It all started with the unfortunate Andrea Prudente incident. Some months ago, the news was splashed all over the Maltese and international media that a pregnant lady was in danger of losing her life owing to her pregnancy and Maltese law on abortion was so callous that it prohibited medical personnel from intervening to save her life. Abortion, we were told, was not allowed under any circumstance.

It was obvious that this was a ploy by pro-choice activists to garner support for the gradual introduction of abortion in Malta.

Now the health minister and the government hospital authorities have confirmed in court that at no stage was Prudente in danger of dying, which explains why no medical procedure was adopted.

Her transfer to Spain, where she underwent an abortion procedure, was a voluntary act; had she been in actual risk of losing her life, the Maltese hospital authorities would have followed the usual procedure of saving the life of the mother even if as an indirect effect this would cause the death of the unborn child.

So, the very reason why the government has proposed this bill to introduce exceptions to the prohibition of abortion in our Criminal Code has proved to be false and baseless.

The second lie which was propagated after the Prudente incident was that Maltese law did not allow the termination of pregnancy when this threatened the life of the mother. This was and still is not true.

Saving the life of the mother and, as a consequence, bringing about the death of the unborn child does not amount to crime for the criminal intention to abort does not exist.

Legal experts and scholars explained this legal reasoning, which was supported by the fact that never was a woman, surgeon or nurse ever charged with abortion for saving the life of the mother.

The government stubbornly persisted in proposing changes in the legislation because of the Prudente incident even after stating in court that Prudente was never in danger of losing her life.

It first held a press conference where it stated that a new bill would “clarify matters” and, as stated by the justice minister, everything would legally remain the same. The first question is: why propose a new law which would leave things as they are? The fact of the matter, however, is that,  upon close scrutiny of the bill published a few days after the press conference, things will not remain the same.

Abortion will be allowed not only to save the life of the mother when there exists an actual risk that she loses her life but also where her health, which includes mental health,  would be put in jeopardy. The ulterior motive of the bill was there for all to see.

Never was a woman, surgeon or nurse ever charged with abortion for saving the life of the mother- Tonio Borg

Immediately a group of 80 academics, including experts and scholars in medicine, ethics, law, theology and other disciplines, issued a statement  rightly arguing that if the bill is passed in its present form, this would stealthily introduce abortion through the back door. For the bill does not cover only cases of actual risk to life but also of risk to one’s health,  which is the usual legal phraseology used in laws allowing abortion in countries which have permitted the wilful termination of pregnancies.

This was not an initiative of the Catholic Church but of a group of lay people who felt the need to express their opinion on a controversial bill.  Some are leading obstetricians and gynaecologists, other eminent legal scholars and former judges or ethics professors.

The position paper signed by the academics states that “abortion on demand, in several jurisdictions, is allowed precisely on the basis of mental health issues that are not linked to a physical life-threatening situation to a pregnant woman”.

Consequently, the position paper states that such conditions as anxiety, emotional distress, organic mental disorder, a stressful situation arising from economic circumstance or unwanted pregnancy,  inconvenient pregnancy, an abnormal foetus or such other medical, mental, psychosocial or psychological conditions or disorders that may be treated through ordinary clinical measures, cannot be allowed to justify a termination of pregnancy.

The paper concludes that “by excluding these non-life-threatening cases, the attending obstetrician is given proper guidance as to what is life-threatening and what is not”.

This government has no electoral mandate to introduce any form of abortion beyond the accepted rule of using a medical procedure to save a mother’s life even if, in the process, the life of the unborn child comes to an end as an indirect result.

The group of academics did not only criticise the bill but prepared a version which would limit such medical interventions to cases related to the saving the mother’s life. No less, no more.

The government is expected to allay the fears of the majority of the population by sticking to its publicly proclaimed views that, on its watch, abortion would not be introduced.

This bill in its current form runs counter to such view.

Tonio Borg is a former European commissioner and deputy prime minister.