“I will not support the introduction of any law that compromises the protection of any unborn child.” Not my words but those of Marlene Farrugia and I fully agree with them.
It was, therefore, surprising, not to say hypocritical, for the author of these words to present a free abortion bill.
This bill is obnoxious because it ignores the right to life of the unborn, a right which has been confirmed by our courts, and publicises the bill as one of ‘choice’.
The only choice, however, which is being denied and buried by this bill is that of the unborn child.
As former US president Ronald Reagan once said: “I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives – the lives of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother?” and, again: “I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”
The weak and the vulnerable in society, who have no voice, in line with the bill are to be destroyed according to the whims of the mother-to-be. The proposers of this bill were, some years ago, against the freezing of live embryos. Now they have no qualms in destroying any unborn child up to the moment of birth.
The bill is also extremely dangerous because it abolishes all the sections in the Criminal Code relating to abortion, which, till now, is considered a criminal offence. It does so not only vis-à-vis the mother-to-be but also all those who assist her, including doctors, surgeons and nurses. This means that, once such offence is removed from the Criminal Code, the action becomes legitimate and lawful.
To make matters worse, termination of a pregnancy, if this bill goes through (which, to say the truth, is practically impossible), would be legally allowed at any stage of the pregnancy, even in the final months.
Besides, once these sections are repealed, any circumstance would justify such termination, whether psychiatric or economic. An unborn human being may be destroyed with impunity if the couple feels they would be economically better off without such child or they would prefer to buy a house or a car, rather than having baby.
So long as they were contesting general elections, both proposers were adamant supporters of the right to life- Tonio Borg
The bill makes it a point to state that abortion as a result of negligence will remain a crime. However, if one deliberately, rather than negligently, causes an abortion, that will no longer be a crime.
The bill is also in direct conflict not only with the constitution of Malta as interpreted by the Maltese courts but also the embryo protection act, unanimously approved by parliament in 2012, which makes it a crime to destroy an embryo.
Finally, this bill is not supported by any electoral mandate. The proposers of this bill have lived through a chequered political history: Malta Labour Party, Forza Nazzjonali, Democratic Party, independent – all in the space of a few years. None of these parties – which helped them to gain parliamentary seats in the past – ever endorsed the introduction of abortion in Malta.
So long as they were contesting general elections, both proposers were adamant supporters of the right to life. After all, a huge majority of the electorate still opposes abortion. They used to participate in the annual March for Life organised by Life Network. One of the proposers objected to the law on embryo freezing since this would lead to abortion and had even suggested an abrogative referendum to repeal this law.
When they finally resigned even from the Democratic Party, which they had founded, and having declared that they would not contest the next general elections, they were now no longer accountable to public opinion. They have, therefore, come out with this idea to introduce a limitless abortion bill.
“Do I have a right over my body? Yes, but not over another person’s body.”
That was what the second proposer of this bill had written when, a few years ago, he had objected to the morning-after pill.
I fully concur with his view.
Tonio Borg, former European commissioner