Fill ar thairseach Europarl

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Roghnaithe)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Níl an doiciméad seo ar fáil i do theanga féin. Roghnaítear teanga eile as na teangacha atá ar fáil.

Parliamentary questions
PDF 44kWORD 26k
24 May 2012
Question for written answer E-005269/2012
to the Commission
Rule 117
Konrad Szymański (ECR) and Nirj Deva (ECR)

 Subject: EU funds for abortion providers in developing countries in which abortion is illegal
 Answer in writing 

The two major beneficiaries of the EU funds allocated to sexual and reproductive health are the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and Marie Stopes International (MSI). For example, MSI received at least EUR 3.5 million for its new projects in 2007 and more than EUR 9 million for the years 2005 and 2009, as it states in its reports to the Commission.

MSI and the IPPF acknowledge in their reports that they are administering ‘menstrual regulation’ at many of their locations. These include projects funded by the EU in countries such as Kenya, Bangladesh and Indonesia.

‘Menstrual regulation’ is a process in which a manual vacuum aspirator is used to empty a uterus in which an embryo has probably already implanted. In fact, the purpose of the process is to circumvent the law and offer abortion in countries where abortion is illegal.

Reports submitted to the Commission by both organisations clearly indicate that these activities are part of the programmes funded by the EU.

Is the Commission aware of the services that the IPPF and MSI are providing using Commission funds, especially menstrual regulation?

Why is the Commission failing to take action to ensure that sexual and reproductive health programmes are in line with EC law and thus do not include the supply of abortion?

Can the Commission explain why there are such major discrepancies between the EU funding figures listed in the IPPF and MSI reports to the Commission and the figures published by EuroMapping?

Does the Commission intend to continue allocating funds to projects carried out by the IPPF or MSI?

 OJ C 173 E, 19/06/2013
Fógra dlíthiúil - Beartas príobháideachais