Developed and funded by AbbVie in collaboration with the World Ovarian Cancer Coalition (the Coalition) and based on an interview with Christel Paganoni-Bruijns, chief executive officer of the Coalition, and Frances Reid, programme director of the Coalition -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Late diagnoses, burdensome treatments and disease recurrence are realities for many women with ovarian cancer.1,2,3,4,5 Their stories are evidence of systemic challenges impacting care that policymakers have the power to combat. The World Ovarian Cancer Coalition (the Coalition), the only global ovarian cancer patient advocacy organization, is driving evidence generation to inform tangible policy reforms that could reduce the socioeconomic burden of this disease on individuals and wider societies.6 Ovarian cancer is one of the deadliest cancers affecting women in Europe, yet it remains overlooked.7,8 While other areas of women’s health benefit from policy frameworks and public awareness, ovarian cancer continues to sit in the margins, creating real human consequences. In 2022, Europe recorded the highest rates of ovarian cancer incidence and mortality worldwide.8 Only 40 percent of women in Europe remain alive five years after being diagnosed with ovarian cancer, with advanced-stage diagnoses often having poorer outcomes.8 Despite this, ovarian cancer remains absent from many national cancer plans and there is still no unified European policy framework to address it.  In partnership with European patient groups, the Coalition is convening a series of workshops for ovarian cancer survivors to share their experiences. Alongside leading clinicians and advocates, the Coalition is leveraging these testimonies to develop policy recommendations to inform national and European cancer strategies. Christel Paganoni-Bruijns, the Coalition’s chief executive officer, and Frances Reid, programme director and Every Woman Study lead, share their insights into the challenges women with ovarian cancer face and how policy changes can offer improved support. The hidden emotional and physical cost  There are education and awareness gaps that can impede diagnosis and prioritization. Many women believe that cervical cancer screening (otherwise known as the Pap smear) can detect ovarian cancer.9 Another widespread misconception is that ovarian cancer has no symptoms until very advanced stages.10 However, the Coalition’s Every Woman Study (2021) found that nine in 10 women do experience symptoms, even during the early stages.11  “These misconceptions cause real harm. They delay diagnosis, they delay action and they stop women from being heard,” Reid comments.  The ovarian cancer journey can be distressingly complex. Women frequently undergo major surgery, multiple rounds of treatment and long recovery periods.4,12,13 Even after treatment ends, the fear of recurrence can cast a shadow over daily life.  Ovarian cancer often strikes when many women are still working, caring for children, supporting aging parents and contributing to their communities in a variety of ways. 14,15 When they fall ill, the consequences ripple outwards. Some partners have to reduce their working hours or leave employment entirely to care for their loved ones.16 Families may take on emotional strain and financial pressure that can carry lasting impacts.17,18  Reid says: “These women are mothers, daughters, employees, carers, community anchors. When they are affected, the impact is not only personal — it is economic, social and predictable.” The Coalition’s socioeconomic burden study explored the cost to health services, the impact of informal caregiving, productive time lost by patients traveling to and receiving care, and longer-term productivity impacts.17 It found that the majority of the socioeconomic impact of ovarian cancer does not come from health service costs, but from the value of lives lost.17 Across the 11 countries examined, ill-health from ovarian cancer led to lost labor productivity equivalent to 2.5 million days of work.17 In the U.K. alone, productivity losses amounted to over US$52 million per year.17 In 2026, the Coalition will look further into the socioeconomic impact across high-income countries across Europe. Despite this measurable burden, ovarian cancer remains under-prioritized in health planning and funding decisions. Why women still struggle to get the care they need  Across Europe, many women face delays at various stages along their journey, some due to policy and system design choices. For example, without screening methods for early detection, diagnosis relies heavily on recognizing symptoms and receiving timely referrals.1,19,20 Yet many women often struggle to access specialists or face long waits for investigations.2,11,21   While Europe benefits from world-class innovation in ovarian cancer research, access to that innovation can be inconsistent. Recently published data from the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) found that average time to availability for oncology products in Europe continues to increase, with 2024 data showing time from approval to access was 33 days slower than in 2023 and 66 days slower than in 2022.22 In 2024, it took an average of 586 days — or ~19 months — for patients to access new therapies after approval, with