“It’s the opposite [of pro-life], because you will be voting against a law that will protect the lives and health of pregnant women,” Doctors for Choice said.

“Opposing this law is not ‘pro-life’ at all unless the lives of pregnant women don’t matter.”

They also left a comment under Grech’s very Facebook video.

“What an exaggeration! All this law does is allow the termination of pregnancy when it poses a serious risk to the woman’s health. Abortion shouldn’t be forced on anyone, still, the woman must be the one to choose.”

The bill came after the infamous Andrea Prudente case that saw an American woman denied an emergency abortion in Malta and was told to wait until the heartbeat of the foetus faded to nothingness or until her health situation became critical.

This case made international news, and Prudente even decided to file a constitutional court case against the Maltese authorities on the grounds that the islands’ abortion laws breach her human rights.

The Maltese government reacted by introducing a bill that lightly eases the current blanket ban on abortion, which is set to be discussed in Parliament soon.

Former MP Marlene Farrugia had also presented a landmark private member’s bill in May 2021 calling for the decriminalisation of abortion but it hasn’t been discussed.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Lovin Malta (@lovinmalta)

Moreover, PN wasn’t the only “pro-life” group opposing this new reform.

A group of signatories proposed amendments to the new bill which call for clear restrictions in order to ensure that there are no loopholes to the potential law, along with more clarity when it comes to certain situations – for instance, whether a viable foetus should be allowed to be born prematurely rather than resorting to a loss of human life in utero.

Such a “lacuna”, they said, can give rise to a “termination of pregnancy when the foetus is viable as there is no limit imposed in the provision as to what stage termination can take place.”

Meanwhile, they wanted to ensure that there are certain criteria for deciding when a woman’s life is in danger. The following factors, they argued, should not be a justifiable reason for abortion:

• Cases of rape;
• Anxiety;
• Emotional distress;
• Organic mental disorder;
• A stressful situation arising from economic circumstance or unwanted pregnancy;
• Inconvenient pregnancy;
• An abnormal foetus or;
• Such other medical, mental, psychosocial, or psychological conditions or disorders that may be treated through ordinary clinical measures.

This was signed by a number of professionals, ranging from doctors to priests and university professors.

Soon after its publication, Doctors for Choice reshared a status seemingly criticising arguments made by a theology professor that deem serious mental conditions not severe enough to allow an abortion.

“No woman shall suffer permanent disability, trauma or torture by lack of medical intervention or undue delays in obtaining important medical treatment, just because the woman is pregnant. No way.”

“So what if serious mental conditions or serious health conditions lead to permanent damage including disability? You want your women, wife and girls to risk permanent disability instead of terminating a pregnancy and trying again? And what on earth does the theology professor, an expert in unprovable beliefs and belief systems, have to contribute here?”

When responding to the proposed amendments themselves, Doctors for Choice said “it is important to stress that abortion is a reality in Malta and is already happening.”

“Pregnant people are ordering safe but illegal abortion pills online and taking them at home. The abortion ban only makes these abortions less safe, and makes people less able to seek help if they develop a complication.”

What do you make of these ‘pro-life’ criticisms?