[ANALYSIS] Why a referendum on IVF would be a big gamble

Seven years after the watershed divorce referendum, which saw Malta turn a page on its confessional past, the Democratic Party has touted the idea of an abrogative referendum against embryo freezing.

Speaking in parliament a month ago Godfrey Farrugia hinted that the Democratic Party would seek to hold a referendum on the legalisation of embryo freezing if the government steamrolled the amendments into law,

Judging by the size of the crowd in a protest held against the new IVF law in April, the strong networks linking pro-life groups and  the sense of purpose of those who would like the new law reversed, it will not be difficult to collect the required number of signatures (30,000-35,000). Moreover, pro-life views transcend the partisan divide. This could be one of the few issues where a category of Labour voters – who are already represented by eminent voices like that of the party’s former deputy leader George Vella – may be ready to defy the party’s leadership. But would that be enough to sway public opinion?

A gamble for the pro-life movement

Opinion polls show that a vast majority of the Maltese are against abortion even in extreme cases like rape. This suggests that opposing abortion is still normative in Malta.

The pro-life movement may well bank on surveys showing a very strong majority against abortion. But such an assessment is based on the assumptions that people equate embryo freezing with abortion.

Therefore, one would expect that the pro-life lobby would base its entire campaign on creating equivalence between the wastage of fertilised embryonic cells, to which they attribute full human personhood and abortion.

Yet it remains to be seen whether the public will make such an equivalence. For it may be difficult to compare the termination of pregnancies by those who do not want to have children, and embryo freezing by those who actually want to have children.

Sure enough there are other contentious issues related to the new IVF bill, including surrogacy and obliging couples to offer embryos for adoption, on which even liberals and feminists may have reservations.

But it is clear that the most emotional issue is related to embryo freezing; the process through which the fertilised cells are stored in liquid nitrogen for extended periods.

In reality by creating equivalence between abortion and embryo freezing, the pro-life movement would end up taking a big risk if their bid fails.

For without intending so, they would have turned embryo freezing into a ‘do or die’ issue. If they lose, abortion may really end up on the political agenda. For their defeat would have exposed their weakness.

On the other hand if they win they would have sent a strong and chilling message that the secularisation process initiated seven years ago with the divorce referendum has reached a limit and that any legislation perceived to undermine the sanctity of life is a no-go area. In this sense, although abortion is presently not on the political agenda, an IVF referendum may well determine whether it will be on the agenda in the near future.

The Irish lesson

Although it did not come as a surprise that Ireland voted to repeal the 1983 constitutional ban on abortion, nobody expected that two thirds of the electorate would back this step.

The scale of victory was reminiscent of Italy’s own abortion referendum in 1981 when 68% rejected the prohibition of abortion, substantially more than the 59% who rejected the prohibition of divorce in 1974.

In Ireland and Italy what made a big difference was that an abstract moral principle was set against real life stories and dilemmas faced by women in daily life.

Prime Minister Leo Varadkar himself credited the personal stories of women denied abortions, including their trials of travelling abroad for the procedure, with swaying the public to vote Yes.

“Ireland is a small country and politics are a personal business to a degree that only a small country can afford. That is why the referendum was won by people telling their personal stories, in public or to friends and families,” Graham Finlay, a lecturer at the University College Dublin’s School of Politics and International Relations told Politico.

Moreover, Irish public opinion was also shaped by harrowing stories of women denied abortion despite having their lives at risk.

Images of butchered foetuses

Images of foetuses and babies were everywhere in Ireland, purportedly begging from lamp-posts and billboards to be spared from what has been called by more than one anti-abortion campaigner a “Holocaust.” Still people were more ready to identify with the dilemmas faced by their daughters, nieces or next-door neighbours.

Pro-life groups in Malta would have an even more daunting task in presenting images of frozen embryos, which have not even taken a human form. Moreover, depicting women who actually want to have children, as baby killers would backfire especially in a small country where everyone is bound to have someone in his or her family who has experienced infertility.

Lessons from hunting and divorce

The pro-life movement in Malta would also risk making the same assumptions made by the No campaign in the divorce and hunting referendums.

In the case of the divorce referendum, while the yes campaign offered a new prospect of happiness to separated people and cohabiting couples, the no campaign defended an ideal but abstract concept of marriage.

While the yes campaign gave a new chance in life to thousands of separated people without taking anything from those who are happily married, the no campaign was bent on denying this opportunity to a sizeable category.

The hunting lobby also managed to depict environmentalists campaigning against spring hunting as an arrogant bunch denying hunters (and eventually other hobbyists) from one of the few joys of  their life.

In a small country where everyone may have a hunter or a hobbyist in his family, this was bound to backfire.

This is why a referendum triggered by opinion polls showing a vast majority against spring hunting ended up in a very close race.

The ultimate lesson from Malta’s recent history is that referenda meant to grant new rights and joys to people, are more successful than referenda which deny rights and joys in the name of a moral principle.

One may argue that this could open a dangerous precedent, which puts ethical considerations at the mercy of a political circus. But in itself it is an argument against invoking a popular referendum on a complicated issue like IVF.

Lashing out against embryo freezing can easily be interpreted as a way of denying one of the greatest joys of life; that of giving birth. One can easily imagine a powerful communicator like Joseph Muscat trashing opponents with such an argument.

This makes a referendum on the issue a minefield for those proposing it and particularly dangerous for the Nationalist Party which would not like to alienate more categories of voters in a highly charged single-issue referendum.

The PN would benefit more by appealing to the pro-life vote in a general election, where it can rely on other issues to sway other kinds of voters.

The Church too may also be wary of a referendum in which its voice may well be drowned by more extreme voices  more akin to US style evangelism than to moderate Catholicism which strives to build bridges with modernity instead of engaging in culture wars.

For the pro-life lobby this may be a case of ‘be careful what you ask for’. Collecting signatures to invoke such a referendum may well be the easy part. Campaigning against people who actually wish to have children of their own may well backfire.