The debate

The first question asked students whether they were satisfied by the sex education they received in school.

Only one person said yes… and she wasn’t Maltese.

Attendees shared the opinion that Malta is sorely lacking a unified syllabus that’s implemented within all schools – Church, private and state institutions alike. Malta currently adopts a guideline-based approach through a regularly updated document that provides teachers with a framework to design and deliver their curricula.

One of the students who attended a Church school shared that during she was shown a film titled The Silent Scream – an anti-abortion film produced in the 1980s. It has been described as having “medical, scientific and legal untruths” yet this student said this was the only education she got on abortion.

When asked whether  schools should be allowed to make their own decisions on how to teach sex education, most attendees disagreed while a handful of others were undecided.

One undecided attendee explained that while it is important to have a holistic and regulated approach to sexual education, strong consideration needs to be taken on who’s controlling it.

Another attendant pointed out that having varying syllabi can mean that the quality of education will differ among Maltese students, further creating or exacerbating existing inequalities.

Abortion

A big topic of conversation during this debate was abortion. Most, if not all, students subscribed to the pro-choice mentality and urged that bodily autonomy is a human right that should be respected.

Ploumen was clear on her position; abortion is healthcare and healthcare decisions are “yours to make”.

“There is no right or wrong decisions, the importance is choice.”

She was understanding of Malta’s position and continually referenced the importance of discussion and debate, saying that the one thing society has learned from this longstanding battle is the best way to engage in discussion. She applauded this debate for doing just that promoting dialogue.

One big reason the students called for more comprehensive sex education is due to Malta’s abortion ban: “a weak education system coupled with an abortion ban is a recipe for disaster”.

Similarly, criminalisation does not stop abortions from happening, they just stop safe ones and they discriminate against those who cannot afford to seek foreign treatment.

“Bans do not hurt the privileged. By banning abortion, you’re pushing the marginalised in society deeper into marginalisation.”

The moderator then asked whether health care providers should be held criminally liable for assisting individuals access abortion; everyone said no.

Sharing information on abortion is legal in Malta, albeit intimidating considering the legal repercussions faced by healthcare providers who provide abortions. Doctors who help women have abortions in Malta outside the very limited instances allowed by law, face a maximum of four years in jail and a permanent revocation of their licence

Meanwhile, the women face a maximum of three years.

Interestingly, one of the foreign participants at the debate was shocked to hear the jail term facing doctors.

“I’m confused, doctors can go to jail for providing an abortion?” she asked. 

“Yes,” a student replied, “we’ve even had similar cases lately. One woman was criminalised after her abusive ex partner reported her to the authorities for having an abortion.”

When prompted about limits to abortion related to the gestational age, there was a mixed response among the students.

One person who disagreed said there could be complications for abortions at later stages but also explained that some health concerns developed within a foetus can only be detected at a later stage, so the option to abort should be there.

Meanwhile, another student stated that in Ireland, some doctors have prolonged the process or even lied about the stage of pregnancy to prevent a patient from accessing an abortion. She went on to argue that most abortions happen within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy but it should be allowed at all stages to avoid malicious attempts to delay the process.

Ploumen stated that in the Netherlands, an abortion can be had up to 24 weeks of pregnancy because it is after that point a foetus can survive outside the womb. However, most abortions in the Netherlands happen within the first 8 weeks. 

The morning after pill

Accessible contraception fits comfortably in the argument for a comprehensive policy that prevents the need of abortions.

When asked about the morning after pill (MAP), most students agreed that it should be made available to people under 16 years old. While it is not ideal to have people below the age of consent having sex, it is the reality.

“It would be a lot better for someone to have access to the MAP than to have to have a pregnancy or to seek an abortion,” one student said.

One of the panelists referenced Malta’s high teenage pregnancy rates as proof of this reality and urged that we can’t keep “burying our heads in the sand”.

Meanwhile, another student pointed out that debating about the age of accessibility for the MAP cannot happen until “we acknowledge that many pharmacists refuse to sell it at all”. Here, the student was referring to the pharmacist’s right to conscientious objection which allows them to refuse to sell the medication due to personal beliefs.

This is a controversial policy considering the slim time window emergency contraception can be taken in as well as the fact that people have the right to access healthcare.

The health ministry has proposed adding the emergency contraceptive pill to the national formulary – which means that it will be free of charge in Mater Dei and state clinics – in the Sexual Health Strategy that has been launched for public consultation.

Overall, it was refreshing and hopeful to see such a large number of young people sit down and discuss this pressing issue facing Malta. While it would have been extremely productive to have students assuming the “pro-life” ideology attend the debate too, this did feel like a significant step in fostering such dialogue in Malta.

Another notable aspect of the debate is that students attended because lecturers were not allowed to, implying fear of repercussions and penalisation for personal beliefs. There were students from all types of courses, including the medical and legal fields, and the unfortunate reality is that their identities have to be protected because of the consequences they may face now or after they graduate.

University is the institution where all dialogue must be encouraged, and KSU did a good job at ensuring this while also taking into account the realities. However, the fact that students are afraid to speak openly is a major cause for concern.

In 2024, students in Malta – an EU member state – should feel safe to put their names and faces to a cause they care about. It is now the responsibility of our government and academics to make sure they do.