Amy Coney Barrett Open to Overturning Roe v. Wade  Because Precedent Isn’t Forever

Amy Coney Barrett Open to Overturning Roe v. Wade  Because Precedent Isn’t Forever

At the forefront of so many Americans’ minds is the question of how Amy Coney Barrett would rule on abortion if confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Barrett, President Donald Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee, would replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a heroine of abortion activists who consistently ruled in favor of abortion during her nearly three decades on the court.

A new analysis on the Law and Crime blog suggested Barrett may indeed believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and rule against it, if the opportunity arises.

U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri strengthened pro-lifers’ hopes Tuesday when he said Barrett meets his expectations. Among other things, the pro-life senator said he “wanted to see evidence that the nominee understood that Roe was wrongly decided, that Roe was an act of judicial imperialism.”

According to Law and Crime, Barrett’s statements and writings about Supreme Court abortion cases as well as stare decisis, which means sticking to past legal precedents, suggest that she may rule to restore protections for unborn babies.

SIGN THE PETITION: Vote to Confirm Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett

Evidence of this comes from a 2013 lecture that Barrett gave at the University of Notre Dame, where she is a law professor. In “Roe at 40: The Supreme Court, Abortion and the Culture War that Followed,” Barrett questioned the way in which the high court ruled on Roe v. Wade.

“It brings up an issue of judicial review: Does the Court have the capacity to decide that women have the right to obtain an abortion or should it be a matter for state legislatures? Would it be better to have this battle in the state legislatures and Congress rather than the Supreme Court?” she asked, according to a student newspaper report.

“Roe was a dramatic shift. The framework of Roe essentially permitted abortion on demand, and Roe recognizes no state interest in the life of a fetus,” Amy Coney Barrett continued.

While Barrett also said it was “very unlikely” that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe and subsequent abortion ruling Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the blog noted that, at the time she said it, the Supreme Court had a liberal majority.

Notably, Barrett was a member of the Notre Dame University Faculty for Life Group from 2010 to 2016, and she received an award from the Thomas More Society, a pro-life Catholic legal group, in 2018.

Her writings also suggest that she does not believe the Supreme Court should uphold Roe just for the sake of precedent, or stare decisis.

In a law review article “Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement” mentioned in her Senate questionnaire, Barrett wrote that “stare decisis is a soft rule” and “one of policy rather than as an inexorable command.”

A “more relaxed form of constitutional stare decisis” is “both inevitable and probably desirable, at least in those cases in which methodologies clash,” she continued, focusing on issues of precedent that justices disagree with personally.

In the article, she also mentioned Casey, an abortion ruling that came after Roe and decided that states may not pass laws that impose an “undue burden” on women’s so-called right to abortion.

She wrote:

Stare decisis is a self-imposed constraint upon the Court’s ability to overrule precedent. The force of so-called superprecedents [“cases that no justice would overrule, even if she disagrees with”], however, does not derive from any decision by the Court about the degree of deference they warrant. Indeed, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey shows that the Court is quite incapable of transforming precedent into superprecedent by ipse dixit [editor’s note: that’s Latin for just because the court says so]. The force of these cases derives from the people, who have taken their validity off the Court’s agenda. Litigants do not challenge them [superprecedents]. If they did, no inferior federal court or state court would take them seriously, at least in the absence of any indicia that the broad consensus supporting a precedent was crumbling.

These statements and others suggest Barrett may be a strong pro-life justice who recognizes that human rights are for all human beings, born and unborn.

If confirmed by the Senate, she would solidify a strong 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Pro-life leaders have praised her as an excellent choice for the court.

Barrett is a former clerk of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Like Scalia, she has been described as an “originalist” judge. Though her judicial rulings on abortion are few, she did rule in support of two Indiana pro-life laws during her time on the Seventh Circuit.

She also has made several statements about the value of babies in the womb. According to the Law and Crime blog, Barrett signed a public letter in 2015 that emphasized “the value of human life from conception to natural death.” She also said she believes that life begins at conception.

A hearing on her confirmation is scheduled for Oct. 12 in the Senate.

This is a Life News opinion piece

MICAIAH BILGER   SEP 30, 2020   |   5:46PM    WASHINGTON, DC

Ref: https://www.lifenews.com/2020/09/30/amy-coney-barrett-open-to-overturning-roe-v-wade-because-precedent-isnt-forever/

 

President Trump Issues Executive Order to Protect Babies Who Survive Abortions

President Trump Issues Executive Order to Protect Babies Who Survive Abortions

Late Friday night, President Donald Trump issued an executive order doing something Democrats in Congress refused more than 80 times to do: provide medical care for babies who survive abortions.

The president had indicated earlier in the week that he would issue the order and, on Friday night, he made it official.