significant variation between countries.22 Delays in treatment impact prognosis and survival for patients with ovarian cancer.23 The challenges in care also extend to psychological and emotional support. The Every Woman Study found that only 28 percent of women were offered mental health support, despite the known vulnerabilities throughout treatment, recovery and recurrence.12   Paganoni-Bruijns and Reid reinforce that through the Coalition’s work, they have often found that “women feel unseen and unheard. They see progress in other cancers and ask: why not us?” What a better future looks like A better future starts with addressing ovarian cancer as part of a holistic vision and plan for women’s health. Europe has the foundational frameworks, infrastructure and clinical expertise to lead the way. What is needed now is political attention and policy alignment that includes ovarian cancer as part of these broader programs.  Paganoni-Bruijns comments: “We cannot keep treating gynecological cancers as if they exist in separate boxes. Women experience their health as one reality, so policies must reflect that.”  Existing structures in breast and cervical cancer offer valuable lessons. Across Europe, millions of women already move through screening programs, health promotion initiatives and established diagnostic pathways.24 These systems could be used to increase awareness of ovarian cancer symptoms, improve referral routes and access to specialist care, and support earlier detection. Increased investment in genetic and biomarker testing, as well as emerging early detection research, can be accelerated by aligning with these established programs. The Coalition is partnering with global experts to translate these lessons into the first-ever evidence-based framework for ovarian cancer mortality rate reduction, however, policy action at the regional and national level must keep pace.  The EU-funded DISARM project is a promising example of the progress underway to help Europe ‘disarm’ the threat of ovarian cancer. DISARM is a coordinated, multi-country effort to strengthen ovarian cancer risk assessment, validate affordable early-detection tools and understand how these innovations can be implemented within real-world health systems. Crucially, it is designed both to generate evidence and to address feasibility, uptake and system readiness, the factors that, together, determine whether innovation actually reaches patients.   As Paganoni-Bruijns explains, “DISARM shows what progress looks like when science, policy and patient experience are designed to work together. It is not about a single breakthrough or ‘quick fix’, but about building the conditions for earlier detection — through better risk assessment, validated tools and systems that are ready to use them.”  Yet projects like DISARM, while essential, cannot carry the burden alone. Without a cohesive European or global World Health Organization framework for ovarian cancer, progress remains fragmented, uneven and vulnerable to delay. Europe has often set the pace for global cancer policy and ovarian cancer should be no exception. By recognizing ovarian cancer as a priority within European women’s health, policymakers can be part of setting the global standard for a new era of coordinated and patient-centered care. Paganoni-Bruijns shares the Coalition’s call-to-action: “The systems exist. The evidence exists. We know that we need to include ovarian cancer in national cancer plans, improve diagnostic pathways, strengthen genetic testing and commit to EU-level monitoring. What is missing is prioritization. With leadership and accountability, ovarian cancer does not have to remain one of Europe’s deadliest cancers.” The stakes are rising and the window for meaningful action is narrowing. But with focused leadership, Europe can change the trajectory of ovarian cancer. Women across the continent deserve earlier diagnoses, access to innovation and the chance to live not just longer, but better. To understand why action on ovarian cancer cannot wait, listen to the Coalition’s Changing the Ovarian Cancer Story podcast series, or visit the Coalition’s website. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1 Rampes S, et al. Early diagnosis of symptomatic ovarian cancer in primary care in the UK: opportunities and challenges. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2022;23:e52. 2 Funston G, et al. Detecting ovarian cancer in primary care: can we do better? Br J Gen Pract. 2022;72:312-313.  3 Tookman L, et al. Diagnosis, treatment and burden in advanced ovarian cancer: a UK real-world survey of healthcare professionals and patients. Future Oncol. 2024;20:1657-1673.  4 National Cancer Institute. Ovarian Epithelial, Fallopian Tube, and Primary Peritoneal Cancer Treatment (PDQ) – Health Professional Version. Available at: https://www.cancer.gov/types/ovarian/hp/ovarian-epithelial-treatment-pdq [Last accessed: January 2026]. 5 Beesley et al. Evaluating patient-reported symptoms and late adverse effects following completion of first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer using the MOST (Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns). Gynecologic Oncology 164 (2022):437-445.  6 World Ovarian Cancer Coalition. About the World Ovarian Cancer Coalition. Available at: https://worldovariancancercoalition.org/about-us/ [Last accessed: January 2026]. 