Josianne Cutajar, Lawyer and executive member of Nisa Laburisti
Extending the IVF treatment, as promised in PL’s electoral manifesto, is witness of an ongoing commitment in favour of life. After a number of families benefitted from free IVF introduced during the last legislature, time was ripe to strengthen the law. With respect to the principle of equality, the service has been justly broadened offering new opportunities to more families.
Living in a democratic society, which values freedom of expression, various groups within civil society have expressed their different opinions. The whole gamut of point of views and counter arguments, on an issue with such ethical, moral, social, psychological and legal elements, was naturally brought to the attention of the President. Through her public statement, the President remains cognisant of the contrasting views that these law amendments may have created and appealed for a mature debate. Which, in effect, took place in full force, with government listening and amending the original plans, before approval by Parliament on June 19.
While expressing that the decision does not compromise her firm views and values, the President also acknowledges “the heartache faced by childless couples and their legitimate wish to become parents using today’s technological advances associated with assisted procreation, and to be given continuous assistance and support by all of society”. Such public statement could also be viewed as a bridge between the different elements of our society with a determination to eliminate the polarisation that may be created by this law. The President had the right to voice her analysis. I believe the issue cannot be looked at in isolation and must be understood in the context of what the amended Embryo Protection Act brings to our society. There are three particular elements we must consider.
Government refuses to allow people who are unable to become mothers and fathers suffer in silence
The first is that we live in a world where infertility is a real global concern with one in six couples of reproductive age experiencing real difficulties. Second, it is an issue our government has addressed over the past three years with 111 IVF assisted births taking place at Mater Dei saving Maltese families emotional and financial drain. Third, this is a law which has a strong mandate, a law which sets out to eliminate discrimination making IVF more accessible and intended to benefit mother and child.
It is a law which allows for better use of assisted reproductive science and allocates funds to do this. It is a law which will give more persons the immense joy of being a parent and give hope to those who dream of embracing a child in their arms. It is a law which is perfectly attuned to the way government has been delivering more rights in the past five years. As it did in the promulgation of other ground-breaking laws, this government could sense the grief of those most vulnerable, did not rush in weighing possibilities and gratefully adopted a position that favours life. This is a government that acts. It refuses to allow people who are unable to become mothers and fathers suffer in silence when the opportunity and science exists to alleviate this pain.
What one does not understand is Opposition’s insensitive approach against the opportunity of new lives which results from the extension of IVF service. The same Nationalist Party which in government failed to implement the 2012 IVF law, the same Nationalist Party which under Adrian Delia’s watch presented a motion in Parliament against a legal notice which grants vacation leave to infertile women seeking IVF treatment overseas. Just when will the Opposition realise that this is not the way forward anymore?
We believe in a society which cares. The government had the electoral mandate, backed by a historical majority, to reform the IVF law. Decisions had to be taken, since while discussions were correctly taking place, the biological clock of potential parents was ticking!
Claudio Grech, Spokesman on family, social solidarity, pension, rights of the unborn child.
The evening the amendments to the Embryo Protection Act were enacted I felt disheartened. Parliament had approved a law merely intended to appease sectoral political interests by sidelining the best interests of the unborn child. To top it all, the process leading to the enactment of the said amendments made a mockery out of the value of civil society and the true spirit of consultation.
Now, to start analysing the merits of the President’s message regarding this controversial legislation one has to trace back to the early days when the draft Bill was placed on the agenda by government. An ill-conceived and rushed Bill triggered an unprecedented wave of opposition and protest from the pro-life members of civil society who raised their points with dignity, resolve and conviction inspired by the value of human life and the rejection of the commoditisation of embryos.
The voice of the President is the voice of the nation – a nation that cherishes life
At that early juncture, the President had already made a bold and unprecedented step to publicly appeal to set aside the inexplicable urgency and hold a genuine consultation as these were not matters to be rushed. In making this statement at this early stage, the President made a choice borne out of wisdom, reason and values that she upholds. She made this genuine appeal as she longed for a revision of the proposed Bill in order to – as a minimum – mitigate the damage of what was being proposed.
And indeed government did ‘consult’, only to have the final Bill worse than the original one, with the maximum number of embryos allowed to be frozen topped to three as of the first cycle instead of one, as originally proposed. During the ‘consultation’ in the Parliamentary Committee, members of civil society were utterly ignored and in instances met with sheer hostility by the same government that had committed itself to ‘consult’.
Parliamentary procedure is a numbers game. Government dictated to its MPs (including those uncomfortable with the Bill) to vote in favour, as they all did. In a stark and significant contrast, we as PN MPs were granted a free vote and the full liberty to vote in accordance with our individual views. More significant is that every single PN MP voted against the Bill in all its stages. This notwithstanding, the Bill was approved and went to the President for its consent which the Constitution stipulates she has to give “without delay”. No ifs or buts.
Standing Order 184 of Parliament provides for the President to deliver a message to Parliament. This procedure is seldom used and evidently was a measure of last resort taken by a President faced with the testing ethical dilemma of either upholding the Constitution or reflecting her personal values.
In her strongly-worded statement she emphasised that embryos should not be treated as objects and concluded by saying that the moral fabric of our nation is eroded when respect towards human life in all its stages is undermined. Many criticised the President for making her personal views and beliefs known in such a powerful way, leaving no doubt about her stand.
Having led the parliamentary process on behalf of the Opposition in this Bill, I laud the President for having the courage and resolve to make such a compelling statement on behalf of the people. She demonstrated she is not yet just another puppet and although the Constitution binds her to assent, she made amply clear what her views on the law are. Her statement was a minor but meaningful solace in this bitter journey which ended in a legislation running counter to the common good, enabling the freezing of unborn children, potentially suspending their development for over 20 years.
In the end, we were told that “the President has her opinion like any other citizen”. Of course she does. The President is indeed a citizen like us, but the voice of the President is the voice of the nation – a nation that cherishes life and that no parliamentary majority can ever change.
If you would like to put any questions to the two parties in Parliament send an e-mail marked clearly Question Time to editor@timesofmalta.com.