Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1544268
9 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 8 APRIL 2026 OPINION Decriminalise, except for turtle eggs Mariana Debono Philosophy PhD candidate, poet and writer THERE is something almost charming about the phrase "decriminalising abortion". It sounds gentle, reasonable, al- most harmless, except that it is lethal. And so, in Malta, the propos- al is presented with reassuring calm: This is not about promot- ing abortion. Not about shifting moral boundaries. Not about redefining anything at all. Just a small legal adjustment; a bit of dusting in the Criminal Code. Nothing to see here. Except, that there is. Take the United Kingdom— that reassuring beacon of 'bal- anced' abortion law. For years, it held up its 24-week limit as a model. Until quietly, almost po- litely, it all changed. Only recently, the law was ad- justed so that a woman who ends her own pregnancy is no longer subject to criminal penalties. At any stage. Yes, even when the ba- by is nine months old, and even hours before birth. Now, at this point, someone will inevitably clear their throat and say: "Ah, but the 24-week limit still exists." And this is true, in the same way that a speed limit exists on a road where no one is ever fined for speeding. The rule remains. The consequence disappears. This is the part of the conversa- tion that tends to be whispered, if mentioned at all. Decriminalisation is not a neutral act. It is not a linguis- tic upgrade or a compassionate rebranding. It is the removal of the law's ability to say that hu- man life is valuable and deserves protection. And when the law is powerless to protect human life in the womb, limits begin to soften, blur, disappear. Just like the baby in the mother's womb; whose life is ended when an abortion is performed. Which brings us, inevitably, to the uncomfortable question. This is not about condemning women, many of whom act under fear, pressure, or deep distress. If the deliberate ending of a human life is truly a wrong — not a life- style choice, not a regrettable ne- cessity, but a wrong — then what exactly is the law doing when it decides it will no longer respond to it? Shrugging? Looking away? Offering its deepest sympathies? 'What is wrong is wrong' — an unfashionable phrase, perhaps, but a stubborn one. Because if something is genuinely wrong, the law cannot indefinitely pre- tend otherwise without, at some point, losing its own moral gram- mar. And yet this is precisely the di- rection in which "decriminalisa- tion" nudges us. Gently. Kindly. Almost imperceptibly. And final- ly, we discover that the limits re- main only as decorative features, while reality has quietly moved on without them. And here, in Malta, we add our own peculiar twist. Recently, a man was fined thou- sands of euros for disturbing tur- tle eggs because he used flares. The eggs were at risk. The law stepped in, firmly, unapologeti- cally, and said: This must not be done. Quite right too. We protect what is small. What is vulnera- ble. What cannot speak for itself. Unless, apparently, it is human. Because now we are invited, ev- er so gently, to consider remov- ing legal protection from unborn children altogether. And so, we arrive at a rather exquisite par- adox. Disturb a turtle egg, and the full moral clarity of the law de- scends upon you. But if you end a human life before birth, the law, newly enlightened, will step aside, be compassionate, and be curiously absent. Maltese politicians need to un- derstand this score. What kind of progress would that be that requires us to val- ue turtle eggs more consistently than babies in the womb? Real care, real progress, com- pels us to stand with the woman in her distress, support her be- fore, during, and after; while at the same time, help her refuse to abandon the child she carries. Because a society that protects the turtle egg, should at the very least equally protect the vulnera- ble, tiny human being, that is the child in the womb. Family-friendly policies and gatekeeping: Hidden obstacles in the workplace Vania Agius Tabone Labour candidate on the 8th and 9th districts MANY modern workplaces promote policies designed to help employees balance their professional lives with family responsibilities. These initiatives, often called family-friendly measures, are intended to support wellbe- ing, reduce stress, and create a fairer workplace. They include options like flexible hours, part- time work, remote working, and career breaks. While these policies are a step in the right direction, access to them is not always equal, and invisible bar- riers often prevent them from being fully effective. This is where gatekeeping comes into play. Gatekeep- ing occurs when policies that should be available to all em- ployees, often guaranteed in collective agreements, are in practice controlled by a manag- er. Although staff may formally have the right to use these bene- fits, the decision to allow access frequently depends on the man- ager's discretion, attitudes, or personal biases. Family-friendly measures can make a real difference in every- day life. They allow parents to meet work commitments while caring for children, attending to unexpected family needs, or jug- gling other household responsi- bilities. But the implementation of these policies can vary dra- matically between organisa- tions, and even between teams within the same company. In many workplaces, employ- ees cannot access flexible ar- rangements without managerial approval. When managers hold traditional views or lack trust in their staff, requests for flexi- bility can be refused, even when the reasons are fully justified. For instance, some managers insist that work must be done only on site, rejecting remote working entirely. Others may assume that mothers working from home are less productive because of childcare responsi- bilities. Such assumptions cre- ate hidden inequalities, limiting opportunities for women who need flexibility to balance work and family life. At the same time, some man- agers understand the realities of modern working life and ac- tively support staff. They allow flexible hours, endorse remote work, and trust employees to manage their responsibilities responsibly. In such environ- ments, staff report higher job satisfaction, greater engage- ment, and improved produc- tivity. The difference between supportive and restrictive man- agement highlights the impor- tance of organisational culture in making family-friendly poli- cies effective. Problems arise when access to these measures is inconsistent. When parents, often mothers, cannot take advantage of flex- ible work arrangements, they face difficult choices. Some re- duce their working hours, oth- ers change roles to positions with fewer responsibilities, and some may even leave the work- force entirely. These decisions carry both immediate and long- term consequences. Reduced hours mean lower income, which directly affects financial independence. Career progression may be slower, with fewer promotions or develop- ment opportunities. Over time, this also impacts pensions, as lower contribu- tions during working life result in smaller retirement benefits. The impact of these barriers extends beyond individuals to entire families. When a wom- an earns less, her partner often shoulders a greater financial burden, adding stress and pres- sure that can affect the well- being of the household. Gate- keeping, therefore, is not just a workplace issue, it has broader social and economic conse- quences. Even when employees can access family-friendly poli- cies, challenges remain. Remote or flexible working arrange- ments can reduce visibility at work, limiting opportunities for networking, participation in in- formal discussions, and involve- ment in key decision-making processes. Over time, this can hinder career growth, further widening inequalities in leader- ship and senior roles. The central issue is not wheth- er family-friendly measures are valuable, they clearly are, but how they are implemented and who benefits most. Because women are more likely to use these policies, they bear a disproportionate share of the financial and professional costs. Addressing these challeng- es requires both cultural and structural change. Managers must be encouraged to trust their teams and ensure that decisions about flexible work are fair and unbiased. Family responsibilities should be shared more equally between men and women, so that car- egiving does not fall primarily on one parent. Ultimately, family-friendly policies should serve as a tool to support employees and families rather than reinforce existing inequalities. They must be con- sistently accessible to everyone, free from invisible barriers, prejudices, or discriminatory attitudes. Only then can work- places genuinely promote both career success and family well- being. Creating an environment where family-friendly measures work for all employees benefits everyone, staff feel supported, families are stronger, and or- ganisations gain from increased productivity and retention. By removing the hidden obsta- cles of gatekeeping, workplaces can ensure that these policies truly fulfil their purpose: help- ing people balance work and life in a fair, equitable, and sustain- able way.