7 Manzano A, Košir U, Hofmarcher T. Bridging the gap in women’s cancers care: a global policy report on disparities, innovations and solutions. IHE Report 2025:12. The Swedish Institute for Health Economics (IHE); 2025. 8 ENGAGe. Ovarian Cancer. Available at: https://engage.esgo.org/gynaecological-cancers/ovarian-cancer/ [Last accessed: January 2026].  9 Target Ovarian Cancer. Driving change through knowledge – updated NHS cervical screening guide. Available at: https://targetovariancancer.org.uk/news/driving-change-through-knowledge-updated-nhs-cervical-screening-guide [Last accessed: January 2026]. 10 Goff BA, et al. Frequency of Symptoms of Ovarian Cancer in Women Presenting to Primary Care Clinics. JAMA. 2004;291(22):2705–2712.  11 Reid F, et al. The World Ovarian Cancer Coalition Every Woman Study: identifying challenges and opportunities to improve survival and quality of life. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31:238-244.  12 National Health Service (NHS). Ovarian cancer. Treatment. Available at: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ovarian-cancer/treatment/ [Last accessed: January 2026].  13 Cancer Research UK. Recovering from ovarian cancer surgery. Available at: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/ovarian-cancer/treatment/surgery/recovering-from-surgery [Last accessed: January 2026]. 14 National Health Service (NHS). Ovarian cancer. Causes. Available at: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ovarian-cancer/causes/ [Last accessed: January 2026].  15 American Cancer Society. Ovarian Cancer Risk Factors. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/ovarian-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/risk-factors.html [Last accessed: January 2026].  16 Shukla S, et al. VOCAL (Views of Ovarian Cancer Patients and Their Caregivers – How Maintenance Therapy Affects Their Lives) Study: Cancer-Related Burden and Quality of Life of Caregivers [Poster]. Presented at: International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Europe; 2022 Nov 6–9; Vienna, Austria. 17 Hutchinson B, et al. Socioeconomic Burden of Ovarian Cancer in 11 Countries. JCO Glob Oncol. 2025;11:e2400313. 18 Petricone-Westwood D, et al.An Investigation of the Effect of Attachment on Distress among Partners of Patients with Ovarian Cancer and Their Relationship with the Cancer Care Providers. Current Oncology. 2021;28(4):2950–2960.  19 World Ovarian Cancer Coalition. Ovarian Cancer Testing & Detection. Available at: http://worldovariancancercoalition.org/about-ovarian-cancer/detection-testing/ [Last accessed: January 2026]. 20 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Suspected cancer: recognition and referral. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng12/resources/suspected-cancer-recognition-and-referral-pdf-1837268071621 [Last accessed: January 2026]. 21 Menon U, et al. Diagnostic routes and time intervals for ovarian cancer in nine international jurisdictions; findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP). Br J Cancer. 2022;127:844-854.  22 European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). New data shows no shift in access to medicines for millions of Europeans. Available at: https://www.efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/statements-press-releases/new-data-shows-no-shift-in-access-to-medicines-for-millions-of-europeans/ [Last accessed: January 2026].  23 Zhao J, et al. Impact of Treatment Delay on the Prognosis of Patients with Ovarian Cancer: A Population-based Study Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database. J Cancer. 2024;15:473-483.  24 European Commission. Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan: Communication from the commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Available at: https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-02/eu_cancer-plan_en_0.pdf [Last accessed: January 2026].  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALL-ONCOC-250039 v1.0  February 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is AbbVie * The ultimate controlling entity is AbbVie More information here.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s assertion that taking paracetamol during pregnancy is linked to autism in kids has been debunked by a large evidence review. Researchers say the new study published Saturday should put women at ease should they need to use these painkillers. Last year, Trump warned pregnant women against using Tylenol — a U.S. brand name for paracetamol — during pregnancy, arguing that its use “can be associated with a very increased risk of autism.” The position was driven by Republicans pushing the MAHA — Make America Healthy Again — movement led by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. But it has split politicians and health experts on both sides of the Atlantic and confused citizens. While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered a new safety warning be added to Tylenol leaflets, the European Medicines Agency said at the time there was no evidence of a link between paracetamol use in pregnancy and autism. Medical professionals raised concerns that pregnant women would have no treatment for fever or pain, and may be vilified for