Throwing out the embryo with the bathwater

If further proof were needed that the so-called 'pro-life campaign' in fact serves a purely political objective - and a partisan one at that - the recent concerted attacks on Labour MEP Prof Edward Scicluna, to the effect that he 'voted for abortion' in the European parliament last week, should provide it.

Technically, the vote in question was on an EU resolution aimed at combating HIV/AIDS, as part of the European Parliament's commitment to reaching the UN Millennium Development Goals by 2015. It did however contain a direct reference to abortion in paragraph 22, which "calls on the Commission and Council to... inter alia... access to emergency contraception; safe and legal abortion, including post-abortion care..."

Nationalist MEPs Dr Simon Busuttil and David Casa voted against the entire resolution on the grounds that it contained the above paragraph. Scicluna was the only one of three Labour MEPs to be present for the vote; which he took in line with the Party of European Socialists, and approved the resolution in toto.

But having been 'warned' (some might say 'threatened') in advance by a supposedly non-political NGO called the Gift of Life Foundation, he also registered an objection to paragraph 22 before going on to approve the whole resolution.

Ironically, Gift of Life itself admitted that Scicluna voted against the abortion reference, in a press release in which it also accused him of having approved them. The following excerpt, from GoL's website, illustrates this textbook example of Orwellian 'doublespeak' in glaring terms:

"Although Professor Edward Scicluna initially voted against certain anti-life parts of the resolution, he eventually voted in favour of the entire final resolution which included ensuring access to safe and legal abortion, emergency contraception and comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services (which usually include abortion)."

Underpinning this curious logic is an observation that speaks volumes about the sheer extremism implicit in this foundation's entire outlook: "Just as a child does not partially die in an abortion," the press release states, "one cannot be partially pro-life".

This is of course debatable. One might argue that is perfectly possible to object to individual clauses on the basis of one's pro-life stance, and yet to support an entire resolution once one's objections have duly been made known. Paradoxically this is Malta's current official policy with regard to the same issue: a policy devised in 1995 by former Prime minister Eddie Fenech Adami, whose government ratified the Cairo Programme of Action on Population and Development in 1995, after registering a formal objection to Chapter 7

Although there is no mention of 'abortion' by, the wording of the declaration asserts (among other things) that: "the right of men and women to be informed and to have access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable methods of family planning of their choice, as well as other methods of their choice for regulation of fertility which are not against the law...."

Judging by the recorded objection, Fenech Adami understood this to be an indirect allusion to abortion. But Malta nonetheless ratified the declaration regardless, which effectively means that there was no substantial difference between Fenech Adami's behaviour in 1995, and Scicluna's last week.

The question therefore arises: why was GoL's reaction to these two cases so markedly different? Why did GoL publicly berate Scicluna for the way he voted... while at the same time applauding and even honouring Malta's former PM Eddie Fenech Adami with a 'pro-life award'... despite the fact that he had exactly the same thing as Scicluna:  only several years earlier, and with far more serious long-term consequences (the Cairo declaration having been instrumental in defending the very same female reproductive rights that pro-lifers are so determined to overturn)?

And besides: why was no objection ever raised to the fact that Malta's former EU Commissioner Joe Borg publicly reiterated support for the Cairo declaration... when grilled by EU parliamentarians specifically about his views on abortion in 2004?

Using Gift of Life's logic, as applied above - i.e., that one cannot be 'partially pro-life' - Malta cannot partially approve the Cairo document without also relinquishing some of its own pro-life credentials. This in turn means that Fenech Adami must also be tarred with the same pro-choice brush that GoL seems to use only in connection with Labour and Green politicians.

The same applies also to Dr Borg, whose vigorous support for the Cairo declaration (unlike either Fenech Adami or Edward Scicluna) was not even qualified or tempered by any personal objection.

If GoL is to be consistent and credible, it must now withdraw its former award for Fenech Adami, and insist that Malta repudiate its 1995 ratification of the Cairo declaration. But herein lies the rub: GoL is neither credible nor consistent... as a cursory glance at the precise sequence of events this week will confirm.

Consider the following chronology. The EP vote was taken on Thursday 1 December.... two days before Scicluna announced his decision to stand with Labour at the next general election: an announcement embargoed until the following day (Sunday), a fact which gave the PN media plenty of time to calibrate and co-ordinate its attack.

Curiously, no mention was made of his EP vote on Friday or Saturday. It was only on Sunday - the day his candidacy with labour was made public, that PN newspaper Il-Mument carried a story to the effect that Prof. Scicluna had 'voted for abortion' in the European Parliament that week.

The very next day - right on cue, as it were - Gift of Life expressed 'concern' at Scicluna's vote, and asked for an explanation. As though to underscore the demonstrable collusion that clearly exists between Gift of Life and Nationalist party on this issue, this press release was in turn given front-page prominence by In-Nazzjon on Wednesday.

All things told, then, it is not Scicluna who owes the public an explanation. On the contrary, it is Gift of Life itself that should explain its connections with the party in government, and why it has consistently adopted different standards when dealing with Nationalist and non-Nationalist politicians respectively.