Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1422293
OPINION 12 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 27 OCTOBER 2021 Remember that private member's bill tabled by Marlene and Godfrey Farru- gia on May 12 this year? You know: the one that was described as a 'bombshell' – which left Malta's pro-life lobby 'shocked beyond words', no less – because it pro- posed discussing the idea of decriminaliz- ing abortion in this country…? Guess not, huh? Because let's face it: a mere five months later, this supposedly 'historical event' has already been wiped out of our collective memory altogether. Not only was the bill itself (very predict- ably) 'aborted' while still at embryonic stage… but the discussion it was meant to provoke never quite got off the ground, either. Or did it? For it turns out that the Farru- gia's initiative may indeed have had a last- ing effect. Judging by recent statements coming out from both Government and Opposition parties… it seems to have brought about a small change: if not in the way our policy-makers approach the issue; at least, in the way they talk about it in public. Right: let's start with the Nationalist Party… a reasonable place to begin, see- ing as the PN has actually done by far the most, over the years, to have kept the top- ic of conversation alive in Malta (even if it was only ever to 'weaponize' the issue, for their own political ends…) Ah, but that brings me to the first of many little differences I've observed in re- cent months. Bernard Grech, for instance: I seem to remember a radio interview with him, in August last year – shortly before he became PN leader, in fact - in which he said: "We're talking about principles, and abortion is one such principle that has to be discussed. If people say they 'want abortion' you are obliged to discuss it. You don't just decide, or let others de- cide for you; however, you are obliged to discuss it – and issue a position on what people think…" Now: never mind, for the moment, that the same Bernard Grech went on to spec- tacularly contradict that message just a few days later (by which time, presuma- bly, his arm had been sufficiently twisted behind the scenes)…. and that he has, quite frankly, been flip-flopping on the issue ever since. He still remains the first PN leader ev- er (with the possible exception of Simon Busuttil, to be fair) to have adopted an entirely reasonable, moderate approach to this subject: remaining true to his own pro-life beliefs, sure… but at least, also acknowledging that politicians have an OBLIGATION (his own word, not mine) to discuss issues of national importance. Meanwhile, it is an open secret that Ber- nard Grech is also pushing younger, more liberal candidates at the expense of 'older faces' (and, I am told, meeting considera- ble internal resistance for doing so); and among his protegés is Emma Portelli Bon- nici – the PN's first openly pro-choice exponent; and one of only a handful of Maltese politicians to have ever publicly taken up that position (the only other ex- amples that spring to mind - apart from the Farrugias themselves - are Mina Tolu and Cami Applegren, both from ADPD). It was at a press conference addressed by Portelli Bonnici – which proposed 'free contraception for all', please note; and al- so the morning-after pill available at Ma- ter Dei (my, how times change!) – that the PN's spokesperson for health, Stephen Spiteri, dropped a bombshell of his own: "Abortion should be immediately dis- cussed in the Maltese parliament but in the present, the PN takes the stand to protect life from conception. I leave this subject for a discussion with NGOs and other stakeholders that could offer infor- mation and education on the subject…" And I can't help but note that this chimes in perfectly with Bernard Grech's own reaction to the Farrugia bill, five months ago: "I'm all in favour of caring for sexual health, especially of women. We will be discussing this bill in private, and will be consulting with those willing to discuss it with us…" Naturally, it was only a few days later that the fruits of this 'internal discussion' were made public… and, my, what a sur- prise: once again, the PN emerged with yet another 'No to Abortion, in all cir- cumstances' statement (in other words, of the kind that could just as well have been scripted by Adrian Delia, Lawrence Gonzi, Tonio Borg, or Eddie Fenech Ad- ami). But still… at least, they 'want a discus- sion': which, I suppose, only raises the most bleedingly obvious question of them all. If the PN is suddenly so keen on 'im- mediately discussing the issue in Parlia- ment'… what the heck is stopping it from doing precisely that? More to the point: why did it not insist on Marlene and Godfrey's bill being de- bated in the House – with urgency, if nec- essary - when it actually had the chance, five months ago? And why did its two