The private members' bill filed by MP Marlene Farrugia and seconded by her partner MP Godfrey Farrugia has and will continue to spark fierce debate across Maltese society over an issue considered so taboo that both major political parties wouldn't dare touch it with a ten-foot pole. Before going into the merits of the bill itself, it does seem as though there is some alternative motive behind the introduction of this bill, especially when taking into account its timing and the author who wrote it.
Marlene Farrugia was elected on the PN ticket back in the 2017 election, however, interestingly, she represented a different party. How was this possible? The single transferable vote system, the type used in Maltese elections, is technically an ideal way for smaller parties to gain representation, as the electorate is able to transfer its votes from one candidate to another, with votes for candidates representing different parties completely possible. However, because Malta employs a district-based system, this so-called advantage for smaller parties is quickly diminished, as candidates representing smaller parties must obtain a quota of votes not nationwide, but rather solely in the district in which that candidate contests. In the 2017 election, the PN and the newly formed PD Party joined forces creating the famous Forza Nazzjonali. Using a clever ballot trick, candidates of the PD ran officially on the PN ticket, however, under the title of Tal-Orangjo. Consequently, this allowed Farrugia to get elected in the 10th District, relying on traditional PN supporters who felt secure that their overall vote would nevertheless benefit the PN.
Why is this digression important? Well, not long after the 2017 election, following the vote confirming Adrian Delia as Leader of the PN and by extension, Leader of the Opposition, both Marlene Farrugia and Godfrey Farrugia made the decision to form an independent grouping in the House of Representatives, thereby enjoying a free choice when faced with a vote. This choice has not always sat well with PN voters, who feel that Farrugia simply used the name of the PN in order to get elected, without respecting the terms of the coalition. Now having resigned from the PL back in 2015, and now also having resigned from the PN in 2018, Farrugia has nowhere else to go in order to get elected again. In the latest MaltaToday survey, support for ADPD, Malta's most recognised third-party, stood at a measly 0.5% and in Malta's history since Independence, no independent candidate has managed to gain election to the House.
What other options are there? Perhaps bringing up an extremely controversial private members' bill in the final months of the current legislature in the midst of a global pandemic could work? The latest survey conducted in 2019 showed that Malta's population remains overwhelmingly against the legalisation of abortion, with 90.3% of respondents agreeing that unrestricted abortion should not be offered in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. That number only decreases to 87.5% when respondents were asked if they were comfortable with abortion only in particular circumstances during those first 12 weeks. However, it is undeniable that there exists a vociferous and highly passionate minority who view the topic of abortion as a fundamental reproductive right that should be made available for all. It might be worthwhile for Farrugia to consolidate the support of this minority in a push to get elected, or even just a push to remain relevant politically. Whereas the major parties don't dare bring up abortion for fear of losing votes to the other side, being an independent MP allows Farrugia to simply focus on herself, and she has nothing to lose.
There are many questions which need to be asked, even before looking at the bill. Why is it being proposed now? Why not wait until after the next election? The 2017 manifesto of the Forza Nazzjonali clearly emphasises the desire of the coalition to protect the right to life, including that of the unborn child. And the 2017 manifesto of the PL does not indicate their intention to introduce abortion either. There is, therefore, no mandate upon which Farrugia can introduce this bill, as the people did not vote on this issue. If the private members' bill were indeed legitimate, it would call for a referendum on the issue instead and not for the decriminalisation of abortion just like that.
And that is exactly the point, this bill is not legitimate, nor does Farrugia intend it to be. This is merely a bill that wishes to provoke society into a raging debate at a time when tensions are already running at boiling point. Throw the abortion issue into the mix, without any electoral integrity as the issue did not feature in any party's manifesto, and we might just burn the house down. This is not to say that a nationwide discussion should not take place. Malta, after all, is the only country in the EU which does not permit abortion under any circumstance, although it is already general practice for medical professionals to perform an abortion if the mother's life is at risk. Farrugia is also well aware that simply advocating for the respective amendments to the Criminal Code will not legalise abortion. Article 33 of the Constitution protects the right to life as a fundamental right and try convincing a judge of the Constitutional Court that an unborn child does not deserve such a right. This will result in a long-protracted legal battle in front of the highest Court in Malta, likely to take several years to resolve.
But this is not even the biggest issue. The bill proposes the removal of Article 241 of the Criminal Code, which prohibits an individual (usually the mother) from procuring a miscarriage. The bill also proposes the removal of Article 242, which provides for a term of imprisonment for a medical professional who performs the miscarriage. The act of abortion is therefore, broken down into two separate offences (unless performed by the mother herself): the woman who procures the miscarriage and the medical professional who performs the miscarriage. These are two completely different aspects. It does make sense to strike off Article 241, thereby decriminalising the act of the procurement of a miscarriage, as a woman who feels the need to make such a decision should be supported and given all the help available, in the first place to avoid relying upon the option of abortion, but also equally important, following an abortion itself. This is an extremely emotional decision that could affect a woman for many years after and she must be shown empathy and compassion in order to be able to deal with any trauma which may arise later on in her life.
However, by also decriminalising the act of the medical professional who performs an abortion, and by not replacing the law with a separate regime, this will lead to a lawless, unregulated and dangerous situation in which abortions will be performed without any safety impositions and at any stage in the pregnancy. We might end up with abortions being performed in side street alleyways with no supervision to the detriment of women themselves. And that is why we must question the integrity and intention behind Farrugia's bill, especially when taking into account the strong and absolute position she took against embryo freezing and abortion in a Facebook post back in 2015. Her constituents who lent her their support deserve better than that. Her position in favour of such an issue had to be expressed before the previous election.
This is shoddy, hastily-drawn up bill which will only make the situation worse. It is a clever ploy to gain popularity and political relevance, knowing that it has absolutely no chance of ever being passed into law, at least in its current format. Farrugia's ultimate ambitions are not yet clear, however, a defeat of the bill in the House will likely put a dent into the pro-choice campaign, perhaps even weakening their overall position. In the meantime, the country will continue to be divided and tensions will continue to escalate with no end in sight.