the rise in autism in recent decades. Now, a large review of 43 studies, published in The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology & Women’s Health, found there is no evidence of a link — contradicting the U.S. studies used to recommend against its use in the U.S. “We found no clinically important increase in the risk of autism, [attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)] or intellectual disability of the children where the mothers took paracetamol during pregnancy,” said Asma Khalil, a consultant obstetrician and fetal medicine specialist at St George’s Hospital in London, who led the study. “The important message to the millions of pregnant individuals is the fact that actually paracetamol is safe to use in pregnancy,” she added. “It remains to be the first line of treatment that we would recommend if the pregnant woman has pain or fever in pregnancy.” While previous studies did suggest small associations between paracetamol in pregnancy and increased risks of autism and ADHD, the Lancet researchers said these were often based on studies prone to biases. In particular, the U.S. administration cited a study published last summer which found a link between paracetamol during pregnancy and increased incidence of neuro-developmental disorders (NDDs). But in this review “there are several studies [which] suffer or are vulnerable to bias,” Khalil said. “The potential implications of not accounting for these confounders is that you draw their own conclusions.” The Lancet’s evidence review instead focused on studies with the most rigorous research methods, such as those at low risk of bias, those with sibling comparisons and with at least five years of follow up — and found no link. In particular, sibling-comparison studies allow researchers to compare children born to the same mother, who only took paracetamol during one of the pregnancies. They take into account shared genetic factors, shared family and long-term parental characteristics. “Our findings suggest that previously reported links are likely to be explained by genetic predisposition or other maternal factors such as fever or underlying pain, rather than a direct effect of the paracetamol itself,” Khalil said. Public health experts, the EMA and the European Commission, pushed back against Trump’s position last year, arguing there was no evidence to support it. “While the impact of last year’s announcement has been extensive, I hope the findings of this study bring the matter to a close,” Grainne McAlonan, professor of translational neuroscience at King’s College London, said.  “Expectant mothers do not need the stress of questioning whether medicine most commonly used for a headache could have far reaching effects on their child’s health,” McAlonan said.

STRASBOURG — The European Parliament has voted today to set up an EU fund to expand access to abortion for women across the bloc, in a historic vote that divided lawmakers. The plan would establish a voluntary, opt-in financial mechanism to help countries provide abortion care to women who can’t access it in their own country and who choose to travel to one with more liberal laws. European citizens presented the plan in a petition — through the campaign group “My Voice, My Choice.” Lawmakers in Strasbourg voted 358 in favor and 202 against the proposal, and 79 MEPs abstained. The topic sparked animated discussions in the European Parliament plenary on Tuesday evening. MEPs with center-right and far-right groups tabled competing texts to the resolution put forward by Renew’s Abir Al-Sahlani on behalf of the women’s rights and gender equality committee. Supporters of the scheme argued it would help reduce unsafe abortions and ensure women across the bloc have equal rights; those who oppose it, mostly from conservative groups, dismissed it as an ideological push and EU overreach into national policy. Abortion laws vary greatly across the EU, from near-total bans in Poland and Malta to liberal rules in the Netherlands and the U.K. The fund could be a game changer for the thousands of European women who travel every year to another EU country to access abortion care. The European Commission now has until March 2026 to give a response. This story is being updated.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said he wants to enshrine the right to abortion in the Constitution, following the example of France, which last year became the first country in the world to take the historic step.  In a post on social media, Sánchez said he is planning to bring a proposal to Parliament to constitutionalize the right to voluntary termination of pregnancy. “With this government, there will be no step backward in social rights,” he said.  The post follows approval by Madrid’s city council of a measure which will make health centers inform women considering abortion about so-called “post-abortion trauma.” The measure was supported by the center-right Popular Party (PP) and the far-right Vox party.  “The PP has decided to merge with the far right. That’s their choice,” Sánchez wrote. “They can do that. But not at the expense of women’s freedoms and rights.” The prime minister said he plans to amend Spain’s abortion laws to prevent “misleading or scientifically inaccurate information about abortion from being provided.”  

