Pro-life lobby distances itself from calls for referendum

Updated December 6 with Partit Popolari statement

The Life Network Foundation, which organised last Sunday’s pro-life march in Valletta, has dissociated itself from other pro-life groups which are calling for a referendum to remove recent amendments to the criminal law involving terminations. 

"The Life Network Foundation can never support an initiative that unwinds the law that it has actively swayed to ensure that Malta maintains the full protection that was afforded already by the criminal code to the unborn child before these amendments were passed," the foundation said on Tuesday.

The amendments were originally announced by the government in June but were watered down after protests that they opened the way for abortion. The law, as amended, now provides that doctors can intervene in a way which can terminate a pregnancy if a woman's life is in "grave jeopardy which may lead to her death". The intervention must be approved by three doctors and the foetus must not be viable outside the womb. 

The foundation criticised Abba Party and Popular Party for having taken advantage of its march to collect signatures for their petition. 

"Neither the Abba Party nor the Popular Party were involved in the March for Life, but took advantage of this occasion, setting up a stall near the parliament outside the scope of the march to collect signatures for an abrogative referendum," it said."

Life Network Foundation said that it, and its partner organisation Inti Tista' Ssalvani, had brought about the necessary changes to ensure that the possibility for the introduction of abortion on demand was avoided. 

It pointed out that the final approved amendments were supported by the President of Malta who was steadfast in his position not to sign an abortion bill, as well as both parties in parliament and the bishops of Malta and Gozo.  

Partit Popolari: A lesser evil is still evil

In a statement sent on Wednesday, the Popular Party (Partit Popolari) said it was surprised by the Life Network Foundation's stance. 

It acknowledged that the foundation deserved "partial credit" for ensuring the law was rendered "less harmful" than first proposed, but said that the change was still for the worse. 

"The mere fact that this is a ‘lesser evil’ relative to the original proposal does not change the fact that it is an evil," the party said, saying it intended to make the public aware of the changes and to restore the protections that have been removed.