Abortion through the back door

It seems to me that the proponents of those who want to introduce abortion everywhere in Europe are going about it in a very wise (or cunning, depending on one's point of view) manner. As is known, Swedish MP Brigitta Ohlsson has recently launched a petition to legalise abortion throughout the European Union on the basis that it pertains to human rights rather than, as at present, a health issue. The petition calls on the European Union "to secure the right to free, safe and legal abortions and render it a human right". With the imminent ratification by all member states of the Lisbon Treaty in mind, Ms Ohlsson intends to collect more than one million signatures in order to oblige the European Commission to consider the petition. Her campaign specifically targets Ireland, Malta and Poland where abortion is banned or severely restricted. Of these three countries only Malta disallows abortion completely, the other two permit it under very strict conditions, such as to save the life of a woman under risk.

Our local pro-life campaigners are treating Ms Ohlsson's campaign with bemused disdain in the belief that (a) she cannot collect one million signatures; (b) even if she does, the European Union would only be obliged to consider the proposal to issue Europe-wide legislation on the subject; (c) in any case, the European Union cannot legislate on the matter, and lastly and more importantly, (d) Malta is secure by the safeguards on abortion in the Accession Treaty protocol.

Ms Ohlsson's target of one million signatures is not an insurmountable objective as many in our midst naïvely tend to believe. The population of the 27 member states forming the Union has reached almost 500 million in 2009. So, in practical terms, her aim is to reach one out of 500 citizens in Europe - she could probably reach that figure by simply targeting the so-called advanced liberal countries near her own country.

All this has to be seen in the light of the resolution to make abortion an "unconditional right" which was adopted by the Council of Europe Assembly April 16, 2008. This resolution was passed with 102 votes in favour, 69 against and 14 abstentions. The resolution is not legally binding on member states but it adds to the pressure on Europe to move towards legalising abortion unconditionally. Many are of the thought that the resounding nature of the vote in the CoE Assembly could influence the European Court of Justice if, and when, the issue is eventually referred to it - now a question of time and timing.

Unsurprisingly, Ms Ohlsson has lately changed tack. She is now saying that she does not intend to force countries to change their laws in favour of freely accessible abortion. You have to believe her. She now claims that if the objective of one million signatures is eventually reached then the Commission would only be pressured to raise the issue, "but they cannot force countries to do anything". Clearly, she is now trying to force her opponents to relax their opposition by assuring them of their seemingly unassailable position while she and her supporters continue to pursue unrelentingly their campaign.

In the light of all this, one ought to ask: Why did the CoE Assembly declare abortion as an unconditional right? Why is Ms Ohlsson pursuing the introduction of free and unrestricted abortion throughout Europe as a human right? I have my own answer to all this. If abortion is indeed "considered" (I'm using the word selectively on purpose) as a human right then this would be a very short step from prohibiting the placement of any restrictions by a member state on a citizen of Europe (including for that matter the Maltese) to undertake an abortion. In the famous 1991 case before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) between the Irish Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) and student groups distributing publications in Ireland containing information on the availability of legal abortions in the UK, the Advocate General attached to the ECJ proposed to have the case tested as a human right issue by tying it as to its compliance under the provisions of freedom of information and expression in the European Convention of Human Rights. Although the ECJ did not follow the path suggested by the Advocate General in its deliberations on that particular case, such linkage could still be an option in other cases once the principle of abortion as a human right is favourably considered by the Commission. It could be tied, for example, to article 14 which prohibits acts of discrimination.

Perhaps, this is, after all, what Ms Ohlsson and her supporters are aiming to achieve.