During his time as leader, Abela had three main opportunities to foster progressive discussion on abortion in Malta – when former independent MP Marlene Farrugia proposed a historic bill to decriminalise the procedure, during the case of Andrea Prudente and after the European Parliament voted in favour of adding the procedure to the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

In the first instance, Farrugia presented a bill in parliament calling for the decriminalisation of abortion. When this happened, Abela made it clear that he was against the legalisation of abortion but maintained the importance of healthy and honest conversation, assuring he would not stifle it. For someone who disagreed with abortion, he said all the right words but he took a step back.

After the 2022 election, the bill was dropped and was never presented again by a sitting MP of either party, if he wants the political discussion to be had he can amend the bill according to his beliefs and re-present it.

When the case of Prudente broke out, intense discussions were had both at public and political levels. Malta was so close to having a progressive reform on the abortion law and even though complete decriminalisation was never on the cards, there were hopes that the legislation would be eased. Instead, the Abela administration, in tandem with the PN MPs, decided to approve a bill that sent the country even further back in time making it all the more difficult for a woman to access an abortion specifically when her life is at risk.

Yes, I understand that the tides were not exactly in his favour with the Nationalist MPs and former President of Malta being uber-conservative on the matter, but sometimes, the leader of the country needs to do exactly that – lead, even on matters that are “unpopular”. This doesn’t mean that he should have been expected to legalise it then and there, but he shouldn’t have done a 180 and supported legal amendments that made the ban even stronger.

Earlier this year, the EP agreed that abortion should be enshrined in the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights – this once again brought the topic to the surface of Maltese conversation. But the Labour Party steered clear of having any sort of opinion – except of course former MEP Cyrus Engerer who has arguably become the black sheep of the Maltese political dichotomy.

Alfred Sant was quasi-vocal, telling Lovin Malta that he believes that abortion should be legalised as a result of public desire, not foreign interference.

But in general, no Maltese MEPs voted in favour of this parliamentary action – Engerer was unavailable at the time of the vote but cosigned the report. Abela himself was quiet.

If Abela really felt a burning desire for fruitful discussion on abortion, he would have capitalised on the fact that abortion was on the peoples’ minds again and used it to spark meaningful conversation.

Onto the second point

Saying there “needs to be a discussion” is a common political tactic used to avoid making decisions or giving opinions. PL MEP Thomas Bajada said the same thing during an MEP candidate debate at MCAST.

It’s a similar strategy that’s used when politicians are asked about the environment or the state of mental health in Malta – they’ll respond “something needs to be done” when they’re the ones who have the power to do it. It’s a way to avoid responsibility while also appeasing all citizens by acting as the perfect middleman response – offending and satisfying no one.

There’s a reason that politicians in Malta do this, especially when it comes to abortion, a portion of the population does not want to have this conversation – they’re completely content with the blanket ban – while another section of society protests the stringent laws often. So, saying that a discussion must be had is not strong enough to offend the pro-lifers but not weak enough to anger the pro-choicers (for now, at least).

Moreover, it has to be mentioned that it’s highly unlikely that that Abela would actually deal with such a big issue after losing over 33,000 votes from the PL’s majority.

If there was ever a time to even slightly push on such a divisive topic, it would’ve been when the masses were backing his party, not when voters made their dissatisfaction with the government clear. There’s strength in 42,000 votes, not 8,454.

But still, if you were serious about wanting discussion, prime minister, I’m urging you to grab the bull by the horns and foster a useful discussion on abortion. And please, do not resign to the pressure when the discourse inevitably does get tense.