A misuse of public money?

"Are the EU’s budgets for Development Aid and Public Health used to finance abortions in developing countries? Is this attributable to negligence, or is it done deliberately? If done deliberately: is this legal? If a result of negligence: what are the consequences for such a misuse of European budgets and what could be done to prevent such misuse in the future?". The questions were raised by Sophia Kuby, Executive Director of European Dignity Watch, who on March 27 presented in Brussels, in the framework of the "Week for Life", the latest report by the Observatory on the financing of abortion with EU taxpayers’ money. Making abortion accessible. According to the report "The funding of abortion through EU development aid. An Analysis of EU’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Policy", although it’s neither an EU competence nor backed by EU law, the European Commission collaborates closely and in numerous projects with the two world’s largest abortion providers: International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International. Both organizations, – albeit not the only ones supported by Brussels – are known to consider abortion to be a core service related to "sexual and reproductive health" (SRH), an ambiguous term, subject to various interpretations, whose mission consists in making "abortion, either medical or surgical", available on a large scale worldwide. A non-strictly EU matter. The purpose of the European Dignity Watch survey is to document how IPPF and MSI have been receiving, and continue to receive funding from the European Union’s Development Aid and Public Health budgets for projects related to "sexual and reproductive health" (SRH), although, point out the authors of the report, corroborating their remarks with statements and declarations of the EU Council and Commission, the term "sexual and reproductive health" as defined by the EU excludes abortion explicitly. "According to the principles of conferral and subsidiarity – states the report – on the basis of the statements made by the Commission itself, and the requirement of consensus in the Council on foreign policy matters, the support of abortion as a part of foreign policy and the definition of when life begins are not the competence of the European Commission.Projects. IPPF and MSI "aggressive pro-abortion agendas" and "projects" are funded by the European Commission. For example, according to the survey, MSI received some €3.5 million in support for its new projects in 2007 and more than €9 million for the years 2005 and 2009.32 "This is a minimum figure, as this sum was calculated on the basis of the MSI reports", state the drafters of the Report. The two pro-abortion organizations received EU funding for projects in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Kenya, South Africa, Papua New Guinea; Bolivia, Guatemala, Peru. Worse still, in some cases, in order to bypass national anti-abortion provisions, (like in Bangladesh, Indonesia and some South-American countries), these organization claimed that "menstrual regulation" services were freely provided. Which development policies? Before the questions raised by Kuby, "the European Parliament and several MEPs offered their support to get the European Commission to answer them and stop controversial and unlawful funding on a policy area where there is neither competence nor consensus", the European Dignity Watch wrote in a release. "This is a misuse of tax payer’s money and we are determined to hold the European Commission accountable for it", added Sophia Kuby, according to whom the Commission "cannot legally award grants to organizations providing "SRH" services" if it is unable to prevent the funding of abortion by its contributions. If the Commission is awarding such grants and the funds are being used to perpetrate abortion, as appears to be the case, the Commission would be forcing Member States to pay for abortions". While there is wide consensus among Member States as well as in society that "the EU should provide aid to developing countries – underlines the Executive Director of European Dignity Watch – there is no consensus that this aid should include the provision of abortions". Hence, the report concludes, "one is tempted to wonder whether in the current situation the EU’s development policy is not ‘fighting the poor’ rather than ‘fighting poverty’, or whether development aid should not be directed at providing food, drinking water, health, and education, to children in need, rather than reducing their numbers through abortion".