There is now a consensus among the government, the opposition and strong voices of civil society as well as a majority of the electorate that abortion should not be introduced.

The above protagonists also express a wide consensus that the termination of pregnancies should be allowed when there is danger to the life of the mother.

They also agree that the law should be clear as to what it allows and what it disallows.

So where is there disagreement?

One disagreement is whether the law as it stands now is already clear and needs no change. But with amendments now before parliament and the government saying it is willing to consider suggestions, it seems wise to move on from that issue and address possible changes to the amendments.

What amendments could translate the government’s assurance that it is not out to introduce abortion while giving certainty?

For one thing, we need to be clear about what is meant by abortion when we say it will not be introduced. There seems to be a consensus among the above-mentioned actors that a termination to save the mother’s life is not to be legally defined as abortion. So, they all remain clearly against abortion.

I encourage readers to go to the parliament website and listen to the debate of November 28. Government MPs spoke strongly and clearly assuring all that they do not want amendments that introduce abortion. Yet, when they spoke of the grounds to allow a termination of pregnancy, their words swayed to and fro between saying termination should be only where it protects the mother’s life and saying that it should be allowed only where it protects the mother’s life or health.

Swaying from one to the other does not add clarity but reduces it. For one thing, saying that a termination to protect the mother’s health (not life) is not an abortion and that it can be allowed without introducing abortion brings in a new meaning of abortion that nobody else holds.

You cannot have clarity in your promise not to introduce abortion when you confuse the matter by creating a meaning of abortion that nobody shares with you.

Then there is the issue of mental health. One aspect of the issue that has not been sufficiently aired and explained is that the grounds of mental health to allow abortion has challenging and potentially explosive aspects. Neither the civil society groups nor the newspapers have, as yet, given the public a fair and clear picture of this.

The simple fact is that it is true and not scaremongering that, in Britain, for example, 98 per cent of abortions are justified on paper by medical certificates stating that continuing the pregnancy would cause the mother mental health problems while, in fact, this works out as ‘abortion-on-demand’. This means that, through grounds similar to the government’s, not only has abortion been very very much introduced but also all it needs to be allowed is for the mother to request it.

Even where they attach termination to danger to life, the amendments do so in a very loose way- Charles Pace

This is simply why these civil society voices see the government’s amendments, if unchanged, to be the opposite of the government’s assurance that it does not want to introduce abortion. Instead, it would even push Malta fast down the slope to abortion-on-demand.

Having myself been a mental- health social worker, I would be the last person to say that mental health problems are a sham and made up. But if we are intent to reserve legal termination only to saving mothers’ lives, we should identify exceptional cases where (a) mental disorder can endanger a mother’s life (Being suicidal? Severe anorexia in uncontrollable circumstances?), (b) a termination of pregnancy would save it and (c) there is a proportion between the numbers of mothers saved through this exception and the unborn human individuals who would lose their life as a result of it.

Personally, I would be interested to know of such a formulation that would avoid the fast slippery slope towards abortion on demand.

Even where they attach termination to danger to life, the amendments do so in a very loose way. Consider a pregnant mother who is in slight danger of death in two-or three-years’ time from a slowly progressing cancer that has nothing to do with the pregnancy. If abortion makes the mother feel better, the amendments’ wording allows the abortion, even though it does not save any life, while ending that of the unborn.

Without important changes, these amendments will introduce abortion in Malta. All who hold that human life is sacred and to be protected should, in the coming days and before it is too late, stand up and make their voice heard in whichever way is possible, demanding that no other grounds are allowed for terminating pregnancy, except to save the mother’s life.

And that is only the beginning of the changes needed. Society is hugely indebted to mothers. We have a long way to go to give mothers and couples the support they deserve and need to be truly enabled to fulfil their reproductive responsibility with reasonable acknowledgment, protection and comfort.

Charles Pace is a social studies academic.