“Every infant born alive, no matter the circumstances of his or her birth, has the same dignity and the same rights as every other individual and is entitled to the same protections under federal law,” the order reads.

With Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats rejecting the Born Alive bill over 80 times, allowing abortionists to essentially get away with infanticide, President Trump announced an executive order today that would require medical care be given to infants who are born alive after failed abortion attempts.

Law are already in place to protect babies who survive abortions are born prematurely but the laws are not being followed and not being aggressively enforced. The order would provide additional information and educate hospitals about the laws so they are followed properly.

“Despite these laws,” the order says, “some hospitals refuse the required medical screening examination and stabilizing treatment or otherwise do not provide potentially life-saving medical treatment to extremely premature or disabled infants, even when parents plead for such treatment.”

The Executive Order responds to concerns that hospitals have refused to provide medical screening and stabilizing treatment to vulnerable newborns, including those who are premature, born with disabilities, or born in medical distress.  The Executive Order explains that hospitals may issue these refusals “because they believe these infants may not survive, may have to live with long-term disabilities, or may have a quality-of-life deemed to be inadequate.”

“HHS’s mission is to protect the health and well-being of all Americans, and that means all Americans—including infants born prematurely and infants with disabilities,” said HHS Secretary Alex Azar. “The President’s Executive Order is another step by the most pro-life President in American history and ensures that we provide the same protections for innocent infants who are born premature or with disabilities that we provide for every other American.”

For instance, in May 2020, HHS determined that an Ohio hospital had failed in 2017 to ensure medical screening examinations required by EMTALA were performed for twins born prematurely (at 22 weeks gestation) who were not sent to the hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit and died within several hours after delivery

The Executive Order clarifies that all individuals, including these vulnerable babies, are protected under the law.  Examples of federal protections include:

The Executive Order places a number of requirements on the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS):

  • The Secretary must ensure that all federal funding recipients understand their obligations under federal law.  In particular:
    • They have an “obligation to provide an appropriate medical screening examination and stabilizing treatment or transfer, when extremely premature infants are born alive or infants are born with disabilities.”
    • They “may not unlawfully discourage parents from seeking medical treatment for their infant child solely because of their infant child’s disability.”
    • They must “allow the infant patients to be transferred to a more suitable facility if appropriate treatment is not possible at the initial location.”
  • The Secretary shall investigate complaints of violations of federal laws that occurred respecting infants in need of stabilizing treatment whose parents sought medical care for them.  The Secretary shall take appropriate enforcement action against violations of federal law.
  • The Secretary shall “clarify, in an easily understandable format, the process by which parents and hospital staff may submit such complaints for investigation under applicable Federal laws.”
  • The Secretary shall prioritize grant funding to:
    • “Research to develop treatments that may improve survival — especially survival without impairment — of infants …who have an emergency medical condition in need of stabilizing treatment.”
    • “Programs and activities …that provide training to medical personnel regarding the provision of life-saving medical treatment” for these infants.

The Secretary is directed to issue regulations or guidance, as necessary, to implement this order.

Earlier in the week, President Trump signaled he would hand down the pro-life order.

“Today I am announcing that I will be signing the Born-Alive Executive Order to ensure that all precious babies born alive, no matter their circumstances, receive the medical care that they deserve. This is our sacrosanct moral duty,” the president said today at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.

Leading pro-life groups told LifeNews.com they were delighted by the news.

The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) celebrated President Trump’s announcement of a new Executive Order, saying “Prematurely-born infants are some of our most vulnerable patients. As a professional medical association dedicated to caring for both patients in question during a pregnancy — the woman and her unborn child — AAPLOG applauds this commonsense order.”

Dr. Donna Harrison, MD, AAPLOG’s Executive Director, said: “AAPLOG has advocated for our most vulnerable patients since we were founded decades ago. We released a Committee Opinion on Fetal Viability during the previous Administration, and we are pleased with this morning’s announcement by the President to ensure at-risk patients receive a consistent standard of care. This is a major victory for patients and providers.”

And Jeanne Mancini, President of March for Life, told LifeNews that this order adds to the long list of pro-life accomplishments during the Trump administration.

“President Trump once again has stepped up for life. His actions today provide necessary legal protections for some of the most vulnerable in society: survivors of failed abortions. These steps had to be taken because some Democrats in the Senate promised to block legislation that mandates basic medical care for children who survive an abortion – an extremist view shared by Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris. While any abortion is one too many, the reality is that Americans overwhelmingly want to see greater protections for the most vulnerable. These protections are a strong step in the right direction and the Senate should move quickly to codify the President’s Executive Order and pass Senator Ben Sasse’s (R-Neb.) Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” she said.

“President Trump’s executive order protects the youngest of patients and ensures that their right to life is defended to the greatest extent of the law,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life.

