The government’s amended abortion bill has passed through Parliament’s committee stage with unanimous support from all MPs present, despite appeals by pro-choice activists for the bill which had initially been proposed to be reinstated.

The amendments to the bill, which seeks to change Malta’s Criminal Code, were presented last week, with the government changing several controversial elements of its first proposal in an act which drew praise from pro-life lobbies, and scorn from pro-choice lobbies.

The changes, which were read out to Parliament's Consideration of Bills committee by Justice Minister Jonathan Attard, sought to clarify that a pregnancy termination may only be considered when the mother’s life is at risk, when all other medical practices have been exhausted, and when the pregnancy itself is not viable.

The changes also stipulate that in such a case that the prospective mother’s life is in imminent danger, then a decision for an abortion may be taken by a single doctor; but in such cases where there is the risk that the prospective mother has a health condition where death due to the pregnancy could be a later possibility, a decision must be taken by a team of three medical professionals.

PL MP Michael Farrugia chaired the meeting while Health Minister Chris Fearne, Justice Minister Jonathan Attard, and Equality Parliamentary Secretary Rebecca Buttigieg represented the government side.

PN MPs Karol Aquilina, Claudette Buttigieg, and Stephen Spiteri represented the Opposition.

13 people – some in their individual capacity, others representing various organisations – spoke about the new bill at the committee meeting. 

Almost all of those came from the pro-choice camp, which has vehemently opposed the new changes, saying that they are a regression rather than a progression.

Activist Andrea Dibben said that no changes to the bill should have been made, and that the wording now will force women who risk blindness or paralysis, for instance, to carry their pregnancy to term. 

She noted that these were two examples mentioned by Labour MPs themselves in Parliament during the debate on the second reading of this bill, when it still had the old wording.

Dibben said that the changes – particularly that were three medical professionals will be required to take a decision – will create more delays and problems, and that they had been made just to pacify the pro-life faction.

“This decision will come back to haunt you,” she said. 

Moviment Graffitti’s Christine Cassar was most critical, lambasting the PN for having tried to stand in the way of any kind of social change such as divorce, civil union, and now this bill.  She said that the party’s leader Bernard Grech had used the name of Andrea Prudente – the American tourist whose denial of an abortion despite facing medical complications prompted this reform – as the butt of a joke, and a former MP Jason Azzopardi even peddled a conspiracy theory by her.

She said that the PN is bankrupt and built on a patriarchal system, and stands no chance of ever attracting youths to it until it gets off its “moral pedestal.”

Cassar was also critical of the government, saying that activists once saw the Labour Party as their last hope for “meaningful progress.” “What happened? Are you afraid of the Church? Of them [gesticulating to the PN’s side of the table]? Of the conservatives?” she questioned.

“We had hope in you that this would be a good law, but you’ve only made it worse,” she said.

Both Professor Isabelle Stabile and Dr Nathalie Psaila from Doctors for Choice meanwhile said that the bill underestimates how quickly a prospective mother’s medical situation may turn from clinically stable to critical, and warned that any delay in the necessary treatment may be what ultimately causes the woman’s death.

They both asked for the MPs to consider the bill in its previous wording.

Parliamentary procedure dictates that any suggestion for amendments by a member of the public must be presented to all MPs on the committee, and it will then be the MPs’ discretion on whether to accept what is before them and put it forward for the rest of the committee to consider.

Such a suggestion was presented by the activists, but no MP on the board took it up.

Marcelline Naudi from Academics for Choice meanwhile said that she knows that there are pro-choice MPs who do not believe that these changes are the way forward, and appealed to them to stand by their principles.

Life Network Foundation CEO Miriam Sciberras meanwhile – the only pro-life activist to speak at the meeting – expressed her agreement with the bill, and said that it gave women peace of mind and codifies what exist in medical practice today.

She said that she appreciated that the bill did not create any “discrimination” between “children in the womb who are strong, and those who aren’t.”

Sciberras also said that it is not true that doctors will have their hands tied on whether to save a woman or not, because in an emergency case then the doctor may act unilaterally.

Explaining the new changes, Fearne told the committee that it is not the case that a woman must be at the door of death in order for a pregnancy termination to be considered.

He noted that bill still reads that the aim is to save lives and protect the health of a pregnant woman suffering from a medical condition which “may” place her life in danger – with special emphasis being placed on the word ‘may’.

Fearne also said that the government had pushed aside an argument to restrict the medical conditions under consideration to just those affecting physical health, noting that there is no distinction between physical and mental health in the bill.

PN MP Karol Aquilina said that the PN would be backing the Bill now that it is “recognising what currently happens” by enshrining it in the law. This was not the original intention of the bill, he said, as the government previously wanted to introduce abortion in Malta through it.

“Today we recognise that the government has changed its position from putting forward and voting in favour of a law which will introduce abortion, to a law which will clarify the practices which have always been followed,” Aquilina said.

The amended bill was approved unanimously, meaning that it will now return to Parliament for the Third Reading and subsequent final vote.