President Donald Trump urged women Monday not to take a common over-the-counter fever-reducer and pain-reliever during pregnancy, linking Tylenol as well as the childhood vaccine schedule to an increased risk of autism. Trump’s remarks on vaccines — which appeared to be off-the-cuff — marked his clearest endorsement yet of a connection between the shots received early in childhood and the rise in autism diagnoses — a theory long rejected by scientists. In the hours before his remarks, Trump supporters who want the president and his health officials to explicitly link autism to childhood vaccines — despite decades of data refuting a connection — fretted that the administration might shy away from doing so despite longtime anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s leadership of the health department. Trump made it clear he endorsed Kennedy’s continued review of vaccine safety. On Tylenol, Trump vacillated between echoing what his health officials advised — saying the federal government is “strongly recommending that women” limit use in pregnancy “unless medically necessary” — and staking out his own position more forcefully. “I’m not so careful with what I say,” he said, before adding: “Taking Tylenol is not good. Alright, I’ll say it: It’s not good.” The FDA will notify doctors that Tylenol as well as generic acetaminophen “can be associated with a very increased risk of autism,” Trump said. That message contradicts a recent analysis of nearly four dozen studies investigating a potential connection between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and neurodevelopmental conditions. That study, co-authored by the dean of the faculty at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, found reason to be concerned about a connection and said women should be warned, but also advised against broad limitations in favor of a “balanced approach” that acknowledges the risks of untreated fever and pain during pregnancy. Other studies, including a study that harnessed data on nearly 2.5 million children born in Sweden between 1995 and 2019, have found no correlation between acetaminophen and autism. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists President Steven Fleischman called the acetaminophen announcement “not backed by the full body of scientific evidence and dangerously simplifies the many and complex causes of neurologic challenges in children.” “Suggestions that acetaminophen use in pregnancy causes autism are not only highly concerning to clinicians but also irresponsible when considering the harmful and confusing message they send to pregnant patients, including those who may need to rely on this beneficial medicine during pregnancy,” Fleischman said in a statement. Trump also touted the potential for a medication commonly used to counteract chemotherapy side effects to treat certain children with autism. While scientists say leucovorin, a form of vitamin B, could be promising for a subset of patients, they cautioned that the current data is limited and the drug needs more research. Three senior health officials — NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary and CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz — wrote in a POLITICO Magazine opinion piece published Monday that they would fast-track approval of leucovorin as a treatment for kids with symptoms of autism and cerebral folate deficiency. That move will unlock insurance coverage by government programs for low-income people, Medicaid and CHIP, which cover more than half of American children. Acetaminophen is one of the few over-the-counter drugs recommended during pregnancy to treat fever and pain, as alternatives like ibuprofen are known to increase the risk of birth defects. | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images The lead-up to Trump’s remarks spurred doctors to warn that they could prompt pregnant women to avoid acetaminophen in situations where its use is warranted — and to blame themselves if their children receive an autism diagnosis. Acetaminophen is one of the few over-the-counter drugs recommended during pregnancy to treat fever and pain, as alternatives like ibuprofen are known to increase the risk of birth defects. High fever during pregnancy also poses risks to a developing fetus for complications, such as neural tube defects. “There’s this catch-22 where a mother is always to blame,” Danielle Hall, director of healthy equity at the Autism Society of America, said, referring to a since-discredited mid-20th century theory pinning autism’s cause on emotionally cold mothers. Ann Bauer, a University of Massachusetts at Lowell researcher who worked on the study with the Harvard dean that drew the Tylenol-autism connection, told POLITICO the science requires “a nuanced message” that acknowledges the potential risks of both the drug and untreated pain or fever. “It’s not black and white, and I think that’s part of the issue with the medical community communicating this,” she said. “Acetaminophen may still be your best option. But the risks from acetaminophen are much greater for prolonged use than it is for taking it a few times, and I think that we have to be very concerned that a woman would — because of these warnings — might not take it when she should.” Before Trump’s announcement – which he previewed Sunday at the memorial service for the assassinated conservative leader Charlie Kirk – some of his allies who are suspicious of vaccines complained he was taking the focus off vaccines as a cause of autism. On Monday, Trump reassured them. “They pump so much stuff into those beautiful little babies, it’s a disgrace,” he said of vaccines. Mary Holland, CEO of the Kennedy-cofounded anti-vaccine group Children’s Health Defense, said the group still believes vaccines are driving the increase in autism diagnoses in the U.S. — and that Kennedy hasn’t finished his work. “I can’t imagine that this is the end of the story,” she told POLITICO. “I think this is the beginning of a process.” David Lim and Mari Eccles, a reporter at POLITICO-EUROPE, contributed to this report.

