Chris Fearne’s Proposed Abortion Law Wording Change Fails To Satisfy Pro-Life Activists
Leading pro-life groups have rejected an amendment put forward by Health Minister Chris Fearne to the wording of the proposed abortion bill.
With the controversial bill set to be discussed at Parliament’s committee stage, Fearne told journalists that the government will propose adding two more clauses to address public concern.
One amendment will clarify that no pregnancy should be terminated if the unborn child can be birthed and live independently, essentially ruling out the prospect of very late stage abortions.
The second will try to safeguard against doctors using the law to carry out abortions even when the mother’s life or health if not in serious risk, although Fearne hasn’t explained how this will be worded.
A recent protest in Valletta against the proposed abortion law
However, the Inti Tista’ Ssalvani pro-life coalition, which is led by the Life Network Foundation, Doctors for Life and I See Life, rejected Fearne’s proposed compromise.
Arguing that unborn children can usually live independently around 24 weeks from conception, they warned that the proposed amendment will allow abortions before that time, leaving late term abortions illegal.
“The Government has no mandate to legislate for abortion, yet what it seems to be proposing would allow, for instance, the abortion of a five month old unborn child for reasons ‘that could’ put the life of the mother ‘at risk or her health in grave jeopardy,” the pro-life groups said.
They noted that the World Health Organisation’s official definition of ‘health’ is vast, encompassing ‘physical health”, “mental health” and “social wellbeing”.
“With this addition, the amendment is looking even more similar to the United Kingdom Abortion Act 1967, that has allowed for over 10 million abortion, 98% of which are for reasons of ‘mental health’,” the pro-life groups said.
“The coalition urges the Government to provide the necessary clarity in the text of the amendment such that any medical intervention allowed to safeguard the mother clearly excludes the direct and intended harm to the child in the womb.”
“The Inti Tista’ Ssalvani coalition is still waiting for a response from the Prime Minister to have a meeting regarding this amendment.”
Do you agree with the proposed amendment?
READ NEXT: Watch: Silvio Parnis Given Final Farewell, With Coffin Passing In Front Of PL Headquarters
