Several weeks have passed since we were challenged to debate abortion. No formal debates have been organised so far and as far as I am aware there are no immediate signs that the government or the Opposition are willing to connect to this subject.
As much as I had claimed that the rush to discuss the subject is only in the interest of the pro-abortionist lobby, I cannot help but be deafened by the silence of both leading political parties. To date, only Ivan Grech Mintoff from Alleanza Bidla, Godfrey Farrugia from the Democratic Party and former minister Tonio Fenech have stated their opinion.
Both major political parties are seemingly weary of entering the track before understanding who the audience will be up-voting. This phenomenon is not new. We have seen both parties trail behind the activity going on in the foreground and lie in wait to see what opportunistic benefits can be claimed, before presenting their case. The spring hunting referendum, gay civil partnership laws, come to mind.
Prior to the last election, abortion was not given prominence. Apart from President Marie-Louise Colleiro Preca who had told a delegation of pro-life advocates in 2014 that her government would never legalise abortion and Joseph Muscat, reiterating his position against abortion and that if he remained at the helm of the Labour Party, he did not foresee any discussion on the introduction of abortion in Malta, there was nothing much going on. Yet this is about to change. As both their terms come to an end, we are entering an era of uncertainty.
We are facing the critical situation in that the present legislation protecting the unborn can be taken away by a simple majority in Parliament.
It appears that our politicians are always eager to jump on populist wagons, like divorce and LGBTIQ rights, however they are extremely reluctant to be actively on the leading edge of social development and take any personal initiatives to protect human life right from its inception.
It would be most reassuring if we had at least one member who took on the task of ensuring that all human life, irrespective of its physical state of development, is protected by the Constitution.
We are facing the critical situation in that the present legislation protecting the unborn can be taken away by a simple majority in Parliament
Internationally there are a number of conventions and documents which are exceptionally relevant to the case and would certainly support the cause.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Right of the United Nations states in paragraph 1 of article 6 that:
“Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”
Paragraph 5 the article states: “Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.”
The preamble to the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959) had specifically stated:
“The child shall enjoy all the rights set forth in this declaration. Every child, without any exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to these rights, without distinction or discrimination because race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, whether of himself or of his family.”
This text was changed in 1989, when a new covenant met to reach consensus and not conflict with the member state laws. “Every human being below the age of 18 years,” which does not exclude unborn humans.
In US, the inmates on death row, are subject to article 3706. Which states that:
“If it is found that the female is not pregnant, the warden must execute the judgment; if it is found that she is pregnant the warden must suspend the execution of the judgment, and transmit a certified copy of the finding and certificate to the governor. When the governor receives from the warden a certificate that the defendant is no longer pregnant, he must issue to the warden this warrant appointing a day for the execution of the judgment.”
Any politician who has enough courage to take on this challenge will be a pioneer in presenting the first case of protecting unborn life. Such legislation would revolutionise the way societies around the world look at unborn human life. As Ranier Fsadni pointed out in his opinion piece in this newspaper, being in favour of life is not being conservative but being truly progressive.
Waiting for it to happen will be too late and at this point in time I want to put a challenge to all members of Parliament. On behalf of all unborn human beings, I would like at least one member of Parliament present a private member’s Bill to be discussed in Parliament to request that the fundamental right to life be entrenched in our Constitution.
The chance to life must be defended by the Constitution and no one must be in a position to put this fundamental right in debate and in doubt. We must acknowledge that the right to a chance to life should be given to every human being conceived and nurtured during pregnancy and under no circumstance must this be breached by deliberate and pre-meditated termination.
Any breach of this right is to be considered discriminatory just like any other already recognised form of discrimination.
A medical board should be set up and should be in an autonomous and accountable position to deliberate on special cases of pregnancies which may constitute any form of life-threatening situations for the mother bearing the unborn child and must carefully, ethically and medically arrive to the most viable and medically acceptable manner in which such situations are handled.
In cases where there is minimal chance of survival of both mother and unborn, the decision as to who is given priority would be discussed between the board and the persons directly involved.
Steve Pace is a company director and ICT consultant.