.
2. Right to physical and mental integrity (Article 3) : Abortion protects women from the risks of unwanted pregnancy or clandestine abortion.
3. Respect for privacy (Article 7) : The decision to have an abortion is an intimate one. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) confirmed on several occasions that access to abortion is an essential protected right (judgment Tysiącz v. Poland, 2007).
4. Gender equality (Article 23) Refusing abortion exacerbates inequalities by limiting women's autonomy.
5. Non-discrimination (Article 21) : Restrictions on abortion discriminate against women in precarious situations who do not have the means to travel abroad.
6. Right to health (Article 35) : The WHO considers abortion to be a essential health service. Countries where abortion is legal have lower maternal mortality rate.

International recognition

• La CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women) encourages governments to guarantee access to abortion.
• L'WHO points out that legalising abortion reduces maternal mortality by 70 %.

Conclusion : Abortion is not a "privilege", but a "right". fundamental human rightprotected by European and international law.

 

d) Counter-arguments to the ECLJ's ideas: scientific and legal reality

The ECLJ uses Emotional and biased arguments to discredit abortion. Here's why their theses are unfounded :

1. "Abortion is always traumatic".

• Reality : Serious studies (WHO, Social Science & Medicine2018) show that relief is more frequent than regret. Post-abortion suffering is often linked to the social stigmanot the act itself.
• Methodological bias : The studies cited by the ECLJ (like the IFOP study) are unrepresentative and oriented. A 2018 meta-analysis concludes that women who have abortions do not have no greater risk of mental health problems than those who carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

2. "Abortion denies the rights of the unborn child".

• Legal reality International law (ECHR, New York Convention) does not recognise the legal personality of the foetus before birth. The European Court recalled that women's autonomy comes first (A, B and C v. Ireland, 2010).
• Gradual approach European legislation (France, Belgium, Germany) recognises the growing rights of the foetus. without denying those of women.

3. "Pro-choice movements play down women's suffering".

• Reality The pro-choice movement do not deny the complexity abortion, but defend a woman's right to a safe and decide without stigma. Countries where abortion is legal and supported (Netherlands, Sweden) have fewer complications and fewer regrets than those where it is restricted.

4. "We need to fund alternatives to abortion".

• Reality Family support policies (benefits, parental leave, etc.) are a major source of support for families. necessary but insufficient. In Poland, where abortion is highly restricted, the number of illegal abortions remains high.
• Methodological bias Reducing recourse to abortion is based on three pillars: a) sex education, b) access to contraception, and c) strong social policies (housing, employment, childcare).

5. "Public money must not fund abortion".

• Reality : The EU cannot impose a single policy, but it must guarantee access to care. European funds finance global reproductive healthwhich reduce the number of abortions.

Conclusion : The ECLJ's arguments are based on selective data, biased legal interpretations, and a moralistic view of the world. sexuality. Their aim: restricting women's rights under the guise of "protecting life".

 

e) The decision to have an abortion belongs to women, not to clergy or partners

Bodily autonomy is a inalienable right. Here's why the decision to have an abortion must be yours for pregnant women only :

1. Bodily autonomy: a fundamental principle

• International law The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 3) protects physical integrity and personal freedom. Pregnancy requires major physical, psychological and social changes to the woman.
• Exclusive liability The risks (complications, maternal mortality) and consequences (mental burden, parental responsibility) weigh heavily on the mother's health. only on women.

2. The role of men: support, not decision-making

• Men can express their opinionbut cannot decide the place of women.
• Example In France, the Veil law (1975) recognised that "no woman has recourse to abortion out of the blue", but that banning it worsens suffering.

3. Criticism of religious interference

• Biblical biases : The sacred texts (Bible, Koran) were written in different languages. patriarchal contexts. For example, the Old Testament does not deal with abortion from the point of view of the woman's consent or right, but rather as a damage to the husband's property.
• Historical control Religious institutions have often served to controlling women's sexualitylimiting their freedom in the name of imposed morality.

