There are lies you tell and lies you live. In telling a malicious lie, you harm others. In living a lie, you harm yourself as well as others. Both kinds of lie feature in the accusations exchanged over the bill proposing an amendment to our anti-abortion law.
Without sorting out these two kinds of lies, we cannot even hope to have the truth we need to deliberate the bill properly.
The Labour machine says it’s a lie to declare that the bill will introduce abortion. Strangely, however, the bill’s public supporters speak of it as a partial decriminalisation of abortion. Indeed, it’s a key reason why they declare the bill an improvement over our current law.
The 108 Socialist and Green MEPs who wrote to Robert Abela praised the bill as “a step in the right direction when it comes to protecting the fundamental rights of women…” They clearly understand it to be more than just a clarification of current practice.
So does the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner, Dunja Mijatović. Like the MEPs, she thinks we’re getting abortion on narrow grounds.
The Maltese supporters agree. The National Commission for the Promotion of Equality strongly supports the tabled amendments to what it calls an “archaic law”. The NCPE says “a blanket ban on the termination of pregnancies hinders women’s access to a basic, life-saving health service”.
A basic healthcare service, says the NCPE, includes what Andrea Prudente received in Spain.
Then, there are the 109 academics who declared their full support for the government’s amendment. They insist it would be unacceptable for the bill to exclude grave threats to health (as distinct from risk to life). They are clear that doctors protected by the bill will be, sometimes, deciding on whether to go ahead with an abortion.
For example, they argue that the decision concerning the risks to the life or health of the woman should belong only to the doctor(s) involved directly in clinical care “because these doctors have a clear knowledge of their patient’s clinical condition and whether the indications for an abortion exist”.
In short, the bill’s supporters agree with the critics about its legal consequences. Their disagreement is about the ethical evaluation of those consequences.
If a collective hallucination is causing everyone to misread the bill, then it’s the government’s duty to break the spell by explaining in detail. So far, however, it’s been evasive.
Labour MPs have described their own constituents as “confused”. One said the reason is that Labour’s position is very “nuanced” and difficult to explain. If only we had nuance. What we’ve had is a refusal to explain, in credible detail, how the law will work in the way that Abela says it will.
If Labour constituents are confused, it’s because they’re seeing a political party they trust tell them something they can’t believe.
In reaction, the government has mired the issue in adversarial politics. Abela says we need civil society to lead the debate but then questions the motives and attitudes of those opposing the bill.
In casting aspersions on Prudente’s character, Bernard Grech has been as crass.
If Labour constituents are confused, it’s because they’re seeing a political party they trust tell them something they can’t believe- Ranier Fsadni
Abela and Grech are treating the issue like a court case, where it’s legitimate to be ruthless in casting doubt on the credibility of witnesses. It’s an adversarial approach to truth. The truth we need calls for a different approach to witnesses.
The two academic position papers – pro and contra the bill – are irreconcilable in terms of the outcome they seek. But they agree on two important issues.
One is that, as the bill is currently worded, the amended law will end up with terminology that is not fully coherent. The two papers disagree about how to make the terminology consistent but they agree that the law’s new article will not reflect the terms used in the old, untouched articles.
In law, inconsistent terminology often leads to real or apparent contradictions. Shouldn’t we be able to hear expert testimony on whether the law, if the bill passes unchanged, will be open to future legal challenges or conflicting interpretations?
A second point of agreement: neither position paper wants the country to live a lie.
The bill’s opponents think we will be living a lie if it passes in its current form. Abortion will have been effectively legalised, while the reality is officially denied.
This is a point that should concern even the bill’s supporters. Would equal access to abortion be imperilled by a law that dares not speak its name?
If the pro-bill academics get their way, and only the doctors directly involved in the care of a woman get to decide if the conditions for an abortion exist, will a woman’s access depend on the identity of the attending doctors? Such questions call for both medical and legal expert testimony.
The supporters of the bill virtually say we’re living a lie right now because the risks faced by women in Maltese hospitals are larger than what we’ve been told and what a decent society would consider acceptable.
Of course, this is precisely the point that has been challenged by the other academics, who include obstetricians and gynaecologists each with a prominent clinical practice.
Shouldn’t we have the opportunity to hear more from each side? The proper place to hear such witnesses would be in parliamentary committee hearings, deliberating for as long as necessary to hear all sides well.
Parliament represents us. We have a right to know what is being done for, and to, mothers, babies and families in our name.