Louis Cilia, San Ġwann.
The resolution on abortion
The report in The Times (April 15) on the Council of Europe (CoE) resolution on abortion was most disconcerting.
The resolution calls on CoE member states to make abortion "an unconditional right". It also urges them to "guarantee a woman's effective exercise of the right to abortion". This resolution was reportedly passed by the CoE assembly on April 16 with 102 votes in favour, 69 against and 14 abstentions.
The resolution is not legally binding on member states of the CoE. However, as the The Times rightly points out, "if a case goes to the European Court of Justice and this resolution is in force, it could be a different matter". Given the strong majority in favour of the resolution, the decision could have a strong impact on the deliberations of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) if and when a case comes before it.
The possibility of a case landing before the ECJ is now highly probable, given that the issue is one of great interest in Europe. Of the 27 member states of the EU only Malta prohibits all forms of abortion. In Ireland abortion is allowed under very strict conditions to save a woman's life if at risk, including suicide. Because of these strict conditions more than 6,000 Irish women annually go to the UK for a termination. Most countries allow abortion within the first 12 weeks of gestation. Eight countries allow abortion under certain conditions.
I am convinced that the adoption of the resolution by the CoE is another step in the battle being waged by the pro-abortionists to have it legalised in an unrestricted manner throughout Europe under the guise of a "right". One has to keep in mind that the seed of the resolution started very innocently on a debate linked to the concept of "equality to all". With the CoE resolution now in place it is most probable that those in favour of legalising abortion would go the extra mile and present a case before the ECJ with the specific intention to have a decision from the court in favour of the concepts in the said resolution in order to put further pressure on those countries which allow it under certain conditions and, more so, on those countries where abortion is completely prohibited (such as Malta) or severely restricted (such as Ireland).
Given this situation one is entitled to ask: In the event that the ECJ takes a decision upholding the resolution taken by the CoE on abortion as an "unconditional right", would this decision be binding on member states of the EU? If in the affirmative, one would like to know what would be the position of the government party and the opposition party in such circumstances. As far as I am aware, failure by the authorities of a member state of the EU to act on such a decision would entitle the ECJ to rectify and redress such a situation in favour of its own decision - i.e. make it legally binding in the country concerned. Perhaps someone in authority or an MEP could enlighten us on this. This is a matter of great concern to all of us in this country.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
16 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mary Cassar
Apr 23rd 2008, 15:11
Flynn, the Guttemberg institute in Washington did some research on this a few year ago. Around 65% of abortions in the USA, with all their sexual education etc, are done on women who claim to have used and were shown how to correctly use contraception. It follows that if they used contraception, then they did not want to get pregnant, as a result, they had an abortion. Contraception is simply not 100% safe. Many women forget to take the pill regularly and that is enough to get you up the duff. PS, The last time I knew, condoms were not made of Dunlop industrial rubber and they sometimes split. Most men know that to be a fact.
Alex Ellul
Apr 22nd 2008, 22:06
Dear Mr. Flynn, as Alice of wonderland would have said, your logic is getting warpouser and warpouser.
William P Flynn
Apr 22nd 2008, 01:55
Mr Ellul, if your idea of logic is to compare a woman seeking an abortion to a terrorist, or likening an abortion to murdering your neighbour, then I'm afraid my logic will never be good enough for you.
As to why women get pregnant in spite of the availability of contraceptives, one reason is possibly because they or their parents are listening to the Pope who forbids them.
But of course there are many other reasons. The world, life, contraceptives, science and people are not perfect.
Mr Pullicino, Evangelium Vitae 62 sounds pretty airtight to me - "No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever". Could I have misunderstood these words?
In your ideal world of "Liberty", the woman's life is nobly expendable in a dangerous pregnancy and her only choice is to take her chances or suffer the stigma.
I suggest your definition of Liberty would not be eagerly embraced by modern women and has been eschewed by legislators all over the world.
But I am not a woman, neither are most of the bloggers to this letter. My vote, if I had one, would go to allow only women to decide on this issue. Meanwhile women desperately wanting an abortion are voting with their feet; which may take a few to support groups and others to a foreign operating table; or worse, to some "backyard".
Gerry Cowie
Apr 21st 2008, 22:31
To Mr Flynn - Maybe you're right that at the end of the day if somebody is going to have an abortion then they will have it.
As for "desperation" this word should be used with caution as it can inevitably be used to suit any situation, as befits the woman concerned..............and of course the unborn child concerned.
To Mr Vassallo - It is insulting to the population of Malta to assume that they do not have their own and at that well-informed opinions on abortion. And what if they are influenced by their beliefs? We all have our influences. It is equally demeaning to the people of Malta to suggest that only catholics or indeed only religious people have opinions about the importance of human life at all stages.
