Random Thoughts on the Abortion Bill

with Richard Kamwezi... who we presume you already know.

Another Friday.

Ever since I started sharing the views of people on the Termination of Pregnancy Bill (and even before that) people have been asking me what my views were. Rather interestingly, some have been asking me for my “professional opinion” taking it from the fact that I come from the health profession. I found that pretty interesting because the last time I went into a debate on the Abortion Bill, I was in a meeting of the Society of Medical Doctors and a rather hot debate emerged. At the end of the day, even the Society of Medical Doctors did not reach a conclusion as to what the stance of medical doctors on the legalization of safe abortion is. This is probably why such a thing as a professional opinion would be rare if not non-existent as it all goes back to personal beliefs and convictions.

There has been a surge of reactions to the abortion bill following the demonstrations organized by the Episcopal Conference of Malawi and the Evangelical Association of Malawi. The social media is awash with comments on the issue of abortion and some of the comments make me wonder if people know what the new bill and its implications.

So, how did we end up with the bill that has divided Malawi’s elite into pro-life and pro-choice? The Malawi government decided to review its policies on termination of pregnancy and there were special “people” (I think they call them commissioners or something) who were chosen to review the draft. The commission comprised of lawyers, religious leaders and rather necessarily a gynecologist (only one). I would have had the names of the people who were on the commission if I put some effort into it, but I doubt that I would have had the courage to put them in this article with the heat around the issue. The job of these people was to draft a new bill on the termination of pregnancy for tabling in parliament. As expected, they came up with the document we are all reacting to and referring to as the abortion bill.

In short, the bill talks about the circumstances in which termination of pregnancy can be allowed, who has to do it and under what conditions. I have reasons to believe that most of you have some vague knowledge of some of what I have said. I personally would say that I understand the viewpoint of the people who drafted the bill. Looking at the conditions that abortion can be allowed I the country as stipulated by the bill, one would note that the rules have been loosened. The possible reason for this, however might be that people might have seen the need for bringing in the safety for those people who would like to terminate pregnancy for reasons like incest or rape. Their reasoning might be that whether it is done in the hospital or not some of them still go on and procure abortions and that some of them do it in the “unsafest” of places. The interesting thing is that they later present with post-abortion complications using up government resources, human or otherwise.

On the other side of the same coin, I know Malawi as a country where regulation of pretty much anything is a bit of an issue. While the termination of pregnancy issue has conditions on when termination of pregnancy should happen, I am inclined to think that the legalization of the termination of pregnancy as stipulated by the bill will equate to the legalization of abortion on demand. Every person who has been in Malawi for at least a year would understand this and it is because people have their own way of manipulating the system. This is the same fear that people who have labeled themselves as pro-life are using as one of their arguments (only that they are not presenting it the right way). On the other end of the spectrum, we have people who are realists; those who acknowledge that abortions are happening in the country and that we just need to bring the safety to those who need them. The two groups have gone on to copy western faction system where we have pro-life people on the “holy” end of the spectrum and the pro-life on the liberal side of it. I find this very faulty for the issue at hand and this is why I am not commenting on whether we should legalize abortion or not, but rather on what it wrong with the bill. This should not be a debate on whether the bill should be passed or not because MPs are the ones who have the constitutional power of waiving or shooting it down. What we should soberly be discussing (and not debating) is the issue of what should be changed in the termination of pregnancy bill to make it more practical so that it should do more good than harm. I am bringing this up because I have seen an intersection of arguments and that what all people want; whether pro-life or pro-choice might just be the same thing at the end of the day; a healthier nation.

I have heard people who are campaigning against the legalization of the termination of pregnancy putting up arguments that even in situations that endanger the life of the mother, termination should not occur. What we are failing to see here is the fact that if we lose the mother in pregnancy we also lose the child whose rights we claim to be fighting for. I am not sure as to whether to comment on the issues of rape and incest because when I look at those, I find myself in agreement with the pro-life; there are other ways of avoiding pregnancies resulting from such and we should capitalize on them rather than push for legalization of termination. One might argue that things are not always perfect and that we still need to make a provision for when things go wrong. While that might be a valid point, our bill is very loose when it comes to who authorizes the act of termination unlike in other countries like Zambia where after obtaining a police report, two specialist gynecologists have to sign for you to get your termination. The level of effort people have to put in acts as a hinderance and people do not terminate as frequently.

The pro-choice are putting a lot of emphasis on the fact that we need to promote safe abortions whose unsafe versions are already happening in the society. It is a valid point if you look at the complications of abortion that we treat in our hospitals on a daily basis. We could probably save a bit of money we spend on treating these post-abortion complications and we could prevent loss of life if we were providing safer options for our women and girls. When I look at the potential abuse this may face, however, I find myself wondering why we should divert our attention from other issues to start providing the termination of these potentially avoidable pregnancies.

I find myself partly agreeing and partly disagreeing with both the pro-life and the pro-choice. That tells me that we do not need these factions. What we need to do is to sit on the same table and to see what can be allowed into the bill to make it accommodative while making it abuse free at the same time. We have to look at each other as allies not as enemies. What we have to know is that abortions, whether necessary or not, are happening in our hospitals and in our communities. I find it faulty to be fighting against necessary terminations that are aimed at saving the lives of the mother and I suggest that we focus our attention towards the discussion on the other conditions for the termination of pregnancy.

While pondering on what is best for the bill and for the country, think of the 14 year old girl who has no proper support system and is pregnant having been a victim of rape. Would you be inclined to provide termination to save their life? Or would you overlook the complications of pregnancy and childbirth ahead? I do not have the answers, but these are the sort of dilemmas that people will have to deal with when the law is passed.

There are a lot of people who are arguing based on religious beliefs while others are arguing based on science and statistics. I think there is a provision for merging the two and we can come up with a solution that is appealing for both. The commission that came up with the bill we are debating had both ends plus people from the legal profession. I am sure that could be replicated as we aim at amending the bill.
Final word? The issue of the termination of pregnancy bill should be a discussion more than it should be a debate. The bill is a necessary thing but I would want to see it amended before it is passed.

Pro-life and pro-choice fellas. Let's get off the extremism and get on the discussion table. It is not easy, but this bill can be fixed.