Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1503368
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 9 JULY 2023 8 INTERVIEW Raphael Vassallo rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt Malta is still worse than Saudi Arabia, In an article last Sunday, you voiced your own disappoint- ment with Bill 28: described by the government as a 'historic' amendment, which – for the first time ever – allows doctors to terminate pregnancies, in cases where the mother's life is in danger. This is, admittedly, a good deal less than what your organisation was demanding. But doesn't it also mean that Malta can no longer be de- scribed as 'the only country in the world (apart from maybe El Salvador) where abortion is illegal, in ALL circumstances'? And if so: isn't that a small step forward, in itself? Well... we might not be able to argue, any more, that Mal- ta is one of the few countries left to have 'a total abortion ban'... however, we can still ar- gue that – in 2023 – Malta has a so-called 'progressive' and 'democratic' government, that has now created a situation whereby women are further 'controlled'... and, even more worryingly, a situation which also places women's lives at further risk. Because what this Bill has ef- fectively done, is merely 'codi- fy' a medical practice that had always existed, in the past; but which had never been codified before. In other words, what was previously an unregulat- ed practice, carried out (so to speak) 'behind closed doors', is now fully encoded into the legal system. And this changes matters, considerably for the worse: because it also means there is now the possibility of being exposed to charges of negli- gence, and incurring fines for damages, etc. Under those cir- cumstances, no consultant, or medical professional, will now risk taking a decision of this nature, just 'over the phone'... or by simply 'examining the patient', as used to happen in the past. Now, with this Bill, the med- ical profession is going to be more cautious, when it comes to deciding whether a wom- an's life is in danger, or not. Now, there has to be consul- tation with other specialists... and all this adds up to a waste of precious time, which could further endanger women's lives. And this is very, very con- cerning. For while it may be true that we can no longer say, 'Malta is the only country to ban abortion, in ALL circum- stances'... we can certainly say that, by this very step, we have already gone backwards. By this very step, we we still be in a situation where countries like Saudi Arabia, for exam- ple, are more advanced than us, when it comes to women's rights. Imagine that. We're talking about a country that has ar- guably the strictest laws in the world, with regard to women; and yet Saudi Arabia is still in a better position than Mal- ta, when it comes to abortion care... One of your main criticisms of this Bill was, in fact, the deci- sion to appoint a 'three-mem- ber board', to establish wheth- er any given pregnancy poses a threat to the mother's life. At a glance, this raises issues that go beyond abortion. I am una- ware, for instance, of any other medical condition – especially, if it might 'lead to death' – that requires an entire committee, to actually diagnose. Am I right in guessing, therefore, that you view this more as a case of 'dis- crimination against women', in general... than a controversy about 'female reproductive rights'? Oh, absolutely! This is, in fact, what I am most angry about: because this goes well beyond the issue of 'access to abortion' – which, to me, is a healthcare issue. Many will disagree, of course; and that's all fine. But this? This is a situation where... Let me put it this way. Mal- ta's 'total ban of abortion' - i.e., before Bill 28 - had always been a situation which had less to do with 'abortion', than with 'how the State controlled women' (or 'people who have a uterus'; let's be as inclusive as possible). Now, however: not only does the State continue to exercise exactly the same 'control', that it always had in the past: because if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy - by choice; and for whatever rea- son – she can't, because it is still a CRIMINAL [heavily em- phasised] offence... But with this new amend- ment: the circumstances for legal abortion have become so restrictive, that we now need three consultants, to take a potentially life-saving deci- sion. Because at the end of the day, they have to be consult- ants. We're not talking about any old random doctors, run- ning around the corridors of a ward. We're talking about two gynaecologists, and an- other consultant who might be treating the woman for other health issues. So they have to be of a cer- tain 'level', within the medical profession; and they also have to be available, at very short notice – because time is ob- viously going to be of the es- sence, in cases like this. Most worrying of all, howev- er: all three of those specialists will also have to be in agree- ment, in what is effectively a life-or-death situation: where the clock is ticking, and every second counts... And this is what angers me so much, about Bill 28. It can – in fact, it almost certainly WILL – lead to death, in future. We've already seen this hap- pen, in places like Ireland. We all saw what happened in Poland, just a few weeks ago: when Dorota Lalik became the fourth woman to die in that country, in the space of around a year, because of de- lays in providing vital abortion care. We know, therefore, that women are actually dying, because of the very strict sit- uations that they have intro- duced in countries like Poland, Hungary, etc. And we know why those women are dying, too. It's not because those countries still have laws against abortion, even in life-threatening cir- cumstances. It's because, with all these 'moral restrictions' Despite government's claims of having 'made history' by legalising abortion in life-or-death circumstances, LARA DIMITRIJEVIC – of the Women's Rights Foundation – argues that Bill 28 represents a 'massive step backwards' for Maltese women