Health Minister Chris Fearne and Justice Minister Jonathan Attard insisted on Monday that the revised bill on the termination of pregnancies does not require doctors to wait until a woman is at imminent risk of dying before terminating a pregnancy, nor does it prevent a doctor from unilaterally deciding to act when the risk of death is immediate.
Fearne and Attard were defending the bill during a parliamentary debate in which they were grilled by a series of irate pro-choice activists and civil society representatives, each expressing their dismay at the bill presented on Friday.
The bill was adopted unanimously at committee stage in a vote taken at the end of the sitting. It now only required the third reading - a formality - and the President's signature to become law.
Doctors can 'act alone' when the risk is immediate
“It is not true that a woman needs to be on the brink of death for a doctor to intervene. If a woman is in a condition that may eventually lead to death, the doctor can act. If that risk is immediate, the doctor can act alone,” Fearne said.
Attard echoed Fearne’s words, describing the bill as one that “enables doctors to act if a case has the elements that can eventually lead to a woman’s life being at risk”.
“Anything that can eventually lead to death is considered a grave risk, this is how we interpret the law.” they said.
Both ministers praised the bill for not distinguishing between physical and mental health, saying that they were steadfast in the face of calls to remove all references to health.
Activists’ anger
The meeting was characterised by the anger of activists from several civil society organisations, who took turns to implore the committee to revise the bill back to its original form. In its original form, the bill allowed termination of pregnancies when a woman's life or health were at serious risk.
Andrea Dibben, speaking on behalf of the Women’s Rights Foundation described the bill as one put in place “to protect a group of medical professionals who just want to cover their hide”.
“This decision to betray women in Malta for political reasons will come back to haunt you,” she warned.
Moviment Graffitti speaker Christine Cassar had harsh words for representatives of both parties, describing PN as a party built on patriarchal structures that is unable to gain the trust of youth, and saying that PL was once seen to be at the forefront of civil rights in Malta, but this was no longer the case.
Representatives from MGRM, Doctors for Choice, Integra Foundation and Academics for Choice expressed similar dismay, saying that the government had turned its back on women’s rights and describing the revised bill as “dishonest, cowardly, disrespectful and dangerous”.
The meeting was also addressed by ADPD chair Sandra Gauci, who reiterated the party’s call for the decriminalisation of abortion and said the bill did not go far enough.
Going against the grain, Life Network Foundation chair Miriam Sciberras praised the bill, saying that it provides peace of mind to both women and medical professionals.
PN ‘remained consistent’
The meeting was also addressed by several PN committee members, who welcomed the revised amendment, saying that while the PN had remained consistent in its position against the introduction of abortion, the government has backtracked after trying to surreptitiously introduce abortion to Malta.
“We recognise that the government has changed its position from presenting a bill that would introduce abortion to one that addresses and codifies existing medical practice,” said Karol Aquilina.
Meanwhile, Opposition health spokesperson Stephen Spiteri said that while the previous bill did not adequately protect “the start of life”, this new amendment provides “a legal framework to protect the woman’s life and gives medical professionals peace of mind”.