By the way, on what surveys do you base your own opinions?
It is an undeniable fact that most laws in this world are based on Christian or other religious influences. Take "Thou shalt not steal" and, dare I add "Thou shalt not kill". Without these laws your home and your life would be more at risk than they might otherwise be, and you might not even be here yourself!
Alex Ellul
Apr 21st 2008, 22:23
If all the pro-abortionists of today were aborted by their mothers, there would not be any pro-abortionists today.
Gerry Cowei
Apr 21st 2008, 19:58
I just wanted to add that I fear even more the "obscurantism" of the politically correct pro-choice people who seek to take life back to a more primitive time when life was not understood and perhaps not so respected as it might be regarded today. It is going backwards to cheapen life just to achieve a more "liberal" society.
"Liberal "nowadays means euthanasia for unwanted old people, abortion for unwanted children and mass killings for political reasons.
Life is not cheap!
Kyle Pullicino
Apr 21st 2008, 18:17
"as Maltese law and the Church have the audacity to presume that there is absolutely not even one solitary circumstance under which abortion is justified."
Just for your information: The Church says that in cases where the woman's life is in danger (confirmed danger) than she is given the possibility of terminating the pregnancy. This is although not encouraged and I admire any women that have given their life to let another, new human being to have a go at life.
In Malta, this is illegal but in reality the woman is still given this chance and, thankfully, common sense prevails.
I'll answer your questions now:
"One, why do women often risk death (and eternal damnation if you believe that sort of thing) to get an abortion?"
It's because support services are still rather unpopular with women who are considering abortion.
"Two, why did all the civilized countries of the world legislate to decriminalize and allow abortions?"
Because money and power is involved in it all. Just because all of the civilized countries (note that you're incorrect here since I know of one civilized country, Malta, that still respects life) accept something doesn't mean it's all fair and square. And anyway, what criteria did these countries reach to become civilized in your opinion? The loss of LIBERTY to live?
"Even the most ardent supporter of abortion would recognize it as a last, difficult, emotionally painful and unattractive resort;"
There's a last, difficult but emotionally rewarding resort called "support" and "help" which many of the Maltese would be gladly to give.
"All that needs resolving is whether Maltese abortion seekers of the future will get on a plane or a bus."
Yes I agree with you that we need to make support services even more available so that the very few people who are about to get on a plane to undergo abortion notice that, there is a much better alternative which probably does more than any other "civilized" country could do (support).
Respect life and it will respect you back.
Alex Ellul
Apr 21st 2008, 17:01
To Mr. Flynn: That is what terrorists do too, they get on a plane or a bus, carry out a mass murder in another country and fly back to their safety haven at home. But that does not justify terrorism. Neither going to another country will justify abortion. Desperation does not justify any act at all. If it does, then, I will be justified in murdering my neighbour or any other living person for that matter, including an unborn child. With regards to unwanted pregnancies, how come in this day and age of knowledge, education and science, that is, availability of many types of contraceptives, do we get unwanted pregnancies? First we create a human being due to carelessness, then we destroy that human being due to egoism. Please do try to use logical arguments.
Raphael Vassallo
Apr 21st 2008, 16:57
Just to set the record straight and correct any misapprehensions, the R. Vassallo who posted a comment below is not the same R. Vassallo posting this particular comment right now. Having said that, the two different R. Vassallos in question are very much of one mind on this particular issue... always nice to know other liberals exist in Malta.
William P Flynn
Apr 21st 2008, 15:54
The question of abortion is a "no - brainer". Whatever the church, the government or the opposition, Canon Law, right to life, pro and con abortion groups say, nothing is going to stop a Maltese woman hopping on a plane and get an abortion in a civilized European country; if she is desperate enough.
I used the word "civilized" advisedly; as Maltese law and the Church have the audacity to presume that there is absolutely not even one solitary circumstance under which abortion is justified. None, nada, nix, zilch! This begs at least two simple questions. One, why do women often risk death (and eternal damnation if you believe that sort of thing) to get an abortion? Two, why did all the civilized countries of the world legislate to decriminalize and allow abortions?
Even Catholic Ireland has accepted the "zero tolerance" notion as a fallacy and legislated to cover those instances where unfortunately abortion is the only avenue.
Another key word is "desperate". Abortion is for the desperate - the exact definition of which (in this context) is best left to the person most involved in the matter of the unwanted pregnancy, the woman herself.
To all intents and purposes the horse bolted a long time ago; and it was really never tied down all that securely anyway.
