Editorial

The initiative taken by Justice and Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg to rally national support in an anti-abortion drive has rightly had a very positive response. That was to be expected, given the fact that the big majority of the people - and their representatives, be they political parties, constituted bodies or NGOs that matter - are unreservedly against abortion. Indeed, such bodies have on various occasions unequivocally condemned the crime.

The taking of life can never be justified, even if that life is at its very beginning. We ought to understand that life starts at conception.

Abortion is covered by the Criminal Code. What Dr Borg is proposing is that the provision should be entrenched in the Constitution to make it more difficult for some future government to somehow legalise abortion, whether because it might want to or due to some form of pressure.

This proposal has raised a hornet's nest in certain quarters. In most cases - some elements favouring abortion there are likely to be - the objection is only to entrenchment and not to the strengthening of anti-abortion laws per se.

Fierce opposition to abortion is already entrenched... in people's hearts and the party that would dream of relaxing the anti-abortion laws would be committing political suicide. In this scenario, the present debate may be exploited by the pro-abortion lobby to give the wrong impression that the Maltese people are divided on the issue. They are not. For the umpteenth time, let it be known that the huge majority of the people are against abortion.

Thus, Gift of Life, which sparked off this debate as they were the ones to make the original proposal, and the government, particularly Dr Borg, who has been instrumental in modernising quite a few of our laws, must pay constant attention to the course the national debate is taking.

The authorities too must be careful in prosecuting defaulters and test the full force of the law as it stands now. Alas, a high profile case about a medical doctor allegedly involved in procuring abortion overseas remains inconclusive to this very day, many years after it was broken by a Church newspaper.

What is also necessary is better communication with the people about the proposal itself. One can understand that a pro-life movement should call for such a move but the government must be more forthcoming to convince the people why it is pushing ahead with the idea.

Is the government perhaps aware of some impending threat, whether from within or from beyond our shores, that could force it into making certain "concessions" about abortion? Is it possible it has advice that its arm may be twisted if the anti-abortion provision remains "just" a law and not part of the Constitution?

The objects and reasons that have been put across so far in support of the entrenchment proposal do not seem to have made too many in-roads. Indeed, the debate risks causing more harm than good. If declarations made by the political leaders about their unconditional stand against abortion have not been strong enough then let them become solemn formal statements of policy.

In the meantime, let the debate continue. Let more individuals and groups declare they are for life and that abortion can never be accepted because society has a responsibility to defend the right of life of all its members, including those who are still in their mother's womb. That majority far exceeds two-thirds of the 65 members of the House of Representatives.