A few weeks ago, the European Parliament passed a non-binding resolution saying that "abortion should be made legal, safe and accessible to all". The reaction from the European Bishops' conference, from the Maltese bishops, from the government and the opposition was swift.

The conference expressed its "regret" at the parliament's adoption of the report on sexual and reproductive health and rights, a term that has an inbuilt euphemism. The Maltese bishops expressed their concern. The Maltese government officially informed the parliament that the EU had neither the right nor the competence to impose a position in favour of abortion on its members. The resolution voted by the European Parliament, it insisted, was not legally binding on member states.

It was evident from these reactions that Malta's political parties and the Church stood foursquare on the issue of abortion. The European Movement in Malta considered the rare unanimity on the issue in Malta and concluded that once it existed so powerfully, it proposed the entrenchment of an amendment in the Maltese Constitution to make abortion constitutionally illegal, too. The logic is logical.

In a letter to the prime minister, the leader of the opposition and the chairman of Alternattiva Demokratika, the European Movement made it clear that it had arrived at its proposal "in the light of the strong consensus against abortion that has been manifested publicly by such a large majority" in the wake of the European Parliament's resolution.

The movement was heartened by the strong Maltese reaction against the legalisation of abortion. It came to the conclusion that the three leaders should find no difficulty in making the next step. Is there a problem in doing what the European Movement is asking?

One must admit that this is an interesting point of view which opens itself up to the possibility of inquisitive approaches. There has been no official rejection of the proposal by any of the political parties; nor has there been any formal acceptance. Nor is it certain that the Constitution can actually take what the European Movement is suggesting on board, but to date no constitutional expert has expressed an opinion on the matter.

This may suggest that the idea has not yet exercised the minds of those who can contribute to the formation or the formulation of a new element in constitutional law. If the political parties endorse the illegality of abortion and see its legalisation as a retrograde step, the political case to adopt the idea of entrenchment becomes stronger.

Any political endorsement will take into account the binding element that is clearly implied. The best way forward is to examine whether our Constitution can evolve in a manner that will be capable of absorbing parliamentary and judicial applications, as the United States Constitution so demonstrably does. At the same time and in the present state of affairs, the public reaction of the three leaders must be eagerly awaited by the European Movement and by the electorate at large. The European Movement has chucked a stone in the constitutional lake. Either way, it will create ripples.