Women’s rights protestors have demanded the EU explore “all legal and diplomatic avenues” to prevent America from burning $10 million worth of contraceptives stored in Belgium due to changes in U.S. aid programs. The protesters rallied in front of the U.S. embassy in Brussels on Thursday to urge EU institutions to step in and stop what they called a “reckless, harmful and cruel action.” The contraceptives, owned by the defunded U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) program and currently stored in two warehouses in Belgium, are set to be incinerated due to the reinstatement of a U.S. policy that prohibits sending aid to organizations that provide abortion services. Local and international organizations are calling on governments and EU officials to intervene, saying the destruction will result in thousands of women and girls losing access to life-saving care. “We call on the European Union to stand up for its values and commitments to women’s freedom everywhere,” Micah Grzywnowicz told the crowd of protesters holding placards and banners across from the embassy. “This is the moment for the European Commission to show leadership: Rally member states, mediate with the U.S., and explore all legal and diplomatic avenues to stop essential supplies from being wasted,” said Grzywnowicz, who is regional director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) European network. While protestors want the EU to act, the European Commission said only Belgium can intervene in the destruction of medicines on its territory. The local government says it’s doing everything it can to find a diplomatic solution, but protestors argue it’s a political performance by the U.S. Between 80 and 100 people showed up to protest on the cloudy morning. They held pictures of birth-control pills on fire, a banner spelling “Reproductive freedom for all,” and numerous signs reading “you have blood on your hands,” “700 mothers dead,” and “161,000 unplanned births.” They stood just across the street from the U.S. embassy, on Boulevard du Régent, chanting “Shame, shame, shame. Trump is to blame.” “We are here to say no, we disagree with these political decisions that impact our bodies and our lives and our people in our partner organizations and countries,” Grzywnowicz told POLITICO. “And we are not going anywhere, so we will keep on looking and watching and protesting against those moves.” The protest was organized by sexual health and reproductive rights NGO IPPF, Flemish center of expertise for sexual health Sensoa, 11.11.11, and the Fédération Laïque de Centres de Planning Familial. While the message for the U.S. is to stop its plan to destroy the stocks, the one for the EU is to step up. “The EU always portrays itself as a champion for sexual, reproductive health and rights. So we would like them to show that now on this topic as well,” Heleen Heysse, from Sensoa, told POLITICO. “On the other hand, we also want them to look at all avenues that they can find on EU policy to save the stocks.” BLAME GAME Calls for the EU to get involved have been mounting for weeks. Earlier this summer a group of MEPs wrote to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen asking her to intervene. A Commission spokesperson told POLITICO on Thursday that preventing the destruction of the contraceptives on the territory of a member country is a national competency. But “should a solution be found to make these commodities available, the Commission stands ready to explore ways together with partners to ensure that the supplies reach the intended beneficiaries,” they added. Several international organizations, including the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the IPPF, have offered to purchase the contraceptives at no additional costs for the U.S. On the other hand, the destruction of the products would cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $167,000, according to news reports. But the U.S. rejected the offer, said Grzywnowicz. A spokesperson from USAID told POLITICO that the supplies were still with customs and under review. That was confirmed by a spokesperson for Flemish Minister Jo Brouns, who told POLITICO that the products were still located in the two warehouses in Geel and Kallo. “Looking at the actions of the Trump administration, it’s not about [a] technicality or not knowing what to do with the supplies,” Grzywnowicz said. “It is about [a] political agenda and wanting to control our bodies.” Under Flemish legislation, medicines or medical supplies that are still in good condition may not be incinerated, the spokesperson added. “Such incineration can only take place if an “exemption from the incineration ban” is granted by the minister for the environment and a double levy on waste incineration is paid,” the spokesperson said, adding that “no such exemption has been requested or granted to date.”  “Together with his federal colleague, Minister Jo Brouns is doing everything possible to find a diplomatic solution for these goods,” the spokesperson said. Heysse called on the EU to stand with Belgium and show its support. Belgium on its own is “less powerful than if the whole EU throws their weight behind us,” she said. The U.S. government is also coming under growing pressure to abandon its plans. Last week, over 70 international organizations sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio urging the administration to “immediately halt plans to destroy these contraceptive supplies.” A U.S. State Department spokesperson previously said that the stored products had been purchased under former President Joe Biden’s administration and could be “potentially … abortifacients” — substances that can induce an abortion. This could violate the so-called Mexico City Policy, he added. The Mexico City Policy forbids U.S. aid from being sent to abortion providers and was reinstated by President Donald Trump in January. Lists obtained by news outlets show that the stock does not include pills for medical abortions. Nonetheless, the policy prevents any support of any organizations that promote abortion, meaning other services such as providing contraceptives have also been impacted. About 77 percent of the products, which are mostly long-acting contraceptives such as birth control pills, IUDs and hormonal implants, were earmarked for five African countries: the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia and Mali, the IPPF said. Destroying these contraceptives would deny more than 1.4 million women and girls access to life-saving care. Tanzania would be the country most impacted, the NGO added, as the products account for nearly one-third of the country’s total annual contraceptive needs. In total, activists say, the destruction of the stockpile could result in over 360,000 unintended pregnancies, 161,000 unplanned births, 110,000 unsafe abortions and 718 preventable maternal deaths. Trump moved to dismantle USAID shortly after his January inauguration, scrapping over 80 percent of its programs. Leaders of international health NGOs previously urged the EU to step up to protect lifesaving health initiatives over what they see as a “moment of reckoning” amid Washington’s cuts to foreign aid.

A Polish court sentenced two doctors to prison Thursday and handed a third a suspended jail term for their roles in the 2021 death of a pregnant woman who was denied an abortion. The District Court in Pszczyna found the doctors guilty of endangering the life of a 30-year-old woman, identified only as Izabela, reported Polskie Radio24, in a case that triggered nationwide protests and renewed scrutiny of Poland’s restrictive abortion laws. Andrzej P. was also convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 18 months in prison and a six-year professional ban. Michał M., who was on duty when Izabela was admitted, was sentenced to 15 months in prison without parole and banned from practicing for six years. Krzysztof P., who was acting head of the hospital’s gynecology department, received a one-year suspended sentence, a four-year ban, a fine and was ordered to issue a formal apology. The verdict may be appealed. Izabela was hospitalized in her 22nd week of pregnancy after her amniotic fluid broke. Doctors confirmed fetal defects but delayed terminating the pregnancy. According to her family, they waited for the fetus to die before acting. Izabela died less than 24 hours later of septic shock. The hospital said all medical decisions were made in line with Polish law and safety protocols. Her death was the first widely reported case linked to a 2020 Constitutional Tribunal ruling that removed fetal abnormalities as legal grounds for abortion. Current law permits abortion only in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother’s life. The ruling led to mass protests under the slogan “Not one more,” as rights groups warned that fear of prosecution is deterring doctors from intervening in critical cases. The incumbent ruling coalition promised to ease Poland’s abortion rules but lacks the internal majority to pass relevant legislation — even if it were something conservative President Andrzej Duda would reject. Prospects for change are equally dim under the incoming new President Karol Nawrocki, who hails from the same conservative camp led by the Law and Justice (PiS) party. The 2020 ruling happened while PiS was in power and is widely considered a factor in the party’s losing the parliamentary election in 2023.