Why does the Labour Party decide within weeks of the coming Christmas season to bring into parliament a bill designed to introduce abortion into Malta? The bill mirrors the position in the United Kingdom, where abortions are still technically illegal but no less than 214,000 take place every year under the heading of safeguarding the mental health of the mother.

The answer lies in Robert Abela’s attempt to deal with an internal rebellion inside his party led by its pro-choice members. Always portraying themselves as ‘modern and progressive’, it was natural that the abortion movement and the so-called Doctors for Choice chose and found comfort in the likes of Cyrus Engerer and some members of Abela’s cabinet.

Even his much-loved shady predecessor made his silent abortion views public some months ago

Again, I ask, Bobby, what’s the hurry?

A pregnant American tourist, along with her husband, visited Malta and quickly ended up at Mater Dei Hospital claiming a fundamental human right that she terminates the pregnancy. The medical reason, if there ever was one at all, remained unknown under the shade of patient confidentiality but she went public on the refusal of the hospital of her request to abort the unborn child.

Meanwhile, while she walked out of hospital and taxied to the airport to catch a plane to a Spanish clinic, the pro-choicers grabbed the unique opportunity provided by her narrative to make their move on the leadership.

Abela always denied abortion would be allowed on his watch. Like St Peter, in his January 2020 debut, he denied it no less than three times. But, now, to save his own skin and maybe to divide the opposition on the issue, he decided to cross the line and join the rebels. The only concession he asked for was that the word ‘abort’ be hidden from public debate and the justification of the change described as “modern, progressive, equality etc…”, the usual emotional garbage used in such circumstances.

Health Minister Chris Fearne justified the new bill saying that it was not fair at all that we make a distinction between a mother facing death for medical reasons and a mother who was distressed mentally for falling pregnant.

No mention was made of the fact that the bill, as drafted, has no time factor- Eddie Aquilina

“It’s discrimination,” the good doctor said, without any expression of remorse for the loss of an unborn child in both scenarios, let alone for the one whose mother who might have simply developed a ‘grave’ but temporary common depression.

Then came Parliamentary Secretary Rebecca Buttigieg’s utterly partisan approach in dealing with such a serious issue. She gave the impression that saving the life of a mother in danger of her life was a new idea, a new 2022 Labour idea, ignoring totally the four or five cases of absolute necessity that have taken place each year for the past God knows when and ignoring the fact that not one doctor or mother has ever been dragged to court, despite the dire progressive need for ‘clarification’ of the criminal code.

She even went so far as to use as an example of success the wonderful cannabis reforms, which, thanks to the incompetence of cabinet, has so far only advantaged the criminal pushers. I thought that was her best attempt at being serious.

And, yet, no mention was made of the fact that the bill, as drafted, has no time factor.

A mother who develops a mental health issue in her last week or a few days before a normal, feeling, healthy child is about to leave her womb, can legally, with the assistance of a compliant doctor, destroy that child without further thought or consequence at law.

Being born has always been a matter of luck, I suppose. Ask around.

The bottom-line truth is simply the political survival of a conservative but opportunistic leader who turned on his sixpence to appease pro-choice members of his government. He’s not going to change his stance. He cannot give time or credence to the academics, the social and medical experts, nor the scores of NGOs.

To do so would be to abort his premiership.