A Dutch parliamentarian who was prevented from speaking about abortion during a committee meeting on medical ethics held in the Dutch House of Representatives released a viral video explaining why he was silenced—and laying out the barbarism of abortion in detail. It is easily one of the most honest and powerful denunciations of abortion delivered by a European politician in recent years.
The committee meeting was held on January 15, and the agenda included discussions on the annual reporting of abortion figures, euthanasia numbers, and embryonic research. Each committee member was to be given a four-minute speaking slot, after which other members could ask them questions. Gideon van Meijeren, an MP with the Forum for Democracy Party (FvD), used his time to bring up the growing number of abortions in the Netherlands.
“Today we debate medical ethics and in essence that concerns the question of what is right and what is wrong medically,” Van Meijeren told the committee. “I would like to ask attention for the unbelievably late abortion limit permitted in the Netherlands. And before I go there, I would like to note that no doubt every woman who finds herself in an emergency situation due to an unplanned pregnancy deserves help, support, and counseling. What matters to me most is to be able to choose a solution that protect the mother as well as the unborn child.”
“The Netherlands is the only country in the European Union where abortions are permitted until 24 weeks,” he continued. “In most countries surrounding us there’s a limit of 10 or 12 weeks. And to illustrate I have here an anatomical model of a fetus.” He reached into his bag and retrieved a model fetus, at which point the chair, MP Mohammed Mohandis, immediately interrupted.
“May I stop you,” Mohandis said quickly. “No, wait. It’s not allowed. You know that. You must take it off the table. No pictures, I’ll tell you now. No images. No videos. That is the case in the House for a very long time already. You must take it off the table. Yes, I said adjournment so the livestream must be off for a moment.” He ordered Van Meijeren to put the model on the ground, out of view. At one point, another committee member reached out to physically push the plastic pre-born baby out of sight. The livestream was cut so viewers would not see it.
Van Meijeren informed the committee that the House should not shut their eyes to “hard truths if we want to be able to make responsible decisions,” and pointed out that although graphics are not permitted, objects can be. Mohandis told him that he would not be permitted to use the model, and could only make his case in words. Van Meijeren told the committee that his freedom of expression was being restricted and left the meeting in protest, stating, “I will share about these hard truths via other platforms.” (These comments, and the transcript of Van Meijeren’s subsequent video, were translated by my colleague Maaike Rosendal.)
Van Meijeren did just that, and his video includes both footage of the committee meeting and a description of what abortion actually does to a pre-born child. It has now racked up over 70,000 views on X. The chair, incidentally, is a member of the pro-abortion Dutch Labour Party, which has fought for increased availability of the abortion pill and worked to abolish the mandatory five-day reflection period once required before procuring an abortion.
“Of course, it is not news to me that other MPs want to close their eyes for reality but that they would react with so much panic to demonstrating an anatomical model of a 22-week-old fetus is revelatory,” Van Meijeren said. “The fetal model in itself is of course not shocking at all. What is shocking is that these babies are being killed in the Netherlands on a daily basis. That is why the model may not be shown. That is why the livestream was immediately turned off. And that they hid behind the format — that you may not show any objects. That, of course, is nonsense. Rules about this are nonexistent. Objects are regularly permitted.” If he had attempted to show a birdhouse or some other object, he noted, nobody would have objected.
“I had the choice to either stay and deliver a weakened version of my statement without visual support, or to leave the debate and in this way share the stronger, full-fledged version of my statement with you,” he continued. “Especially regarding this kind of topic — it’s about medical ethics — about right and wrong, about life and death, it is of the greatest importance to be fully and honestly informed. This is not about shocking but rather about taking responsibility for the decisions that are made here in this House. It is important that such a debate doesn’t remain stuck in abstract terms. Often, euphemisms are used regarding abortion, a clump of cells — no, that’s not what this is about.”
Van Meijeren then laid out, in detail, the horror of legal abortion in the Netherlands:
As you saw, I was interrupted at the moment that I wanted to show this anatomical model of a fetus of 22 weeks. This is a model to scale: it is 19 centimeters from crown to tailbone, and when the legs are fully stretched out, even 29-30 centimeters. That’s what we’re talking about. In this stage of pregnancy everything is there: from the fingernails to the eyelashes, the organs are almost fully formed and are preparing for life outside the womb. The small child can yawn, stretch, hold something firmly, hear sounds, even recognize the voice of the mother, and yes, the child in this stage of pregnancy can also experience pain.
At this point, Van Meijeren referenced a 2020 paper by Derbyshire & Bockman in the Journal of Medical Ethics, highlighting the evidence that pre-born children can experience pain as early as 12 weeks. He then laid the fetal model on his desk, facing the camera. His description of abortion, which few politicians in Europe would dare to detail publicly, is worth quoting in full:
With a pregnancy of 13 weeks onward the child is too big to be sucked out through vacuum suction and that’s why, usually from 13 weeks onward, from the second trimester of pregnancy onwards, a so-called instrumental abortion is chosen (meaning, with an instrument— so surgical abortion.) For this, the doctor uses this tool, a rust-free steel abortion tool of 33 centimeters long, with a grasping part of 5 cm with sharp teeth so that whatever is grabbed will not be let go.
The doctor inserts this tool into the womb to blindly, relying on touch, grab something and with the necessary force rip that off in order to remove it. Then he grabs a little arm, then a little leg, then the torso, until the entire body is removed. However, the small head is too large at that point to be removed through the cervix intact and that’s why the forceps are used to crush the head before it is removed. And as I said, the unborn child can at that point already experience pain.
The process that I just described and shown is no exaggeration. This is how it happens. And it is certainly no exception. It is not something that very seldomly happens. This is a daily reality in the Netherlands. Every day this takes place. In 2023 alone (the most recent numbers available to us) more than 5,000 unborn babies in the second trimester were killed in this way. Of the more than 39,000 abortions/year in the Netherlands, a number that has been increasing for years, 39,000 — that is on average an abortion every 15 minutes, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
That poses the question whether abortion is chosen too easily. Based on the law, abortion is only permitted if the emergency of the situation of the woman makes an abortion unavoidable. The law also dictates that prior to every abortion, careful consideration must be made whether there are no other solutions.
Van Meijeren went on to observe that while motivations for abortion vary — from frivolous to serious — we should be able to collectively agree that we should strive for solutions “other than killing the baby.” He concluded:
This is what I wanted to say this afternoon during the debate: not to show but to create awareness. Because ethics are about creating boundaries. And to violently kill unborn babies in the second trimester of pregnancy, even when there’s no emergency situation, of course exceeds all ethical boundaries. Forum for Democracy has a few concrete proposals to improve this situation and for that I want to propose two motions at the plenary part of the debate, and that will be accompanied by a moral call to my fellow public servants to show the courage to call a stop to this terrible evil.
Van Meijeren himself is certainly exhibiting such courage, and it is clear that the committee chair’s decision to censor his statement has resulted in the Streisand effect — I doubt that tens of thousands of people regularly tune in to watch committee ethics meetings, but many times that have already viewed his video online. Pre-born children have precious few voices raised in their defense, and even those who identify as pro-life frequently shy away from detailing the atrocities perpetrated against them. We can only hope that many more will be inspired by his courage and honesty and join their voices to his.
