Marlene Farrugia’s recent bill has fanned the flames of debate (and I use that term loosely) concerning abortion. For clarity, I am pro-choice but I want to put forward the case why, even if you are pro-life, you should not be in favour of the current Maltese abortion law.
Does the law achieve its goal of reducing or stopping abortions? The short answer to both is probably not. I say probably because the data regarding abortion in Malta is almost non-existent.
What we can say is that a conservative estimate of 336 Maltese women obtained an abortion during the COVID-19 pandemic, predominantly using pills and, fewer still, by medical intervention abroad. According to Doctors for Choice, the actual figure is likely to be higher rather than lower.
We can also deduce, by looking at other countries with better abortion statistics, that when anti-abortion laws are introduced the abortion rate goes up. This is not representative of Malta, however, we don’t have any reason to think that Malta is the exception to the rule.
This finding also suggests that, at a minimum, abortion laws do not reduce the occurrence of abortion and, at worst, they cause abortion rates to go up.
Pro-choice people are also working to reduce the need for abortion
The law as it stands is next to impossible to enforce. We cannot stop women from travelling abroad and it is not practical to track down every delivery of an abortion pill. Also, the pill is not a drug that leaves any significant trace in the body.
Moreover, in the last few years, the convictions have been non-existent. Quoting the Life Network Foundation: “This law was and still is considered symbolic because it reflects a moral obligation – that of the protection of the unborn life.”
I would argue the law should be about what is practical and not symbolism. One can express a pro-life position without the legal symbolism.
There are harmful consequences to the law and culture as it stands.
Take a moment to think and reflect about the desperation that would drive someone to the point where the consequences of prison and the social stigma associated with abortion are less important than obtaining the abortion itself.
When you are that desperate and facing the kind of social and legal response that we have in Malta, the result is stress, depression, suicide and resorting to unsafe methods of abortion.
And, regardless of where you stand on the abortion issue, these are medical and psychological conditions that we will have to treat.
Additionally, and something which is rarely considered or thought of, is the fact that some women will require post-abortive care. The same fear and stigma present when people seek an abortion remains after the abortion and this prevents women from getting the medical and psychological help they need.
It would be wrong to deny such medical and psychological care just because they have broken the law. And it does not make sense that a law creates more problems than it solves.
A significant number of pro-life people, while being against abortion, do not think people who obtain abortions deserve to go to prison.
If this were the case, one should be in favour of decriminalising abortion. One can still be against abortion and, at the same time, recognise the problems with the Maltese abortion law.
I invite all readers to ask themselves the question: “Should we keep Malta’s current abortion laws?”
I suggest that, instead of devoting our time and energy to outright stamping out abortion, we can address the issues which generate a need for abortion.
You will find that people who are pro-choice are also working to reduce the need for abortion.
Paul Micallef is a lab analyst.