Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1503087
THE Criminal Code amendments passed this week are yet another step in the right direction as part of the government's holistic drive to deliver reform and change. Up until this legislative amendment, the law was pun- ishing women and medical professionals. Article 243 of the Criminal Code states that any medical professional "who shall have knowingly prescribed or administered the means whereby miscarriage is procured, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprison- ment for a term from eighteen months to four years, and to perpetual in- terdiction from the exercise of his profession." Under the same law, the p r o s p e c t i v e mother was lia- ble to imprison- ment for a term of 18 months to three years. Neither the p r o s p e c t i v e mother nor the medical professional could claim that the miscarriage was procured be- cause of the necessity to safeguard the wom- an's life or health. Following the Andrea Prudente case, the lack of defence under Maltese law in these circumstances was confirmed in a legal opin- ion prepared by the State Advocate, high- lighting that Maltese law does not provide any peace of mind, not even in matters of life and death. And this was a crucial and pivotal moment that kick-started the process to deliver a much-needed change. With these amendments, the Labour gov- ernment was able to change the status quo while catering for two potential circumstanc- es. The first is when there is an immediate risk to a woman's life. The amended law states that if a pregnant woman suffers from a med- ical complication that can put her life at im- mediate risk, the medical intervention is car- ried out immediately. The second scenario is when a woman's health is at serious risk, which may eventually lead to death. With this change, health pro- fessionals will not have to wait until the wom- an is at risk of losing her life, to act. Medical professionals should intervene to prevent the woman's condition from worsening, which could lead to serious risks and complications. I am aware that some may not have under- stood this change for what it actually is, how- ever, government ministers were abundantly clear when addressing any doubts on the in- terpretation of these clauses at parliamentary committee stage. They made it amply clear that women should not be on the brink of death for the necessary healthcare to be re- ceived. During court proceedings, explanations de- livered during the parliamentary committee are used as a point of reference when inter- preting the law. The government resisted proposals that would have made the amendment futile such as introducing a magistrate in the whole pro- cess. During a moment of trauma, it is essen- tial that only the professionals and the wom- an are involved in the decisions. Unfortunately, the debate surrounding this amendment has shown for yet another time that the Opposition is insensitive and imma- ture. The Opposition fuelled a debate based on lies and spin, with the Opposition leader hav- ing the audacity to mock a woman who was facing severe difficulties during her pregnan- cy. The Opposition first declared there was no need for these amendments and then said that there should absolutely be no reference to the woman's health. The government not only disagreed with what the Opposition was saying but also did not differentiate between physical and men- tal health. Government fiercely opposed whoever said mental health will be used as a pretext to in- troduce abortion through the window. I am aware that for some sections of society, this Bill should still have not been introduced, and the status quo should have prevailed. Many others appreciate how the govern- ment persuaded and took the right approach. For those who campaign in favour of the in- troduction of abortion, this amendment was seen as not enough as they repeatedly insist that more changes in sexual and reproductive health rights are needed. Although the government was clear from the start that this was not an abortion Bill, I do, on the other hand, recognise the work pro-choice lobby groups carry out against all odds. The Labour Party never said and will never say that there is no place for pro-choice can- didates or activists within its fold. As a political party with different perspec- tives within us, we are always following the ongoing debate on the subject and taking note of people's concerns and views. We be- lieve the right approach is to engage as the discussion unfolds. No issue should be swept under the carpet, particularly this one, and as a party, we will continue enabling a healthy discussion. 13 NEWS maltatoday | SUNDAY • 2 JULY 2023 ON Wednesday 28 June Malta broke the status quo on its total abortion ban in such a way that not only will the State now continue to have control over wom- en's bodily autonomy, but to permit it in such strict circumstances that women's fate is further controlled by three medi- cal professionals. The government hailed this as being a 'historic moment'. Truly, it was so his- toric that both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister were not pres- ent in parliament at the time the Bill was voted on. Indeed, such a 'historic mo- ment' that they themselves did not deem worthy making an appearance. At the committee meeting that took place two days prior, a number of con- cerned organisations and individuals spoke from their heart, voicing their concerns and asking MPs to pause the process. The Council of Europe's Human Rights Commissioner, Dunja Mijatovic, also called upon the government to pause the process. The very same committee was asked not once but four times by the chairper- son if they wanted to put forward any amendments following the intervention of concerned speakers and yet the si- lence was deafening. Just until a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister publicly spoke about his deep concern of how a young vulnerable mother was prosecuted for abortion. In an interview with MaltaToday, the Prime Minister had also acknowledged that women are accessing abortion care on a daily basis. During the Second Reading of the now infamous Bill 28, he was also strong in his words of how this change was needed. Fast forward seven months and Deputy Prime Minister Chris Fearne and Justice Minister Jonathan Attard put forward the amended version of the Bill claiming that women need not be at the brink of death for an abortion to take place. And, at this point I question their naïvity to utter such a bold statement. We now have a codification of what was a medical practice. No doctor will ever shoulder the responsibility of hav- ing a verbal or telephonic consultation without first seeing the patient and hav- ing a detailed examination of the medi- cal file. That will create delays and that is going to put women at great risk, includ- ing potential loss of life. As a human rights defender and wom- en's rights activist, I cannot but state how deeply hurt I am to see a socialist party and a 'so called' progressive gov- ernment, once again opting to appease far-right conservative factions. I further cannot but note how Labour politicians are being stopped from voic- ing their own opinions, forced merely to toe the line of those at the helm. A number of pro-choice politicians have quietly reached out saying that they are angry at the manner in which this Bill was passed and at the lack of consulta- tion within their own party. The lack of consultation and dialogue is also felt in other areas – from migration to the environment to violence against women. I cannot but ques- tion where today's La- bour Par- ty stands. From a party that s h o u l d c h a m p i o n social jus- tice, we are seeing a party har- bouring far right ideology whilst paying lip service to progressiveness. Lest we forget that this same party has put for- ward two important Bills that are much needed in a democratic society – the Human Rights Bill and the Equality Bill – which have been withdrawn because of backlash from the church and ultra conservatives. Seeing injustice not only makes you uncomfortable under the collar but is also a drive to strive towards remedying that injustice. But there is only so much that civil so- ciety can do. On the other hand, people in positions of power that feel uncom- fortable can do much more. If, as you say, you are uncomfortable with the situation then bite the bullet and stand by your words. Following the line of least resistance does not make history. Challenging the status quo, breaking the barriers for those less priv- ileged than yourself and doing what is right regardless of how difficult it may be, even if it comes at a political cost, is how history is made. Leaders are judged not by their words but by their actions. So, act. It's the least you all can do. Squandering a 'historic' opportunity By Lara Dimitrijevic, pro-choice activist and women's rights campaigner Another step in the right direction By Ramona Attard, Labour Party president