A lot has already been said about the amendment written to protect women during a problematic and dangerous pregnancy.
A lot of misinformation has been tossed in abundance by the plastic foetus brigade, where conflation and exaggeration are the order of the day, encouraged in particular by political opportunists.
One thing the hardliners have not changed is their portrayal of abortion. However, nowadays every teen worth their Tiktoks knows more than previous generations on the subject due to the abundance of available information.
Entire channels on social media platforms discuss consent, abortion, female rights, intersectional racism, science, and offer what Malta most lacks: a serene discussion, without shouting each other down.
The meat of the bill aside, it is evidently a proxy war for the wider debate between those who are pro-choice and those who are pro-life. In the face of such a discussion, the reality behind the bill is obscured by the wider argument.
So what is going on in that arena? According to a survey by the Church itself, we are noticing a generational shift on the issue with young people, who are also those affected by the amendment. The youth are increasingly becoming more open-minded.
Furthermore, over 80 per cent of people across all ages are in favour of it, if the woman’s life is at risk.
Slowly but steadily, we are being forced to address reality. It is a problem which will not go away simply because people feel strongly about it.
The reality is that 424 abortions were carried out in 2022 through pills alone.
Should all these women have ended up in prison, like some have suggested in the past? Repeatedly sweeping the issue under the rug has brought us nowhere. So what is the way forward?
To those against the amendment in parliament, the right to life is a black-and-white issue, and the mere notion of change is seen as a fundamental threat. This approach is repeated across issues of bodily autonomy.
And yet, contradictions abound.
Fr Peter Serracino Inglott had found harmony between his Catholic faith and progressive policies, supporting embryo freezing and opposing a constitutional ban on abortion, even if he himself did not agree with it in principle.
Students are taught their body is theirs alone, and then, just because of a law which dates to 1860, all this crumbles- Sandra Gauci
The teachings and approach to abortion by holy men throughout the centuries have also changed with time, becoming more extreme and less extreme according to circumstances.
So if there are contradictions, plunging people into suffering, we cannot stick to dogma as if it offers us the moral high ground.
Where else can we find contradictions?
For the past 10 years in kindergarten, children have been taught about who are to be considered safe people and which are safe places.
They are taught that their body belongs to them, and that no one should touch them without their consent.
They get taught what is a good touch and a bad touch, and about the ‘no no squares’, which are areas of the body which no other person should touch except themselves.
These boundaries and learning how to keep them are strengthened throughout the years at school to protect them against predators. It has also instilled in them a sense that their body is theirs, and that no one can touch it without their consent.
So why the doubts with abortion? Why does the state tell them that since they are women, that now their body is no longer theirs, and the state has to tell them what to do with it? Why are these lessons fine when one is nine years old, but then suddenly as an adult woman, the system starts doubting one’s choices? Why this clash?
The government has spent money and time in teaching students all over Malta that their body is theirs alone, and then, just because of a law which dates to 1860, all this crumbles.
Why waste our time teaching them all this if this law means the opposite? Why is one trusted at age nine but not as an adult woman?
Sandra Gauci is deputy chairperson of ADPD.