Lower House rejects censure motion over late abortion
A majority rejected the censure of policy surrounding a controversial trial allowing terminations from 22 weeks of pregnancy.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
.jpg){kind=link}
The Lower House has rejected a motion of censure against Health Minister Sophie Hermans. The motion concerned a trial under which hospitals could make abortions between 22 and 24 weeks of pregnancy more accessible.
The motion was submitted by SGP MP Diederik van Dijk. According to its proposer, it would represent a far-reaching change to existing practice and the trial touches on legal and ethical boundaries concerning the protection of unborn life.
In the roll-call vote, 40 MPs voted in favour and 106 against. The motion was backed by PVV, FVD, SGP, ChristenUnie, BBB and Mona Keijzer. JA21 was divided. The motion of censure therefore failed to win a majority.
A proposal by ChristenUnie MP Mirjam Bikker to halt the plans was also rejected. A motion by PRO to politically emphasise the right to and access to abortion did win a majority. The parliamentary debate therefore showed that several aspects of abortion policy are assessed differently.
Hermans defends the trial as an improvement to abortion care and says there is no fundamental change to the statutory framework. The minister stresses that individual healthcare providers and hospitals cannot be required to perform an abortion.
The debate also concerns the distinction between a late termination of pregnancy and a premature birth in a wanted pregnancy. According to the minister, these are medically and legally different situations, even when the gestational ages are close to one another.
The Termination of Pregnancy Act states that the viability threshold is determined by medical guidelines. The minister has announced that the subject will return during the planned evaluation of the Act in 2027. The precise design of and participation in the trial have not yet been made public.
The vote does not change the statutory abortion limit. It does, however, give the cabinet political room to continue exploring the issue with hospitals. It remains unclear how many hospitals will ultimately wish to participate.
Also show where in Europe and in the world
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The Lower House rejected a motion of censure against Health Minister Sophie Hermans.
- The motion concerned a trial involving abortions from 22 weeks of pregnancy.
- The statutory abortion limit was not changed by this vote.
- The scale of and participation in the trial have not yet been made public.
Left
Arguments The trial could make care more accessible for women in a severe emergency. The Lower House should prevent political pressure from creating additional barriers to medical care.
Values Self-determination, equal access to care and trust in doctors’ professional judgement.
Consequences Continuing the trial could give hospitals more options, but requires clear protocols and protection for patients and healthcare providers.
Centre
Arguments The issue calls for a careful distinction between medical practice, legislation and ethical assessment. An evaluation based on transparent data may work better than an immediate political blockade.
Values Carefulness, medical expertise and democratic oversight.
Consequences The trial could continue under conditions, while parliament could decide again later on the basis of evaluation data.
Right
Arguments An expansion of practice concerning viability should not take place implicitly through a trial. The Lower House must first explicitly discuss the protection of unborn life and the limits of criminal law.
Values Protection of human life, clarity under the rule of law and restraint in far-reaching medical decisions.
Consequences Halting or restricting the trial could increase legal clarity, but could also mean that some women have to travel abroad for care.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The voting result, the motions involved and the legal context were checked against parliamentary sources and a second news source. Claims about the scale of the hospital trial have deliberately been presented as unknown.
- confirmed The Lower House rejected the motion of censure against Minister Hermans. — The 27 October vote and the motion are recorded by the Lower House; the result was reported by Reformatorisch Dagblad. source
- confirmed The motion concerned more accessible abortions from 22 weeks of pregnancy. — This is stated in the official text of the motion. source
- confirmed The minister says that individual healthcare providers cannot be required to perform the procedure. — This is stated in the plenary report. source
Editor's note
The voting result and the content of the motions were checked through the Lower House and an independent news source. The precise scale of and participation in the hospital trial are not known.Sources
- Motie van het lid Van Dijk over afkeuring van het beleid — Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal
- Stemmingen Tweede Kamer 27 oktober 2026 — Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal
- Tweede Kamer verwerpt motie van afkeuring over late abortussen — Reformatorisch Dagblad
- Plenaire verslagen begroting Volksgezondheid — Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal