Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1502123
medical practices, which are already in place today - woe- fully inadequate, though we all know they are – and then pro- vides a legal framework, within which those same inadequate practices can simply be contin- ued (albeit 'legally', this time), ad aeternum. And that, I'm afraid, is just another way of saying that: this legal amendment does not – and will not – 'change' any- thing at all, with regard to un- safe abortions in Malta. For this, we even have the word of Robert Abela himself: who – somewhat unwisely, in my opinion – once again re- minded us all about that recent case of a mentally-ill woman, who was prosecuted (and con- victed) for terminating her own pregnancy at home. Abela, we are told, "argued that this case served as a wake- up call for Malta, demonstrat- ing that 'what we said would never happen has happened.' [...] The Maltese woman faced charges for undergoing a medi- cal abortion at home, but it was later revealed in court that she suffered from mental health issues and was trapped in an abusive relationship..." Now: in a way, I regret not having been physically present at that press conference, to ask Robert Abela the most obvious question that immediately aris- es from his own statement. But still: I can always ask it now. Excuse me, but... how does this 'milestone' abortion amendment of his, actually address any of the problems raised by that particular case? What tangible difference does this new law even make: not just to that individual woman, in those specific circumstances (in which case, it is manifestly too late to be of any help, an- yway)... ... but more cogently, to all the other Maltese (and foreign) women who are likely to end up facing similar – if not identical – circumstances, in future? How, in a nutshell, does this law actually 'improve' mat- ters... FOR THEM? Let's see now. According to the Bill that was tabled in Par- liament last Friday: • Abortion will only be al- lowed if a woman's life is at 'immediate risk'; • Abortion will only be al- lowed if a woman's health is in 'grave jeopardy which can lead to death'' • A three-member medical team will decide on termina- tion, and; • If the foetus can live outside the womb, it has to be deliv- ered. So let's go back to that specif- ic case, raised by Robert Abela himself in defence of this (just- ly lambasted) amendment: and see how many of those provisos actually apply, to that 'mental- ly-ill woman' in question. At a glance, the answer seems to be... 'not a single one'. At no point, for instance, was that woman's life 'at imme- diate risk' (unless, of course, you count the generic risk of being 'murdered by an abusive partner': which, naturally, has nothing whatsoever to do with 'pregnancy complications'). Nor did her pregnancy – in and of itself - pose any form of 'grave danger' to her health, 'which could have led to her death'. Simply put: this case was not analogous to the one of Andrea Prudente last summer (which kick-started this entire debate, to begin with). There were no 'complications' – that we know about, anyway – of the kind that might have entitled that woman to 'legally' terminate her pregnancy, with this new legislation in place. And as for the foetus that was aborted, in those unhappy cir- cumstances: there is nothing whatsoever, in the entire court ruling (which includes the tes- timony of numerous medical experts) which suggests that the pregancy itself was 'unvia- ble', in any way, shape or form. Naturally, I will not presume to declare, on that basis alone, that 'the foetus could easily have lived outside the womb'. But we can all clearly see, from the facts of the case itself, that: this law would not have made a jot of difference, to the woman who suffered the injustice of a criminal conviction, for some- thing that should never have been treated as a 'crime' in the first place. Which is not to say, of course, that there WASN'T any risk to her health: she was, as Ab- ela himself indicates, suffering from 'mental health issues', at the time when she procured the abortion. Ah... but that's the irony of this amendment right there, isn't it? Had Robert Abela stuck to his original plan – which was, if you'll remember, to specifically include 'mental health issues', among the list of 'permissible conditions for legal abortion' – then... ...well, this amendment WOULD HAVE made a dif- ference, to women caught up in those situations in Malta. And it WOULD HAVE 'made history', by actually effecting a major – and hugley important – 'disruption to the status quo'. But... Robert Abela didn't stick to the original plan, did he? As Marlene Farrugia so per- ceptively put it, yesterday: our Prime Minister simply caved into every single demand, of a manifestly extremist lob- by-group... ... with the result that the prosecution of that same 'men- tally-ill woman' – which Abela himself described as a 'wake- up call', remember? – would still take place today: in spite of a reform that was supposed to actually 'solve' that wom- an's problems.. and not add to them! But oh well. I suppose there is at least one sense in which Robert Abela can truly claim to have 'made history'. He has literally 'turned the clock back', all the way to the 'Pre-Enlight- enment Age'... maltatoday | SUNDAY • 25 JUNE 2023 OPINION 11 Had Robert Abela stuck to his original plan – which was, if you'll remember, to specifically include 'mental health issues', among the list of 'permissible conditions for legal abortion' – then... well, this amendment WOULD HAVE made a difference