What an eventful week we had in Parliament.
On Wednesday, the House approved the domestic violence bill. Astonishingly, 20 members from the Opposition voted against it. The first MP to make it amply clear that he was against this bill was Edwin Vassallo, when he argued, with an incredible stretch of imagination, that this bill was leaving the door open for the introduction of abortion. Edwin Vassallo is a declared staunch conservative, and I respect him for always being very clear and loyal to his principles. However, how he arrived at this conclusion is beyond me. He seemed to have managed to influence a significant number of PN MPs. At the very last moment, before the vote, a visibly angry Adrian Delia said he was going to give a free vote since, according to him, giving more protection to victims of domestic violence, is a 'matter of principle'. The truth is that he knows very well he has no control over his Parliamentary group, and had to come up with a last- resort flimsy excuse to somehow save face. He went a step further to say that if elected Prime Minister he would repeal this law.
The object of the Gender-Based Violence and Domestic Violence Act is to amend various other laws in order to ensure that adequate, sufficient protection is available to victims of violence, and ensure that justice is done with regard to perpetrators of such violence. The bill will, in effect, also lower the age of consent to 16, a move which has been welcomed by the National Youth Council and others.
It beggars belief that an aspiring Prime Minister should vote against a bill which gives more protection to victims of domestic violence. Not only is the PN split on this matter, but it gives further proof that Adrian Delia, like his predecessor, is being negative and unconstructive just for the sake of it. I believe it is healthy for society to have a fair and decent debate about important and sensitive issues, but to achieve this, the legislator has to rise above petty partisan divide.
This week we began debating the amendments being proposed by the Government to the Embryo Protection Act. The IVF law is a delicate subject with important ethical and medical implications. If ever there was a bill that required a mature un-polarised debate, this is definitely it. Having contrasting opinions on such a matter is to be expected, but the least we politicians can do is to hold a civil, decent debate, which respects all those families that will be affected significantly by this legislation. Unfortunately, on Monday, Adrian Delia, did the opposite. He opted to ridicule the subject and went as far as hysterically attacking those who declared themselves in favour, including the Commissioner for Children, Pauline Miceli.
Following Adrian Delia's speech, the President, in a rare move, weighed in and expressed her concern over the "hostility" shown in the public debate on the proposed IVF amendments. She went a step further by appealing for a "calm" debate and "inviting parliamentarians, civil society, and all stakeholders to come together around a table to have an informed debate that fuses the ethical and moral considerations with scientific expertise for a law that fully reflects the medical potential".
The introduction of the Embryo Protection Act was a long-awaited breakthrough. Although IVF has brought joy to many infertile couples, the law on medically assisted conception, as it is now, is very restrictive. The need to improve it further and make it accessible to more families was first flagged back in 2015. This was further crystallised in the Labour Party electoral manifesto, which is now a Government programme to be implemented.
The proposed amendments to the original bill provide for the possibility of gamete donation, for the cryo-preservation (freezing) of fertilized eggs and for the de-criminalisation of non-commercial surrogacy. Very importantly, they also remove the gender discrimination contained in the old law. The concept of embryo freezing is already in place in the existing law, so much so that we currently have a number of cryo-preserved embryos at Mater Dei. What is being proposed now, is to further the scope of embryo freezing so as to incorporate scientific advances for the benefit of hopeful parents. This would reduce the hardship encountered by a women at such a delicate moment in her life. Those couples who agree with embryo freezing must give their consent for the unused embryos to be adopted. Otherwise they may opt-out and use the current method of IVF.
As a parliamentarian, I feel privileged to be voting on a bill that will bring more equality in our country, while giving new opportunities to infertile couples to have their own children. On such a sensitive subject let us put our partisan divide to one side. I am all for having a healthy mature discussion, where we can agree to disagree. But I appeal to all to be more respectful and sensitive in their arguments. We owe it to all those infertile couples who are eagerly hoping to have their own children.