In the complex landscape of European human rights law, headlines often obscure the nuance of legal texts. The recent judgment by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the case of A.R. v. Poland is a prime example. While some lobbies and international media want to frame this decision of the ECHR as a victory imposing abortion as a « Right » a closer reading reveals a starkly different reality—one that reaffirms that abortion is not a right protected by the European charter of Human but at the same time exposes a deepening moral crisis regarding how Europe consider its most vulnerable citizens.
A Procedural Ruling, Not a New Right
The ECHR’s judgment finds a violation of Article 8 in this case, but it is vital to understand the reasoning. The Court did not rule that Poland—or any State—must permit abortion. Nor did it discover a “right to abortion” hidden within the Convention.
Otherwise, the judgment focused entirely on procedural irregularities. The Court found fault with the specific timeline in Poland, noting that the delayed publication of the Constitutional Court’s judgment created a “prolonged situation of considerable uncertainty” regarding the applicable legal framework.
The legal takeaway is unequivocal: the ECHR confirmed that no right to abortion exists under the Convention. The Court explicitly reiterated that “not every regulation of pregnancy termination constitutes an interference with the mother’s right to respect for her private life”. European States retain full competence to protect unborn human life, particularly when that life is threatened simply because of a disability.
The Shadow of Eugenic Discrimination
While the law provides clarity, the facts of the case reveal a profound human tragedy. At the heart of this legal battle was a child diagnosed with Trisomy 18, who was eliminated through abortion in the Netherlands specifically because of their disability.
From a sociological and anthropological perspective, this constitutes a structural injustice. When a society treats disability as a legitimate justification for ending a human life, it sends an unmistakable cultural signal: that certain lives are less worthy of protection. In this case, a child with a recognized disability was denied the most fundamental right: the right to life.
This practice stands in direct contradiction to the values the Council of Europe claims to uphold. The Oviedo Convention—the primary binding international text on bioethics—explicitly guarantees protection of the ‘dignity and identity of all human beings’ in Article 1. This dignity is inherent and does not depend on a genetic condition. Furthermore, Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits discrimination on any ground. Crucially, Article 11 of the Oviedo Convention forbids ‘any form of discrimination against a person on grounds of his or her genetic heritage’—a prohibition that must logically extend to the prenatal elimination of children simply because of their disability.
The Threat of Institutionalized “Abortion Tourism”
The A.R. v. Poland case also serves as a warning regarding current political movements. The applicant in this case circumvented Polish law by travelling to another Member State to terminate the pregnancy.
What occurred informally in 2020 risks becoming institutionally facilitated through the European Citizen’s Initiative “My Voice My Choice” (MVMC), which proposes a mechanism for abortion tourism. If abortion is included within Europe’s competencies, this would create a system that undermines national sovereignty.
Such proposals would entrench eugenic practices by making disability-selective abortion easier to access across borders. This would pressure Member States that protect unborn life and violate the EU’s own commitments to disability rights.
Conclusion: Dignity Over Discrimination
Europe cannot simultaneously proclaim a commitment to inclusion while facilitating eugenic practices. As Tonio Borg, President of the One of Us Federation, states regarding the judgment: “This judgment confirms there is no right to abortion under European human rights law. Yet a child was eliminated precisely because of disability. […] Every human being, regardless of genetic condition, possesses equal and inviolable dignity”. It is imperative to respect the ECHR’s position that no right to abortion exists and to reject initiatives that would facilitate abortion tourism. Genuine inclusion requires policies that support families and children with disabilities, rather than enabling their elimination.
