The pro-divorce lobby was not out to have abortion introduced after divorce, Iva chairman Deborah Schembri said.

Fielding questions during a press conference yesterday, Dr Schembri said she was vehemently against abortion and even though countries that had divorce had abortion, the two trains of thought leading to their introduction were completely separate.

“Divorce legislation impinges on no fundamental human rights,” Dr Schembri said.

Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando said he was pro-life to the point he had defended Malta’s pro-life stand at the Council of Europe. Labour MP Evarist Bartolo said he had backed a proposal to enshrine the rights of the child into the Constitution.

Dr Pullicino Orlando criticised Paul Vincenti, of Gift of Life, for saying the yes for divorce movement would see abortion being introduced after divorce. “Paul Vincenti knows I am against abortion,” he insisted.

Reacting, Mr Vincenti said he never said Dr Pullicino Orlando was not pro-life but that many arguments being made by people in favour of divorce could easily be made in favour of abortion, which was the experience in other countries where both abortion and divorce were legal.

Dr Schembri said a cohabitation law would not benefit separated couples because the state could not recognise a new union while an existing one (the broken marriage) was still in place. This meant any benefits or protection would not be available for the people who needed it most.

“It’s important to have a cohabitation law after a divorce law is introduced,” Dr Schembri said, adding the only way to protect separated people in new relationships was through divorce. She advised against having many rights and benefits given to cohabiting couples “as this would make it almost identical to marriage and people would question whether to marry or not”.

When asked whether divorce legislation would bring marriage down to a form of cohabitation, she disagreed, saying divorce legislation would only be used by people who had tried marriage and failed.