ANALYSIS Pro-change, but anti-abortion: Romania where hospitals block abortions and young people reject them, in a Europe that guarantees them

In Romania, an INSCOP survey shows a majority of young people against abortion (58.4% against, 35.5% in favor), while public infrastructure for abortion is already almost non-existent in state hospitals. In the rest of the EU, public opinion is much more favorable to the right to abortion, but actual access remains very unequal, with extreme cases like Poland, where restrictive legislation pushes women towards mobility within the EU or informal solutions.

What young people in Romania say about abortion

The National Youth Barometer, conducted by INSCOP Research at the beginning of 2026 on a representative sample of Romanians aged 18 to 35 and published in March 2026, shows that only 35.5% of young people declare that they agree with abortion. 58.4% declare themselves against it, while 6.1% do not know or do not respond.

Acceptance is higher among young people from urban areas, with higher education and higher incomes, while opposition to abortion is stronger in rural areas and among those with lower education and income. When the question shifts from principle to the role of the state, the numbers change, but not fundamentally. Only 29.1% of the surveyed youth believe that the state should guarantee access to abortion in public hospitals by law. Among those who say they agree with abortion, 82.1% also agree with the idea that the state should ensure these services in public hospitals by law, indicating that within the pro-abortion minority there is a coherent vision regarding the role of institutions.

The paradox becomes evident when you place this data alongside other results from the same barometer. Over 60% of young Romanians say they prefer change and new ideas over keeping things "as they are," while comments from Remus Ștefureac, director of INSCOP, describe young people as "the engine of change" in a blocked society. On the subject of abortion, however, the same generation aligns with the conservative reflexes of society, not with an agenda to expand access to rights.

How many hospitals in Romania perform abortions on request and how much does it cost

In reality, access to abortion on request in the public system has almost disappeared. A report from the Independent Midwives Association (AMI), published in March 2024, shows that out of 176 public medical units with obstetrics and gynecology departments, only 7 public hospitals still perform abortions on request in accordance with medical guidelines and the law – that is, medical abortion up to 9 weeks and surgical abortion up to 14 weeks. Over 80% of public hospitals do not offer abortion services on request at all, even though the procedure is legal, while the rest do so with age limits lower than those in legislation or refuse to provide clear information.

Beyond this statistical snapshot, press investigations and international reports show how a de facto blockage is being constructed over time. In April 2025, Human Rights Watch published a comprehensive report on Romania – "It’s Happening Even Without You Noticing" – which describes "increasing obstacles" to accessing abortion and sexual and reproductive health services. The report shows that abortion on request is legal up to 14 weeks of pregnancy, but more and more public hospitals and more and more doctors refuse to provide this service. The report's author notes that "women and girls in Romania face an increasingly hostile landscape when trying to make decisions about their own bodies," and the state "allows the lack of information, availability, and accessibility to impede access to essential services."

HRW cites a survey conducted by the FILIA Center and the Euroregional Center for Public Initiative (CEIP) in 242 public hospitals between February and May 2021: less than half of these hospitals offered abortion on request or medical abortion, and in 11 counties, no abortion on request was recorded in public hospitals that year.

In the same report, an interviewed midwife explains that some doctors willing to perform abortions are stopped by hospital management, while others invoke conscientious objection without referring the patient to another unit, turning a personal choice into an institutional blockage. Human Rights Watch also notes cases of misinformation: doctors who arbitrarily reduce the legal age limit for pregnancy or incorrectly require mandatory parental consent for adolescents aged 16-17, even though the law allows them to access sexual health services without parental consent.

In October 2025, a Digi24 investigation confirms the extent of the blockage. Journalists contact 200 state hospitals, receive responses from 87, and find that in 49 of them there is no doctor willing to perform abortions on request. Some doctors invoke religious reasons ("I cannot kill a child," "God does not want it"), while others blame the lack of a clear framework or internal pressures. Following the revelations, journalist Cristian Tudor Popescu comments, in a broadcast intervention that has been repeated by several publications, that a woman ends up "in a situation inferior to that of a prisoner," because a prisoner is guaranteed access to medical services, while a woman cannot benefit from a legal procedure in the public system.

In February 2026, a ProTV report, based on the same AMI report, succinctly reiterates the problem: "Only 7 public hospitals in Romania still perform abortions on request," even though abortion on request is legal up to 14 weeks. The report also explains the financial dimension of the blockage: abortion is generally a paid service, including in state hospitals, and costs reach, on average, up to 1,800 lei for medical abortion and up to 4,800 lei for surgical abortion. For a young woman with a low income or for a student without family support, such amounts are unattainable.

In this context, recent European initiatives propose using EU funds to support women from countries with limited access – including Romania – to travel to other member states to have safe abortions if they cannot find services in their country. The solution indirectly acknowledges that, although Romanian law is permissive, the medical system empties it of content.

