Andrea Prudente was 'used' by pro-choice activists, court rules

A US woman who was denied an abortion in Malta was made to “play ball” with the beliefs of pro-choice activists pushing for a change to Malta’s abortion laws, a judge has ruled.

In a scathing ruling handed down last week, judge Miriam Hayman turned down Andrea Prudente’s argument that Malta’s abortion laws, which prevented doctors from terminating her pregnancy, violated her fundamental rights.

In 2022, Prudente and her partner had travelled to Malta on holiday when she was 14 weeks pregnant. While in Malta, her waters ruptured, leading to her hospitalisation.

Fearing further medical complications, including sepsis, she requested a termination of her pregnancy but was denied. She was eventually flown to Spain, where the pregnancy was terminated.

The case made waves internationally, casting Malta’s restrictive abortion laws into the spotlight and sparking a local debate that led to a bill allowing doctors to terminate a pregnancy in limited circumstances.

She later filed a constitutional case, arguing that the doctors’ refusal to terminate her pregnancy placed her life at risk and violated her rights.

A 'medical catastrophe'

Testifying in the case, Prudente also said the “medical catastrophe” had scarred her emotionally, saying she was later diagnosed with PTSD by a trauma therapist.

However, in a judgment handed down last Wednesday, Hayman rejected Prudente’s claims, saying medical evidence indicated that there was no imminent risk to her life and that she received appropriate medical care.

The judge’s decision relied heavily on medical testimony provided throughout the trial, with several obstetricians and medical professionals taking the stand.

These included Alberto Vella, the doctor who first attended to Prudente and directed her to Mater Dei. Vella said the risk to Prudente’s life at the time was minimal, with her white blood cell count showing no indication of any infection.

Other doctors and medical professionals, including Mark Formosa, Albert Scerri, Sandra Castillo and Yves Muscat Baron, gave similar accounts of the incident, many of them saying Prudente was not in danger of death.

On the other hand, Isabelle Stabile, another gynaecologist, argued that the chance of Prudente’s foetus surviving was close to nil, pointing to several studies which showed that no foetus of 17 or 18 weeks had survived such a rupture.

Stabile also said that Prudente’s own prognosis was poor, with her already suffering a urinary tract infection and bleeding that could get worse.

Prudente’s partner also told the court of her distress throughout the ordeal, describing her as a “trapped animal”. At one point in the midst of her desperation, he said, Prudente had asked him to punch her in the stomach to save her life.

“She was desperate and terrified,” Wheeler said.

Prudente was 'subjected to fear'

However, in her ruling, the judge described Prudente as a “poor mother [Din il-povra omm] who was subjected to fear and strong emotional pressure” over her possible death if her pregnancy was not terminated.

This fear was sparked both by information she was receiving and her own online research into her condition, the judge said.

According to the judge, “this woman ended up being used by so-called pro-choice people to push forward their call for more extreme legal changes they would like to see, without taking into account her emotional state and that of the father”.

Ultimately, the judge argued, Prudente “played ball to their beliefs”.

The court also dismissed the argument that a later bill allowing abortion when the mother’s life is at risk constituted an admission that the previous law was in breach of people’s fundamental rights.

Lawyers Rachael Aquilina, Fiorella Fenech Vella and Chris Soler appeared for the defendants.