Prime Minister Joseph Muscat on Wednesday condemned the intolerance of opposing views that had led to the expulsion of a Member of Parliament from the House for the first time in many years, in “intolerable” circumstances.
Speaking during the debate on amendments to the Embryo Protection Act, he referred to the expulsion on Monday of Opposition MP Godfrey Farrugia, who reacted explosively to government MP Julia Farrugia Portelli’s comment that Dr Farrugia and fellow PD MP Marlene Farrugia were opposed to the Bill because they were in the financial position to travel abroad for IVF if they needed it.
Referring to a statement, published on the Democratic Party’s Facebook page, which referred to Ms Farrugia Portelli as a “village escort,” the Prime Minister stated that the use of such language to attack female MPs - referring also to attacks on Nationalist Party MEP Roberta Metsola last year - should provoke concern.
To this, Opposition MP Marlene Farrugia responded by claiming to be “the most attacked person in the country” following the death of Daphne Caruana Galizia, attributing this fact to the Democratic Party’s faithfulness to the truth.
She referred to comments made in her regard by government MP Joe Debono Grech in the previous legislature, pointing out that, not only had he not been expelled, he had been elevated to the National Order of Merit.
Dr Muscat spent much of his intervention quoting from his contribution to the debate which had discussed the second reading of the original Embryo Protection Act back in 2012.
As the then-Opposition leader, he had objected to the fact that the Nationalist government had stepped back from the version of the Bill that had been unanimously approved by a bipartisan committee, adding that the Opposition would be voting in favour of the Bill because it would be “irresponsible” to postpone further in a context of no regulation at all.
The Bill discussed in committee had resembled the Bill currently before the House more than the Bill that had actually been approved in 2012 and the Labour Party’s position, he said, had not changed a tot.
The Prime Minister added that the concept of embryo freezing had in essence already been introduced in the 2012 law; it made no difference whether this was in exceptional cases or not.
Asserting that the Labour Party was categorically against abortion, he said that the fact that cryopreservation was already permitted put paid to the myth that embryo freezing was abortion.
Although the government was willing to discuss the Bill to formulate it better, including to further protect against stem cell research and other ethical issues, he concluded that there could be no discussion with those who were against IVF or against the amendments outright, as there could be “no compromise” on principle or on medical best practice.
He lamented hearing of fresh stigma against IVF children, and cautioned MPs to be cautious of the narratives which they chose to perpetuate.
Dr Farrugia said that the Prime Minister had lied to the House with a straight face by conflating exceptional cases with standard practice, arguing that medical practitioners sometimes had to take decisions, in extreme instances, to preserve life.
Condemning the fact that many government exponents, and the Bill itself, referred to embryos as “fertilised cells”, she said that it was clear to all those who had been pregnant that, from the first moments of pregnancy, “a new life” could be felt within oneself.
Dr Farrugia questioned whether the government intended to liberalise the IVF market, and whether a resident embryologist would be appointed specifically to cater for medical tourism, insisting that she was not against the latter but wished to be properly informed.
She requested the tabling of the contract currently governing public-private partnerships for the provision of IVF services. She also questioned whether the National Paediatric Intensive Care Unit - where all babies resulting from IVF were housed following birth, due to a tendency to premature and/or underweight birth - was equipped to cope with additional demand for its services following the passage of the law.
Calling for completely free access to IVF, including medicines and other costs, Opposition MP Robert Arrigo called the amendments “an attempt to play God by tweaking his creation”, and said that the minister ultimately responsible for implementing the law would have to implement a process with which he did not necessarily agree.
“What would happen if a different minister were elected?” he asked, asking whether partisanship and familial ties would have an effect on the decisions taken.
However, government MP Deo Debattista insisted that IVF was a medical procedure like any other, and that it did not involve “playing God” just like organ transplants, stent implantation, and the use of heart-lung machines.
Lamenting the changing face of Malta, which he said had changed in all but name, Mr Arrigo indirectly referred to Opposition Leader Adrian Delia’s comments that the large influx of immigrants was changing the fabric of Maltese society, and asked whether his tour buses would have to explain to passengers that those living in certain areas of the country did not speak Maltese.