Why is abortion so hard to access in Romania, even though it is legal? The triple barrier: law, hospitals, costs

All these layers – the INSCOP survey, the HRW report, press investigations – converge towards the same conclusion: in Romania, the obstacle is not (yet) the letter of the law, but a triple combination of institutional refusal, prohibitive costs, and social stigma. The law allows abortion on request up to 14 weeks, but public hospitals refuse en masse to perform the procedure, doctors invoke conscientious objection without ensuring referrals, and the state does not sanction these practices and does not guarantee patients' rights through clear mechanisms. Moreover, high fees, not covered by the National Health Insurance House, turn a theoretical right into a service accessible only to those with money.

Sociologists and youth analysts, cited in studies published by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in 2024 and in INSCOP analyses from 2025 regarding the electoral preferences of young people, speak of a generation "caught between material frustrations and heightened value conservatism." Young people feel abandoned by institutions, predominantly inform themselves from online environments, where anti-system messages intertwine with nationalist and religious discourses, but at the same time do not have access to serious sexual education and clear information about reproductive health. In such a context, it is not surprising that many reproduce anti-abortion positions without reading the concrete experiences of women who face the closed door of hospitals.

Human Rights Watch directly links this situation to the "traumatic mourning" of the Ceaușescu era, when abortion was banned, and pronatalist policies led to massive deaths and suffering, but also to the failure of the post-1989 state to build a coherent framework for sexual education and guarantee reproductive health services. The report explicitly speaks of "a dangerous regression of reproductive rights," produced not through spectacular changes in law, but "without you noticing," through accumulated decisions over time in hospitals, in offices, in the silence of administrations.

What access to abortion looks like in Western Europe and what opinion polls say about abortion in the EU

Against the backdrop of this Romanian crisis, the picture of Western Europe looks different. In countries like France, Belgium, or the Netherlands, abortion is generally fully or partially reimbursed by public health systems. For the patient, this means that the procedure is free or low-cost, and public discussions mainly concern regulatory details – up to what week medical or surgical abortion is allowed, what forms of counseling are necessary, what reflection period is required – not the idea of banning abortion itself.

As a public opinion benchmark, data from the UK – although the country is no longer part of the EU – are relevant for the Western European space. An Ipsos survey conducted between May 16 and 19, 2025, published in June 2025, shows that 71% of Britons believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Only a minority says that abortion should be completely banned or allowed only in very limited circumstances. The basic public norm remains pro the right to abortion.

However, the same survey reveals an internal rupture. In the age group 16-34, only 46% of men believe that abortion should be legal in all or most situations, compared to 71% in the overall population. The British press and pro-rights organizations criticize the rise of a conservative current among young men, influenced by anti-feminist online content and "manosphere." However, these conservative niches do not yet change the legal framework or actual access in hospitals. The difference compared to Romania is clear. In the West, large pro-abortion majorities are supported by health systems that actually provide these services, usually without major costs for patients. In Romania, a level of opposition to abortion comparable to the conservative niches in the West is present among the majority of young people and overlaps with a medical system that behaves as if in a state of partial or total prohibition.

Poland vs Romania: "top-down" prohibition and "bottom-up" prohibition on abortion

Poland offers a useful counterexample for understanding the Romanian case. In October 2020, the Polish Constitutional Tribunal ruled that abortion in cases of severe fetal malformation is unconstitutional, drastically reducing the situations in which the procedure is allowed and effectively transforming Poland into a state with almost total abortion prohibition. Reports presented within the UN's Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism and analyses by human rights organizations have subsequently documented cases where doctors refused to intervene even when the woman's life was in danger, for fear of legal consequences.

A study published in August 2024 in the journal "Contraception" compares the attitudes of young Poles before and after this decision. The research analyzes two representative samples of final-year high school students, in 2018 and 2021, and shows that after 2020, support among young people for abortion in cases of severe fetal malformation and when the mother's health is at risk has increased. The authors note that massive protests and reports of dramatic cases have changed adolescents' perceptions, especially among girls, who have become more sensitive to the argument of protecting women's health and life.

At the same time, the number of legal abortions in Poland has drastically decreased, and thousands of women have been forced to travel to other EU countries, such as the Czech Republic, Germany, or Slovakia, to access abortion. Pandemic travel restrictions have further complicated these movements, increasing pressure on those with limited financial resources. Here, the prohibition is clearly "top-down": it comes through constitutional decision and legislation, and civil society and part of the youth react, increasing support for abortion in certain situations.

Compared to Romania, the difference is in the mechanism. In Poland, the state and the courts explicitly close the door, and the reaction of young people – at least in extreme cases – is to contest this direction. In Romania, the law remains permissive, but hospitals, doctors, and high costs practically close the door, "bottom-up," without a formal moment of prohibition, and young people, as a whole, do not seem to oppose this, but tend to position themselves against abortion.

