Updated 4pm with reaction from former PN colleagues

Women's rights activists have called on former Nationalist MP Jason Azzopardi to prove his claims that a US woman denied a termination of her non viable pregnancy was part of a conspiracy to introduce abortion to Malta.

Writing on Facebook, Azzopardi said: “You have to really be trash (although they told me I can’t use this word) to conspire with third parties outside of Malta for a pregnant woman to be brought to Malta to create a controversy over the termination of a pregnancy due to a pretend danger”. 

He went on to write that “this is not a hypothesis. This is not a theory. This is the objective truth which occurred.” 

The post attracted the ire of women’s rights activists.  

“So you are insinuating that this woman came to Malta to risk her life here? Do you have proof of your serious allegations or is it all just a figment of your imagination?” wrote Francesca Fenech Conti founder of Women for Women.

In a subsequent comment, she accused Azzopardi of mudslinging at activists. 

Activist Andrea Dibben also reacted, calling on Azzopardi to name these so-called conspirators.  

"I used to think you were a serious person," she wrote. "Today I confirm that this is unfortunately not the case." 

Dibben went on to accuse Azzopardi of lying. 

The ex-MP's claims were also criticised by his own former and current party colleagues. Emma Portelli Bonnici said: "Integrity requires allegations with proof Jason" and criticised him for talking in riddles and "not even using names even though we all know who you're referring to".

In a Twitter thread, Therese Comodini Cachia, a former PN MP, did not refer to Azzopardi directly but criticised people who "speak from their misogynistic hysterical ass rather than simply participate and contribute to a debate".

Moviment Graffitti activist Andre Callus, described the claims as an "absurd conspiracy theory" that further confirmed Malta's problem with misogyny and sexism. 

A controversial reform 

Azzopardi was commenting on a proposed legal amendment that has reignited Malta’s conservative-liberal divide on the issue of women’s reproductive health.  

Legislative amendments were this month tabled in parliament, which would allow doctors to terminate a pregnancy when a woman’s life or health is at serious risk.

It comes after the case of US tourist Andrea Prudente whose request to terminate a non-viable pregnancy was refused by health authorities.

Andrea Prudente was airlifted from Malta to Spain after being denied a termination in July. Photo: Jay Weeldreyer

Prudente was 16 weeks pregnant when in June she began bleeding profusely while on holiday in Malta and was told by doctors that the pregnancy was no longer viable. 

In an interview with Times of Malta while he waited with his partner in hospital, Jay Weeldreyer described how much they had longed for their baby girl. 

"We came to Malta on a babymoon. We certainly did not come for an abortion," he said at the time.  

He described their distress as they waited for the foetus to die or for her health to deteriorate to the extent that she would be in danger of dying. They said that doctors told them they could not intervene unless her life was at risk. 

She was eventually medically evacuated to Spain where the pregnancy was terminated.

The case cast Malta in the international spotlight attracting the attention of global media outlets.  Days later a group of 135 doctors signed a judicial protest asking for a review of Malta's blanket ban on abortion care. 

The opposition has come out against the reform saying the government does not have an electoral mandate to introduce abortion. 

President George Vella has told people close to him he is prepared to resign if parliament approves the amendment to the abortion law as proposed by the government.

A threat to health or life? 

Part of the issue surrounding the 38-year-old woman's case was a medical and ethical debate about when, if it all, it is acceptable to carry out a form of abortion.  

Some doctors argue that an abortive procedure can be carried out if the situation threatens the mother’s life, while others have argued that it should be carried out even if it poses a threat to the mother’s health.  

Another question raised is the viability of the pregnancy in the first place.  

In terms of the ethics of the matter, some medical practitioners argue what is known as the principle of double effect.  

This is an ethical device originally used to understand the ethical implications of killing in self-defence and has been applied to understanding medical ethical dilemmas such as euthanasia or indeed abortion.