Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1487299
6 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 27 MARCH 2022 OPINION 2 maltatoday EXECUTIVE EDITOR Matthew Vella mvella@mediatoday.com.mt Letters to the Editor, MaltaToday, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 E-mail: dailynews@mediatoday.com.mt Letters must be concise, no pen names accepted, include full name and address maltatoday | SUNDAY • 4 DECEMBER 2022 Unfit for purpose Editorial MALTA'S current abortion debate has long been coming. For many years, abortion was simply the scare card used in politics to dis- credit political opponents. The voices of those who believed Maltese women should have the right to determine what happens with their bodies were confined to the fringes, or worse muzzled. The very few politicians who dared to hold pro-choice views refrained from making their voices heard out of fear that they will be lam- pooned by their opponents and ostracised by their own party. So, in a sense, the current debate is refresh- ing, because it has our politicians openly argu- ing their stands in parliament and beyond, like this country has never seen. Of course, government's proposal to intro- duce exceptions to Malta's strict anti-abortion law does not go far enough to truly embrace a woman's right to full bodily autonomy. None- theless, it is a bold step that recognises the hy- pocrisy of the outright ban, which risks putting doctors and women in prison. The amendment to the Criminal Code aims to give legal certainty that in cases where doc- tors have to terminate a pregnancy to save a woman's life, or safeguard her health, no one ends up criminally liable. Government's proposal addresses two situ- ations when a pregnant woman is at her most vulnerable – when she has to choose between her health and her child, and worse, her life and her child's. These decisions are not taken flippantly and in many cases women opt to continue with the pregnancy with all the risks this brings to their health and life. But women should never be put in a situation where the choice to continue with a pregnancy is imposed on them by the law or any other person. It is all about giving women a choice to safeguard their health, including their mental health, and their life. But it seems that while consensus does exist on the 'life' aspect of this debate, there is op- position to the notion of allowing abortion if a woman's health is at risk. The naysayers argue this opens the road to abortion on demand. In parliament, Labour MP Malcolm Paul Agius Galea, a doctor by profession, laid out the dilemma doctors face in very stark terms. He brought up the example of a woman whose health was deteriorating but doctors could not intervene because her life was not yet at risk. "What do I tell that woman's father when he looks at me and tells me: 'what are you going to do doctor to help my daughter? Why are you just looking at her deteriorate?'" The law as it stands today leaves that woman hanging on a thread with doctors only able to intervene if her health reaches a point where her very own life becomes an issue. This is pretty much what happened in the Andrea Prudente case. She started miscarrying and doctors told her the pregnancy was no longer viable. But instead of terminating the pregnancy doctors simply tried to manage the risk until the foetus's heartbeat stopped, or the body expelled it naturally. Prudente's life was not yet on the line but in a cruel and sadistic way we allowed her to linger in the lobby of death. Prudente was the one case that reached the media and made the international spotlight but like her many other Maltese women have been left in a state of unnecessary risk. It is to these women that we owe a change in legislation. Within this context, the words of Opposition leader Bernard Grech in parliament truly sound hollow, cruel and disrespectful to women. Grech's attempt to ridicule Prudente and not even having the decency to use her name, was a shameful way of trying to win an argument at the expense of vulnerable women. What Grech did sent a message to the many other Maltese women not to dare raise their voice if ever they end up in the same predica- ment as Prudente. ADPD's Carmel Cacopardo has described Grech's speech as a symbol of misogyny and utter disrespect towards women. "It reveals his general attitude towards wom- en as an inferior gender that are not capable of taking their own decisions, even in serious matters that arise from medical problems dur- ing their pregnancy," Cacopardo said. And he is right. No one expected Grech, who had been at the forefront of the anti-divorce movement 11 years ago, to support the abortion amendment. That would have been too big an ask and he is entitled to hold a contrary view. But he could have done so by laying out the arguments against the amendment without insulting women. He could have taken a lesson or two from his own MPs Joe Giglio and Mario de Marco on how to put forward the argument in a civilised way. An Opposition leader who finds no problem in ridiculing a woman in such a way is unfit for purpose. 4 December 2012 Killing the death tax – an €11 million electoral ploy? Tonio Fenech's plan to abolish inheritance tax on bequeathed and donated property could formalise what experienced notaries say is one of the most common forms of tax eva- sion for heirs. The finance minister's last-minute decision to remove the 5% 'death tax' – whichh comes at a cost of some €11 million to the exchequer – has caught some officials inside the Inland Revenue Department off-guard, who are still awaiting instructions on how inherited prop- erty will be taxed. But two notaries who spoke to MaltaToday confirmed that if the abolition of inheritance and donation duty survives a change in gov- ernment – and the indications are that Labour in power will retain the EU-approved budget – more heirs can effectively evade paying capi- tal gains tax. Under the current system, heirs pay a 5% causa mortis tax on property they inherit. If they inherit a property valued at €100,000 they pay €5,000 in tax. If they then sell it at €150,000, they are taxed at 12% on the profit (€50,000). .... Evading the capital gains tax would work like this: hold on to the inherited property without declaring it, and once the property is sold, declare the price of 'acquisition' as the final sale price. At zero profits, there is no capital gains tax. But on the sale of a €150,000 property, the heir must pay 5% death duty of €7,500 plus interest of some €600 on the first year. The savings are considerable: declaring an inherited property that is valued at €100,000 would have incurred €5,000 in death duty. Selling it at €150,000 would incur a further €6,000 at 12% on the profit. So does removing the death duty make it even better for heirs who evade capital gains? Another notary said that everyone is still in the dark about what happens if the causa mor- tis has been abolished: "If death duty is re- moved, will heirs have to pay 12% on the final sale value? It will hardly benefit them. I spoke to some sources at inland revenue and they are clueless about the system." ... Quote of the Week "We are seeing the same tactics of fear and intimidation we witnessed from the anti- divorce campaign, when they dared tell us that divorce was no solution for sufferers of domestic violence." Labour MP Randolph Debattista addresses the House on the amendment to the Criminal Code on Malta's abortion ban MaltaToday 10 years ago