One of the most striking passages in the Constitutional Court’s judgment dismissing Andrea Prudente’s case is the Court’s criticism of what it described as the role played by “so-called pro-choice” campaigners during the events that followed her pregnancy complications in Malta.
After reviewing the medical evidence and Prudente’s own testimony, the Court concluded that she had become overwhelmed by fear that she would die of septicaemia unless her pregnancy was terminated immediately. The judgment states that this fear was fuelled by information she received through internet searches and from doctors and others advocating abortion.
The Court then makes one of the strongest observations contained in the judgment:
“Din il-mara spiċċat użata minn nies, hekk imsejjħa pro choice…”
It continues:
”…biex bla ma jikkalkulaw l-emozzjonijiet tagħha u tal-missier, jressqu ’l quddiem il-bidla legali aktar estrema mixtieqa minnhom…”
The judgment even adds the English phrase:
“She played ball to their beliefs.”
The Court acknowledged that Prudente experienced genuine trauma during the loss of what it described as a wanted pregnancy. It noted that both Prudente and her partner had planned for the child, had attended prenatal appointments and had even chosen a name for their baby.
However, while recognising her emotional suffering, the Court concluded that others had used her circumstances to pursue broader legal objectives.
According to the judgment, those involved failed to take into account the emotions of both Prudente and the baby’s father while seeking to advance the legal changes they desired.
The ultimately rejected Prudente’s constitutional claims, finding that her fundamental rights had not been breached in the circumstances of the case. Nevertheless, the passages concerning the influence of “so-called pro-choice” campaigners are likely to become among the most discussed aspects of the landmark judgment.
Follow News Of Malta 🇲🇹 for the latest stories and updates.