4. Equality and social justice

• Worsening inequalities : Banning abortion penalises poor women who cannot afford to travel abroad.
• Example In the United States, following the cancellation of Roe v. WadeIn restrictive states, illegal abortions have increased.

Conclusion : The decision to have an abortion is a question of dignity, freedom and justice. Women must be able to choose without religious or male interference.

 

f) Religious dogmas: unverifiable hypotheses, not universal truths

The ECLJ's arguments are based on religious dogmaswhich are unproven assumptionsnot scientific facts.

1. Dogmas: statements that cannot be falsified

• Lack of empirical evidence No proof confirms the existence of a god or divine revelation. Believers invoke "faith", which places these beliefs at the heart of their beliefs. outside the scope of reason.
• Burden of proof In logic, it is up to the person who asserts the existence of God to prove it (Ockham's razor).

2. Sacred texts: human works, not divine words

• Historical background : The Bible and the Koran were written by men, in different cultures. patriarchal and slave societies. Their laws reflect standards of their timenot a universal moral.
• Factual errors These texts contain descriptions of the world now refuted by science (flat earth, creationism).

3. Separation of state and church: a necessity for peaceful coexistence

• State neutrality : In a pluralist society, imposing religious dogma to all is unjust. The separation of State and Church guarantees that laws are based on reason and democratic debatenot on questionable revelations.
• Principle : The separation of State and Church allows everyone to live according to their convictions without imposing them on others.

Conclusion Religious dogmas are cultural buildingsThey are not universal truths. They should not dictate the laws of a secular society.

 

g) Two-way tolerance: lay people do not censor the ECLJ

Unlike the ECLJ, which seeks to impose your religious values to all defenders of secularism are not calling for a ban on Christian dogma. They are simply asking that :

• Religious beliefs remain in the private sphere.
• Laws should be based on universal principles (human rights, equality, science), not dogma.

Example : No one is stopping the ECLJ from teaching its beliefs, but no one is stopping the ECLJ from teaching its beliefs, but no one is stopping the ECLJ from teaching its beliefs. impose these beliefs to those who do not share them.

Conclusion : True tolerance is accept that everyone should live according to their own convictions, without imposing them on others.

 

Summary of AEPL's arguments

This is why abortion must remain a fundamental right in the European Union:

1. "My Voice, My Choice A historic European Citizens' Initiative, backed by 300 organisations, to guarantee access to abortion safe, legal and financed throughout the EU. Over a million signatures have forced the European Commission to take a decision by March 2026.
2. The ECLJ, a dangerous anti-abortion lobby Funded by American evangelical donors, this group uses biased testimoniesand non-scientific studiesand a influence strategy with MEPs to restrict abortion. Their aim: abolish public funding for abortion and impose coercive birth policies.
3. Abortion, a right protected by the EU The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights recognises abortion as a right linked to the right to life. dignity, l'bodily autonomythe privacyand the health. The ECHR and the WHO confirm that legalising abortion saves lives.
4. The ECLJ's arguments are unfounded :

• False : Abortion is said to be "always traumatic". Reality The majority of women experience relief (WHO, 2021).
• False Abortion "denies the rights of the foetus". Reality International law protects women's autonomy first and foremost (ECHR, 2010).
• False The only thing that would suffice would be "family support policies". Reality Without sex education and access to contraception, these policies fail (e.g. Poland).

5. The decision belongs to women, not the clergy : Bodily autonomy is a human right. Religious texts written in patriarchal societies, cannot dictate the laws of a secular Europe.
6. Religious dogmas are not scientific truths : They are based on unverifiable hypotheses. A democratic society must base its laws on reason, not faith.
7. Tolerance works both ways Secularists are not calling for the ECLJ's beliefs to be banned, but they are refusing to allow them to be used as a pretext for their own religious beliefs. are binding on all.

Guy T'hooft, Past President of the AEPL

[1] https://genethique.org/author/gregor-puppinck
[2] Le monde diplomatique, "Évangéliques en France, chronique d'un essor politique", December 2024.