Will Malta now decide to access EU-funded abortion tourism?

The recent response of the European Commission to the ‘My Voice, My Choice’ initiative has clarified an important development in the European debate on abortion funding.

The European Commission has rejected the demand of the European abortion initiative ‘My Voice, My Choice’ for a dedicated EU fund to finance abortions. At the same time, however, it stated that member states can make use of the existing European Social Fund (ESF+) to support women to access cross-border abortions.

This means that European funds may now be used to support women travelling from countries such as Malta, where abortion remains illegal, to access abortion abroad.

Funding mechanisms do not exist in a moral vacuum. Nor do they activate themselves. The funding allocation requires the cooperation of national governments to be accessed and implemented. Without the participation of member states, such mechanisms remain administrative possibilities rather than practical realities.

The European Social Fund+, as the instrument now cited as potentially supporting cross-border abortion access, was not originally designed with abortion in mind. Its purpose has been to support social inclusion, employment, education and assistance for vulnerable communities across Europe.

It was not set to establish legally and ethically highly controversial measures such as EU-funded abortion tourism. To relegate such a fund to include financing access to abortion tourism, therefore remains a controversial issue.

It is pertinent to ask if it is ethical or possible to relegate funds in this way, when there are so many more pressing humanitarian needs that need social support assistance. Who are the contributors of this fund? Considering the demographic winter facing Europe, such funds would serve much better if they were directed towards incentives to help young families and pregnant women with support systems that they need.

The stark facts are there for all to see. Many countries are struggling to come up with incentives to increase birth rates. Malta has the lowest birth rate in Europe and this with abortion being illegal. If any social funding is available, it should be directed towards maternity care. Budgets, after all, reveal priorities. They indicate what institutions are ultimately prepared to facilitate.

Abortion terminates the life of a child in the womb. Although the pro-abortion lobby tries to hide behind reassuring language, the reality is there for all to see. We are told that the issue concerns ‘healthcare’, that it involves the provision of ‘services’ and that it ensures ‘access’. These terms are rhetorically powerful.

Healthcare suggests healing. Services suggest assistance. Access implies the removal of barriers to something beneficial. But abortion does something very particular. It ends the life of a developing human being.

The European Social Fund+ was not originally designed with abortion in mind- Miriam Sciberras

It is also frequently suggested that abortion is already taking place regardless of national law. Increasing numbers of women in Malta are said to obtain abortion pills online or travel abroad, hence, the cry to decriminalise or legalise.

This is an illogical argument as there are multiple laws that are being broken or circumvented on a regular basis. There is no lobbying to remove these laws or to decriminalise the transgressions. Stealing occurs. Fraud occurs. Exploitation occurs.

The persistence of an act has never been sufficient reason to remove it from the criminal code. Frequency does not determine moral legitimacy.

Reframing statistics take centre stage in the abortion debate. The number of abortions in Europe is always flaunted as if it was something to be proud of. The higher the number of abortions, the more societal leaders should shudder and worry.

We are speaking about a legalised genocide of a people group here, not  about turtle eggs, puppies or crucified kittens but human babies in the womb.

If all the above are wrong and we do not allow them to happen, how can we allow or promote the elimination of our own human offspring?

Women deserve better than abortion. The child in the womb does not deserve the death penalty. There is no medical need for abortion as we have debated for years now. We all know that the health of the pregnant mother is always a priority and that all will be done, if possible, to save both but that the mother’s health is always a priority.

Abortion is not safe. There are side effects as in all medical procedures and women have also died in licensed abortion clinics. The pro-abortion lobby hides behind exceptions when what they want is the choice to eliminate lives if they are inconvenient or unplanned.

If European funds may be now used to facilitate abortion access abroad for Maltese citizens, Malta’s political leaders will have to clarify where they stand. And this is a question for the government and for the opposition.

All candidates standing for election need to let us know where they stand. Because the unborn child is a human being, albeit small and dependent on the mother, and abortion will end his or her life. We, the people of Malta deserve an honest answer.

Miriam Sciberras is CEO of Life Network Foundation.