Factors preventing young women in Romania and the EU from having abortions: religion, money, hospitals, and politics

Experts' and human rights organizations' explanations for this situation converge around several factors. In Romania, a key role is played by the influence of religion in the public space and in the medical system: doctors who often invoke "God's will," hospitals where management discourages or tacitly prohibits the procedure, and networks of religious organizations that promote childbirth at all costs. Human Rights Watch shows that the state has not clearly regulated conscientious objection and does not require hospitals to ensure access to services through other doctors or referrals, which turns personal beliefs into systemic barriers.

Additionally, the lack of real sexual education in schools is noted in both international reports and studies about youth. Many young Romanians reach adulthood without accurate information about contraception, reproductive health, and rights, and their perception of abortion is shaped mainly by religious messages, family, and polarized online environments. Meanwhile, the political scene offers as main vehicles for "change" parties and leaders with conservative discourse on family and women's rights, which reinforces anti-abortion responses.

In other EU states, the factors limiting young women's access to abortion are of a different nature or intensity. In Western Europe, barriers are more related to distance from clinics, legal deadlines, or procedural rules (mandatory reflection periods, counseling), but generally, the cost is low or zero, and hospitals offer the service as part of usual practice. In Poland, barriers are primarily legal and political: almost total prohibition, criminal risk for doctors, strong religious pressure, which pushes women out of the country.

Romania finds itself between these two worlds: it has a relatively permissive law, like the West, but actual access is much closer to the Polish experience; it has young people who declare they want change but reject abortion; it has public hospitals that treat a legal right as an optional and expensive service. In this contrast, the battle for reproductive rights in the coming years is actually played out.

Concrete cases: what "abortions on request are not performed" means in practice

Beyond the numbers, press investigations and women's reports provide evidence of what this "bottom-up" prohibition looks like at the level of daily life. In a Digi24 investigation from October 2025, a young woman recounts how she called several state hospitals in her county and neighboring counties to schedule an abortion on request, and received, each time, the response that "such interventions are not performed here" or that "all doctors refuse for reasons of conscience." In the end, she ended up at a private clinic, where she paid an amount that she could only cover by borrowing money, even though, formally, she had the right to the procedure in the public system.

The Human Rights Watch report from April 2025 also describes situations where women from rural areas travel dozens or hundreds of kilometers to find a hospital where doctors agree to perform abortions. One interviewed woman recounts how she was refused at a county hospital, sent to another hospital in the same county, and finally advised to "search online" for a private clinic in another town, because "abortions are not performed here."

For someone with a low income, the costs of transport, accommodation, and medical intervention quickly become unaffordable.

Other reported cases include adolescents who become late in their pregnancies due to shame and lack of information, or situations where doctors actively discourage abortion, telling their patients that "it’s better to keep the child," without presenting them with legal options or medical risks. All these episodes outline a reality where the law remains, but concrete access depends on the city where you live, the money you have, the doctor you encounter, and sometimes, luck.

Immediate political stakes: the Penal Code, public hospitals, and parties favored by youth

In the short term, the discussion about abortion in Romania is not just a moral or medical one, but also a strictly political one. In September 2025, Europa Liberă reported on a draft amendment to the Penal Code regarding "fetal harm," which introduced new offenses related to the fetus after 14 weeks of pregnancy and raised questions about how even cases of therapeutic abortion or spontaneous miscarriage could be affected. Although the project does not directly change the article regulating abortion on request, several jurists and NGOs have warned that it could create a climate of fear among doctors and further push medical practice into a gray area.

At the same time, public debate has reached the question of whether the state should explicitly require public hospitals to provide abortion on request. Shows like "Romania in Direct" from Europa FM have directly put on the table the question: "Should doctors be required to perform abortions on request in public hospitals?", based on data from the Digi24 investigation and reports from NGOs. Some propose a compromise solution – hospitals should be required to provide the service through a certain number of doctors or by contracting an external clinic, even if some doctors invoke conscientious objection – but this discussion is just beginning and has not yet translated into clear legislative initiatives.

In the background is also how young people vote and which parties they support. An INSCOP survey from November 2025 showed that 34% of young Romanians would vote for AUR if elections were held next Sunday, a party with a pronounced conservative discourse on family and moral issues. This suggests that the same young people who declare themselves mostly against abortion are also the electoral base of parties that, in the future, could support explicit restrictions on access or, on the contrary, could be pressured to clarify the legislative role of public hospitals.

In this context, the stake is not only whether Romania will copy the Polish model at the level of law, but also whether it will remain stuck in the current "bottom-up" prohibition, where hospitals set real policy, or whether there will be an explicit political decision – in one direction or another – about what the right to abortion concretely means in a member state of the European Union.

Analysis conducted with the support of Perplexity