Updated Wednesday am, adds reply from doctors filing judicial protest

It would be selfish of those who are already born to decide that others may not enjoy the right to life, the Life Network Malta and the Malta Unborn Child Platform said on Tuesday.

The two groups were reacting to a judicial protest filed on Monday by a group of 135 doctors asking for a review of Malta's blanket ban on abortion care.

The doctors filed their protest after an American woman had her request to terminate a non-viable pregnancy turned down by the Maltese health authorities.

Andrea Prudente, 38, was 16 weeks pregnant when she began bleeding profusely and was told by doctors that the pregnancy was no longer viable. Her US health insurance deemed the situation life-threatening and last week flew her out to Mallorca for the procedure.

Prudente and her partner said on Tuesday they intend to sue the Maltese government for “the heartbreaking ordeal” they had to go through.

In their statement, the two pro-life groups said it is not true that the fact that Malta does not allow abortion violates fundamental rights.

“Contrary to what is written in the protest, the European Convention on Human Rights does not recognise any fundamental right to abortion. No ruling by the European Court of Human Rights has ever ruled that article 8, the right to privacy, includes the right to abortion.

"Nor did it ever say that not allowing an abortion amounts to inhuman or degrading treatment or discrimination.

"Nor does the European Union ever interfere in such a matter, which, according to the treaties of the same Union, is a competence of the member states, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and not of the European Union.”

The two pro-life groups said it was also not true that international law and international treaties recognise the right to abortion.

“No international treaty recognizes the right to abortion as a fundamental right. On the contrary, the American Convention on Human Rights recognises the right to life from the moment of conception.”

The protectors, it said, failed to mention that the Maltese courts had recognised the fundamental rights of the unborn child in the case of Emilio Persiano v. Commissioner of Police (August 2000). This sentence had never been changed or revoked, they said.

They said that if abortion were to be legalised, it would eliminate the life of unborn babies.

“It is convenient to forget the rights of the voiceless and the weak. The law has an obligation to protect those who have no voice,” they insisted.

The two groups added that there is no discrimination in the fact that there is no abortion in Malta.

“No one in Malta can participate in the destruction of an unborn child. Criminal law is by its very nature territorial and therefore applies only to Malta. In Malta no one can have an abortion, no matter who they are, regardless of their financial means.”

They insisted that there is “neither inhuman nor degrading treatment” in the fact that Malta does not allow abortion.

“It would be inhuman and degrading to allow human life to be destroyed under the pretext of a right to do what one wants with one's body. This right can never affect the right to life of another.”

They said that Maltese law already allowed for abortions when a mother's life is in danger due to the pregnancy and no one had ever been taken to court.

But if what the group proposed - that the article in the Criminal Code on abortion be removed altogether - was allowed to happen, it would mean that “on-demand” abortion could take place, even in the last month of pregnancy, with the result that Malta would end up with the most liberal abortion laws in Europe.“

We support the obligation of doctors to provide maximum care to a woman, especially in cases of a risky pregnancy or when the woman’s life is in danger.

“In such cases, women have always been treated with the highest level of care, and no woman has ever been left at risk due to her pregnancy, even if the baby is subsequently lost,” they said.

However, they concluded it would be selfish of those who are already born to decide that others may not enjoy the right to life.

Protest not intended to make rigid demands on what law should say - doctors

But the doctors filing the protest said in a reply on Wednesday morning that it was simply not true that the removal of Article 243 would allow doctors to perform abortions in all circumstances.

"This is false. Anyone performing an abortion in Malta for any reason would still be liable to imprisonment under Article 241(1). Women procuring their own abortion would be similarly liable to imprisonment under Article 241(2). 

"The judicial protest is not intended to make rigid demands on what the law should say, but is intended to serve as a starting point for further discussions so a case like Andrea Prudente’s does not happen in Malta ever again.

"One thing that all doctors who signed the protest agree on is that the law must change," they insisted.