Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1372546
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 16 MAY 2021 10 NEWS Jail time for women? Marlene makes the conservatives call a spade a spade Marlene Farrugia has kicked the ball into the court of the conservatives: who will stand up to justify the imprisonment of women who terminate their pregnancy? Adventures in legislation: independent MP Marlene Farrugia (right) with her partner Godfrey Farrugia, also independent. A pro-life politician, Farrugia presented a motion for a private member's bill to decriminalise abortion, which in Malta leads to the imprisonment of women to up to three years and of medical professionals to up to four years JAMES DEBONO JUST like Jeffrey Pullicino Or- lando (her ex-husband) did in 2011 by presenting a private members bill on divorce in 2011, independent MP Marlene Farrugia has dropped a bomb- shell on the political system. Her abortion decriminalisation bill tests the faultlines between liberals and conservatives in both major parties, while intro- ducing on their agenda an item they either never want to dis- cuss (the Nationalists) or want to do so at some later stage (La- bour). My first reaction was similar to the one I had in 2011 on the JPO bill. I could not but won- der about the inconsistency of a politician which had expressed strong reservations on the avail- ability of the morning-after pill. What prompted this change of heart? Is this a ploy for a prema- ture showdown on this issue? Is it a case of attention-grab- bing? Or does Marlene Farrugia herself incarnate the change in mores and values in our socie- ty? After all in a country where abortion is opposed by a vast majority, only such a change of heart can spur legislative chang- es. As was the case with Pullicino Orlando – who probably used divorce to get back at Nation- alist Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and to rehabilitate him- self from the Mistra scandal – dwelling on the motivation be- hind the step is a bit irrelevant. Farrugia's strategic prowess What Farrugia is essentially proposing is to remove those articles in the criminal law criminalizing abortion, which foresee jail time for women who undergo the procedure, the same section which former PN deputy prime minister Tonio Borg had wanted to entrench in the constitution back in 2005. That attempt failed mostly be- cause Alfred Sant stood aloof from the bullying of pro-lifers Gift Of Life, but also because liberals in the PN, including philosopher-priest Peter Ser- racino Inglott, could not stom- ach it. In a way, the failure of that attempt to impose Borg's values on future generations now makes it possible for a sim- ple majority in our parliament to undo Malta's draconian laws on abortion. In itself this shows Marlene's strategic prowess. She kicked the ball into the conservative court. It is now up to conserva- tives to argue in favour of jailing women who commit abortion. And this puts the conserva- tive argument in jeopardy. For nothing is more obnoxious then jailing people in difficult situa- tions. The fall-back by conservatives is that the law is not enforced and nobody actually ends in jail for abortion. But that lends the question: why retain such a law in the first place if it is not meant to be enforced? Is it just an identity fetish and a mark of Maltese 'exceptionalism' that conservatives want to defend? The reality is more complex that. Criminal sanctions create fear and stigma. Their exist- ence conditions doctors in their everyday work and the way they address difficult dilemmas and health issues. These laws are not just a global embarrassment which puts Malta in the same league of repressive arch-con- servative regimes, but a real im- position which renders women who have had an abortion invis- ible, voiceless and powerless. The danger of a vacuum Liberals have also expressed concern. Removing these sec- tions of the Criminal Code without replacing them with a law guaranteeing access to abortion services in Malta could have perverse results. Some ultra-conservatives may well agree with removing these ar- ticles, which clearly distinguish abortion from murder foresee- ing a different sanction, arguing that whoever commits abortion should be charged for wilful homicide. Yet such an argu- ment will only serve to alienate more people from their cause. The reality is that decriminali- sation must be followed by a law which clearly sets the parame- ters for when an abortion can be performed which in most countries is during the first tri- mester except in exceptional medical cases. Inevitably, to en- sure social justice and to avoid a situation where abortion is only a right for the upper classes, one also has to offer the service in the public health service. Yet decriminalisation remains the first necessary step for any subsequent change, and real- istically the change which can garner a national consensus. And as a Polar survey showed, a relative majority of respondents in Malta disagree with women being jailed for committing an abortion. Postponing the inevitable Still there is a big chance that Farrugia's private members bill will not be discussed in this leg- islature. Put simply, it is not in the interest of the major parties to have a discussion on the top- ic any time soon. For Labour the argument may be consid- ered premature with the party betting on the liberalisation of drug laws and euthanasia as the next liberal frontier. On the other hand, he PN which has already rejected the bill, reaffirming its classic stance in favour of the protec- tion of life from the moment of conception, may be wary of any further discussion which inevi- tably would provide a platform for its most conservative ele- ments. For the PN knows that its voters also include people with very nuanced views on this issue. For instance, Daphne Caruana Galizia, who is adored by a segment of PN voters, had liberal views on this topic which reflected those of the liberal wing of the party. The party already has a big problem with women and the young. The last thing the party needs is for a de- Why retain such a law in the first place if it is not meant to be enforced? Is it just an identity fetish and a mark of Maltese 'exceptionalism' that conservatives want to defend?