The unborn child - callously let down?

At first I suspected that Frans Said (The Sunday Times, August 12) was missing the wood for the trees. The proposed amendment to the Constitution by the government regarding abortion is not about the need to enact new legislation against abortion which, according to Mr Said, will not be enforced. We have had that law for over 100 years.

Mr Said is not correct when he argues that because the law is not effectively enforced it's no use complicating matters by adding provisions about it in the Constitution. Not on this matter, though. This is like saying that when there is a rise in crime and, comparably, fewer charges by the police, we might as well do away with some of our criminal laws.

On reflecting deeply, however, I think Mr Said might be right in seeing the abortion issue degenerating into a debacle.

In the last 30 years abortion has been legalised practically all over the world, including all European Union states, except Ireland, Poland and Malta.

Pressure to legalise abortion in Malta is now coming from many outside quarters, and is growing since we joined the EU.

In this context the government in 2005 accepted a proposal of the pro-life movement to entrench the prohibition of abortion in the Constitution. Also in 2005, reflecting the wishes of the vast majority of the Maltese to protect the unborn child from harm, Parliament unanimously passed a law which defined the unborn child as "a member of the household" along with those requiring protection from domestic violence, such as the battered wife, or the abused living child.

Facts - not fantasies

Yet despite these very positive developments there are real fears, not fantasies, that abortion could be introduced in Malta one day.

Dr Rebecca Gomperts, a Dutch doctor, has a ship roaming outside Malta's territorial waters offering free abortions to women in distress, just because they are pregnant, as if pregnancy were a serious illness like cancer. A few years ago she attempted to enter Maltese waters to offer her medical services (!) to Maltese women. Promptly the government took decisive action to prevent her from doing so.

Last year, Dr Gomperts tried again. Since her first try Malta has joined the EU. This time round one of her doctors just came in and, on Maltese soil, even advertised free abortion services on state television.

Someone should have been responsible for allowing this illegal act, but everything was kept quiet. Let me, again, remind Mr Said and others of his persuasion that since then the domestic violence law had made it an offence to cause domestic violence - read also deliberate harm and torturous death by the mother - to the unborn child.

The domestic violence law of 2005 has legal instruments, like the Domestic Violence Commission and the designated authority - Agenzija Appogg - to defend, protect and promote the interests of the unborn child. Yet nobody, neither the two institutions just mentioned, nor the Commissioner of Police who, according to the new law has the powers to take unilateral action to prevent any domestic violence, dared intervene to prevent the Spanish medical doctor from Dr Gomperts' team from what I would call inciting to kill... the unborn child. To my knowledge - I may be wrong - not one of the three pro-life political parties at the time deigned to intervene on this matter, either.

In spite of a strong public protest from the pro-life lobby, just a feeble murmur came from the public authorities in a futile attempt to justify what to many appeared as a very grave omission. It said that the Attorney General had advised the government against taking action against the Spanish doctor. The public was not told on what grounds the Attorney General had based his advice to the government.

A "freedom of speech" consideration, instigated by the EU, started doing the rounds at the same time. In the process thousands of voiceless and defenceless unborn children, Malta's future generations, who today have also a legal status conferred on them by the domestic violence law, were callously let down. Superior pressure on the executive arm of Government seems to have left its mark

"Illegal" emigrants

So probably, at the moment, we are having another type of boat people, "illegal" emigrants (!), besides illegal immigrants - navigating the calm or rough sea between Malta and somewhere outside Malta's territorial waters - with intent to commit a most heinous criminal act. This on top of those who go to the UK, Sicily or wherever. Yet this flight, by plane or boat, unlike the flight of capital, does not seem to be troubling the consciences, and minds, of our politicians and the forces of law and order.

The unborn child has no vote and the way it is going will never have one, either!

Why this sudden change of heart from many supposedly pro-life people and organisations? Why this sudden dereliction of duty from those who have the legal responsibility to defend and protect the unborn child?

Mr Said is right. Enforcement is pathetically lacking.

Yet when, at the same time, there were rumblings of incitement to hatred, the "freedom of speech" argument was put aside and the perpetrator, after some consideration, was taken to court. So after clamouring for a constitutional amendment to protect the unborn child the powers that be were now displaying what looks like confused priorities.

Again, a few months later, the two political parties represented in Parliament promptly agreed on an amendment to the Constitution to entrench the post and functions of the Ombudsman. And they lost no time. The Ombudsman, who is supposed to defend the weak against administrative mistakes and injustices, is a means to an end. The protection of human life from its very beginning is a fundamental human right... the end itself.

Yet Parliament has not got round to agreeing on a Constitutional amendment to prevent the possibility of introducing a law permitting abortion in the Maltese Islands... Hence the debacle.

Why are we having these double standards, this double talk, this inertia, when the avowed protection of the unborn child, such a fundamental issue, is at stake?

Another very strong argument in favour of entrenching provisions against abortion in the Constitution is that, as things stand, a law permitting abortion under one guise or another, could be enacted by Parliament with just a one-seat majority.

With entrenchment such a law would have to be passed by two-thirds of all MPs. This is the essence of the entrenchment proposal which Mr Said needs to understand.

Is Mr Said, and others like him, aware that one of our five members of the European Parliament - who in 2003 aspired to lead the Labour Party - has already voted more than once in favour of abortion in the European Parliament in what he considers to be extreme cases? No fantasies here - just realities.

Blackmail

It took just one government MP to bring down the Labour administration in 1998. This could happen also in the abortion issue in Malta - if there are no entrenchment provisions. In this case blackmail, even from outside Malta (!), not conviction or consensus, could be the main instrument for the introduction of a law permitting abortion in Malta.

We could have a situation, again, where just one MP, this time not an ordinary member but the prime minister himself, who despotically forces an abortion law on the rest of the government MPs, through a simple majority... or face the consequences. This could mean that if you don't toe the PM's line you lose your ministerial post, or be doomed to the back benches for ever... and more!

If, and when, this happens that will be the day to test the moral fibre and the political and social calibre of all MPs, especially those on the government side, if a Bill to permit abortion is brought before Parliament to be passed by a simple majority.

This is, after all, what seems to have happened about 30 years ago when a law not introducing, but recognising, divorce was enacted in Malta by what seemed to be the back door. Divorce became permissible if contracted abroad. Divorce, like abortion, is still - as it was 30 years ago - a very sensitive issue for the Maltese,

In the meantime, the political forces which have the exclusive power in Parliament, and the corresponding moral duty, to effectively protect the unborn child in all circumstances seem to be fiddling while Rome, as shown above, burns, even if the flames do not show up so glaringly - so far!

Tony Mifsud, DSS (Oxon), is a former director of the Department of Family Welfare.