Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1538195
inclusion in the debate is to be com- mended. Yet, this was an exception. The question as to why this lack of inclusion suggests various possible answers. Could it be the implicit be- lief that, despite all the talk about in- clusion and diversity, these are not really 'Maltese' (despite including members who were born and bred in Malta)—they are in Malta but do not really belong here? Or is it because it is implicitly assumed that there is noth- ing these communities could offer to the debate? Or could it be because, following the Catholic Church be- ing cut down to size after the divorce referendum this has become a safe dog to beat, whereas engaging with some other communities on issues on which they might harbour opposite views to the ones held by the liberal part of the island, a chunk of which is keen on their integration, might not be politically correct or, worse, raise prejudiced fears that provoking such an engagement would lead to some fatwa? Or could it be because engaging with these communities on such issues would reveal that those views that are represented by this segment of the media as obvious for everyone except some Catholic diehard, are not as ob- vious as they are made to be? Be what it may, I hope that the ex- clusion of these communities from the debate is not evidence that, rather than moving towards a truly pluralis- tic society, we might just be switching from one monolithic way of dominat- ing public discourse to another. THERE seems to be widespread consensus that a woman who has had an abortion should not be sent to prison. Even among those who oppose abortion, some argue against imprisonment despite agreeing that abortion should remain a criminal act. Malta's draconian anti-abortion law contem- plates a prison term for both woman and doctor, who would have performed an abortion. Doctors also face the prospect of losing their warrant. The amendments enacted in 2023 only introduced a very limited exception to allow an abortion to take place if a woman's life is in grave danger and left the criminal consequences untouched. The issue was recast into the spotlight last week when a woman was handed down a suspended sen- tence by the court after admitting she had a medi- cal abortion. The woman had sought medical treat- ment at Mater Dei Hospital in November last year after taking pills to terminate what was presumably an unwanted pregnancy. The likeliness is that a member of the medical staff at hospital who treated her reported the mat- ter to the police. The woman was arraigned by summons and the magistrate handed down a 22-month prison sen- tence suspended for two years. We now have a woman whose police conduct has been tarnished because she made use of a proce- dure that is perfectly legal across all EU countries but not her own. Unfortunately, in these circumstances it is use- less blaming the doctors, the police and the courts. The legislation is what it is and every single actor within this equation was acting fully within their obligations. The person or persons who reported the woman could have chosen not to do so but they would have been doing so in full knowledge that someone else could find out about the case and re- port them for failing to act. It is the law that is wrong and the law can only be changed by parliament. This is why the onus of our outrage is directed at our members of parliament. They are the ones who have the power to change the law and prevent people like this woman from having to face a prison sentence. Prime Minister Robert Abela has now promised piecemeal legal changes so that doctors will not be obliged to report women receiving medical treat- ment following complications from an abortion. It is too meek a step and will not solve the problem. Indeed, tinkering with the Professional Secrecy Act risks giving women false hope and could lead to more legal complications. The latter is not a friv- olous concern. When speaking about government's intention to amend the law, Abela said doctors will not be obliged to report abortion cases unless with the explicit consent of the woman. Which woman would ever give consent to being prosecuted for her actions eludes us. But the mere fact that Abela mentioned consent suggests that the changes could impinge on other criminal acts where doctors have an obligation to report if they suspect the person in front of them is a victim of a criminal act or abuse. With abortion, the person in front of them is the 'perpetrator' not the victim. This is why we feel that amending the Professional Secrecy Act to avoid women from going to prison over an abortion is myopic and does not address the root cause—Malta's draconian anti-abortion law. Obviously, with such a change being contem- plated, the devil will be in the detail and so far, all we have are the intentions of Health Minister Jo Etienne Abela and the prime minister. But even so, such a change only covers medical professionals—the primary interest behind it is to protect doctors and nurses and not women seeking treatment after an abortion. It will not stop part- ners, hospital cleaners, and any other third parties from reporting the woman to the police with the ensuing consequence of imprisonment. We understand that the government has no man- date to make abortion legal—something this news- paper supports—but nothing stops it from decrim- inalising the act so that no woman runs the risk of being sent to prison. Such a change would be more meaningful than tinkering with the Professional Se- crecy Act. Outrage is not enough. Decriminalise abortion. maltatoday MaltaToday, MediaToday Co. Ltd, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 MANAGING EDITOR: SAVIOUR BALZAN EXECUTIVE EDITOR: KURT SANSONE EDITOR: PAUL COCKS Tel: (356) 21 382741-3, 21 382745-6 Website: www.maltatoday.com.mt E-mail: dailynews@mediatoday.com.mt debate 11 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 6 AUGUST 2025 EDITORIAL The government should have discussed a bill in parliament, passed the relevant legislation, and then left it to those groups within civil society who oppose such legislation to militate against it, possibly through an abrogative referendum