Even the most ardent supporter of abortion would recognize it as a last, difficult, emotionally painful and unattractive resort; but it must also be said that the abortion question is now just an academic discussion.
All that needs resolving is whether Maltese abortion seekers of the future will get on a plane or a bus.
J.Tabone Adami
Apr 21st 2008, 15:40
Abortion, dear Mr R.Vassallo et, is simply the murder of a human being - without the victim being in any way guilty of any crime deserving death. For the record, one of the criteria for Turkey's approach to eventual E.U. membership was the abolition of the death penalty. Full stop!.
Kyle Pullicino
Apr 21st 2008, 15:32
Abortion is not liberty! It is the total opposite where someone gets to kill someone else without a valid enough reason (there's no valid enough reason to kill someone anyway).
In Malta there's enough liberty as we stand where the right to life is safe guarded and not meddled about as we please.
And your "nightmarish delusions" are evident when you say that "Public surveys carried out regarding this issue cannot really provide a realistic picture" because you fail to admit that the Maltese are still not willing to let go their right to life just so that some "helpful" doctor can make thousands off something which actually guarantees liberty (that is the right to life).
Love life and it will love you back.
J. Huber
Apr 21st 2008, 15:28
Fortunately for us Maltese both sides of the political spectrum share the same views about the killing of innocent, undefended human beings. No amount of 'progressive' (sic!) arguments will change the scenario unless the liberals (sic!) manage to garner enough grist to form a party and topple the establishment!
R. Vassallo
Apr 21st 2008, 13:58
When will the small ultra-conservative Catholic community in Malta refrain from claiming that they represent the majority (sometimes even all!) of the Maltese people? How do these people know what all the Maltese really feel about what they term as "abortion"? Public surveys carried out regarding this issue cannot really provide a realistic picture for two reasons: (a) Most people have only a bare idea of what this issue is really about; (b) Peer pressure and the tendency not to appear publicly to deviate from what they percieve as being the defacto norm.
I am sure that the great majority of Maltese people have no desire whatsoever to paint themselves into a corner regarding any matter.
And yes, when we liberals voted yes for Europe we knew what we were doing! We realised at that time that this was the only way for Malta to take the fast track to becoming a modern, progressive liberal state based upon solid scientific thought and not the deluded obscurantism of religious fanaticism.
Hopefully, in the coming years, political leadership in Malta will have to pass through a finer sieve than what has been customary until now, further paving the way towards a better life for the Maltese, sanitized off the nightmarish delusions of our primitive past.
Dr. K Mifsud
Apr 21st 2008, 10:58
The Council of Europe has an altogether different membership to the EU and the institutions are different, and not related.
The ECJ interprets EU law, not resolutions of other international organisations.
There is nothing in EU law which even remotely resembles a right to abortion of any nature - all EU law says about abortion is that this is a matter over which the EU has absolutely no legal competence - it is purely an internal member state matter.
In order to give the EU any legal competence over abortion, a change in its founding Treaties would be required - this would require unanimous agreement of the Member States, including Malta, Ireland and Poland, as well as ratification by 27 national parliaments.
The EU is not even a member of the European Convention of Human Rights (even though all member states are themselves) - the ECJ (which is the Court of the EU) is not bound by the European Court of Human Rights' case law (the ECrtHR is the Court of the Council of Europe), let alone a non-binding resolution of the ECrtHR’s political sister-organ.
The ECJ has stated as much already extensively in its case law. I would refer the reader, by way of example, to Case T-112/98, Mannesmannrohren-Werke AG v Commission, wherein the ECJ's Court of first instance stated, at paragraph 60, that it had "no jurisdiction to apply the Convention [...] inasmuch as the Convention is not part of community law." This is the view of the ECJ in respect of the European Convention on Human Rights - a legally binding text of constitutional significance within the member states - not a simple political declaration by a political body under that convention itself, which in comparison has insignificant legal weight.
The argument is actually quite simple - the ECJ interprets EU law, not anything else. Abortion is not part of EU law.
Mary Callus
Apr 21st 2008, 10:16
ItIt seems strange to me that nobody actually realized that by joining the EU, Malta would be a small fish in a large pond and that 99% of all issues that Malta & the Maltese people are opposed to would be enforced on them by the other member states. Personally, I think that it was always obvious that Malta would not have too much of a say and that Europe’s liberal views would upset the Maltese public but it seems that some people were led to believe that the EU would bend to the Maltese views and that not all European laws would be imposed on us. This however as in life is not the case, the majority rules and in Malta the majority voted to join the EU and now there is no use getting in a huff when things don't go our way. The research should have been done before now all we have to do is live with it.