Dear Editor;

Following the discussion of conscience and the abortion law on Sharon Simon’s Voice of the People, Observer Radio, November 4, 2026, a very well-informed caller pointed to the importance of provisions for “public morality” in our constitution.

This is an important observation and we welcome it.

The phrase occurs about eight times in our constitution. It always seems to appear, along with others, to give certain reserve powers to the state. For example:

“Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of … the interests of defence, public safety, public morality or public order.”

We are at a disadvantage. All of us are not learned attorneys; we are mere lay advocates. We could not readily find a definition of public morality. This leaves us to presume that the words are open to rather subjective interpretation.

But more important, the comment on public morality was employed only in respect of women having unprotected sex and women allegedly terminating pregnancies for convenience or expediency to complete their education. So only women are irresponsible.

We invite the distinguished commentator and your readers to view a brief Ted Talk:

Apparently, we do this all by ourselves.

For there was no reference to public morality of the male role in unprotected sex or in the resulting pregnancy.

Does public morality suddenly arise only at the point of an unintended pregnancy? Are men somehow absolved from public (sexual) morality?

Men are free to impregnate; but women are not free to terminate.

We are misogynistic without even being aware of our prejudice – our quiet but violent implicit bias.

Sincerely,

ASPIRE

Source: Antigua News Room LETTER: Abortion and Public Morality.