members on Parliament's House Business Committee – David Agius and Robert Cutajar – not kick up a fuss, when the bill was not included among the items for dis- cussion this year…? Oh, OK: I suppose the answers are quite simply, really. For starters, it emerges from the PN's own statements that this is a discussion the party does want to see taking place, yes… only, with other people doing all the discussing, instead of them- selves. Spiteri, in particular, even suggested that the matter should be left entirely to "NGOs and other stakeholders"… little realising, it seems, that: a) NGOs have ac- tually been discussing abortion in Malta for years; it's just that the discussion nev- er really goes anywhere, because; b) there is only one institution that can realistical- ly change the legal framework regulating abortion in this country … and it happens to be Parliament: NOT civil society. I need hardly add that it suits the PN (and also Labour: in fact, I'm coming to them right now) to abdicate their own responsibilities in this instance. For any 'discussion on abortion' would also force that party to confront the fact that, while it has actively courted the anti-choice lob- by for years… the PN's own support-base also includes many pro-choice people (and, having already lost enough votes as it is, since 2013… it would much rather not risk losing any more, thank you very much.) BUT… the PN does at least have an ex- cuse for being so utterly wrong-footed by this issue, every single time. To this day it remains a statutorily 'pro- life' party; and it also belongs to a Europe- an family of Conservative Parties that of- ten share similar views (examples would include Hungary's Viktor Orban and Po- land's Mateusz Morawiecki… 'nuff said.). What's Labour's excuse, though, for blocking a national discussion about something as important as women's re- productive health? And how can the La- bour Party – a member of the ultra-pro- choice European Socialist group – justify its habit of also 'calling for a national de- bate on abortion', at every opportunity… but then, doing everything in its power to stifle that discussion, at the first sign of any danger that it might actually take place? Above all, however: why are the Labour Party's own statements on this issue vir- tually indistinguishable from those ema- nating from the Nationalist Opposition? This, for instance, was Minister Aaron Farrugia's reaction to that private mem- ber's bill: "We are ready to discuss, and then we will decide accordingly […] A lot of peo- ple have called for this discussion so it is a good thing that we are having such a dis- cussion…" Erm… sorry, Aaron, but… we are very clearly NOT having any such 'discussion' at all. And there's a reason for that, you know: because – just like their Nationalist counterparts across the floor – the PL's own members on the House Business Committee (Chris Fearne, Glenn Beding- field, and Edward Zammit Lewis) decided to simply sweep the entire bill under the carpet… indefinitely. And that's not all: Health Minister Chris Fearne – who is also the chair of that committee – had already made it abundantly clear, during his bid for the party leadership, that "a government led by [him] would not introduce abortion". But as a medical doctor, he must surely be aware that there is a good deal more to this discussion, than merely the question of whether abortion should be 'legalised'. Leaving aside that the bill itself only proposed 'decriminalisation' – which, de facto, would only reflect the current le- gal status of abortion in Malta anyway (it is, after all, a law which is never actually enforced) – the real problem is that our Health Minister has no answers to the many, serious questions surrounding the subject in this country. Like, for instance: why the rate of clan- destine abortion in Malta has simply sky-rocketed in recent years - with Doc- tors for Choice estimating as many as 300 abortions by Maltese women a year; or how the Covid pandemic brought about a high demand for abortifacient pills… with the result that: "Self-managed abortion with pills at home has become the most common- ly sought method of abortion in Malta, and from information made available by organisations that supply abortion pills to women in Malta, it is estimated that one abortion pill pack is shipped to Mal- ta every single day." [source: Voice for Choice] Yes, folks: you read right. One abortion a day… in a country where the procedure is supposed to be 'illegal under any circum- stances'; and where both Government and Opposition would much sooner slit their own wrists, than ever be forced to finally confront those ugly realities. But of course, there's nothing to discuss here. So move along now, and stop wast- ing our Parliamentarians' precious time… Everyone wants a 'discussion about abortion'; but nobody wants to actually discuss it Raphael Vassallo