“We thank President Trump for his dedication to the right to life and for working to protect all innocent human life,” said Tobias. “He is a champion for the most vulnerable among us and committed to guarding the right to life of all babies—born and unborn.”

The new order comes as national polling shows Americans — including people who are “pro-choice” on abortion — oppose abortion up to birth and infanticide. And doctors indicate abortions are never needed to protect a woman’s health and women admit having abortions on healthy babies.

And a new poll finds a massive 17 percent shift in the pro-life direction after Democrats have pushed abortions up to birth and infanticide nationally.

H.R. 962, the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, introduced by Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO), ensures that a baby born alive after a failed or attempted abortion receives the same medical care as any other newborn. It would also penalize doctors who allow such infants to die or who intentionally kill a newborn following a failed abortion.

Joe Biden has never denounced the rejection of the anti-infanticide bill and his running mate Kamala Harris voted to block it in the Senate.

 

This is a Life News opinion piece

STEVEN ERTELT   SEP 26, 2020   |   10:20AM    WASHINGTON, DC

Ref: https://www.lifenews.com/2020/09/26/president-trump-issues-executive-order-to-protect-babies-who-survive-abortions/

Pro-Life Groups Support Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett: She’s an “Absolute All-Star”

Pro-Life Groups Support Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett: She’s an “Absolute All-Star”

President Donald Trump today nominated federal appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be the next Supreme Court justice and that nomination has the strong support of pro-life groups.

“President Trump has chosen an absolute all-star in Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve as our nation’s newest Supreme Court justice,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “Amy Coney Barrett is a brilliant jurist in the mold of the late Justice Scalia, and President Trump could not have made a stronger selection to fill this Supreme Court vacancy. We have full confidence that the pro-life Senate majority will move swiftly to confirm her before the election.”

“An accomplished woman of bold conviction, Amy Barrett withstood outrageous personal attacks on her Catholic faith from pro-abortion senators with grace and integrity during her 2017 confirmation hearing. Judge Barrett has shown courage, wisdom, and brilliance during her tenure on the 7th Circuit. Her experience and expertise make her extremely qualified to serve on the nation’s highest court,” Dannenfelser continued.

During her acceptance speech, Judge Barret talked about the correct approach a judge must take: “A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policy makers and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.”

SIGN THE PETITION: Vote to Confirm Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett

That resonated with pro-life advocates like Carol Tobias, the president of National Right to Life.

“We commend President Trump for his nomination of an impressively well-qualified judge to the Supreme Court,” said Tobias. “Judge Barrett has demonstrated a commitment to defending the text and history of the Constitution and the principles of judicial restraint.”

She told LifeNews.com that President Trump’s nominee stands in stark contrast with the judicial-legislative activists who would be nominated by Joe Biden. Joe Biden has promised to impose a litmus test of his nominees.

Tobias said she expected a fierce confirmation battle over abortion during Barrett’s confirmation hearing.

“Make no mistake—this confirmation battle will be over abortion because the Democratic Party and pro-abortion Democratic senators will oppose any nominee, no matter how qualified, if the nominee has not pledged in advance to uphold and maintain abortion on demand,” she explained.

“Democrats are prepared to engage in a scorched earth campaign in an effort to block an eminently qualified nominee,” said Tobias. “Shame on them. Shame on Democratic leaders in the Senate for their negative propaganda and for dragging candidates through the mud just so they can curry favor with pro-abortion groups.”

Barrett, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, believes life begins at conception and has noted how both pro-life and pro-abortion legal experts have criticized Roe v. Wade as a bad decision. Barrett criticized the ruling for “ignit[ing] a national controversy” through judicial fiat.

Though her judicial rulings on abortion are few, she did rule in support of two Indiana pro-life laws during her time on the Seventh Circuit. She also has made several statements about the value of babies in the womb. According to the Law and Crime blog, Barrett signed a public letter in 2015 that emphasized “the value of human life from conception to natural death.”

Barrett, a mother of seven, was a former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia. Like Scalia, Barrett describes herself as an “originalist” judge.

When it comes to abortion cases, Barrett has been on the pro-life side. She voted in 2016 to allow a hearing on a pro-life law from the state of Indiana that requires abortion centers to offer a proper burial or cremation for babies they kill in abortions. And in 2019, she voted to allow a hearing on another Indiana pro-life law allowing parents to be notified when their teenage daughter is considering an abortion so they can help her make a better decision for her and her baby.

Barrett has served on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since 2017 after being confirmed by a vote of 55-43. A summa cum laude graduate of Notre Dame Law School, she joined the school’s faculty after serving as a law clerk to Judge Laurence Silberman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Barrett and her husband Jesse have seven children, including two adopted from Haiti and a young son with Down syndrome. The Barretts live in South Bend, Indiana.

 

This is a Life News opinion piece

STEVEN ERTELT   SEP 26, 2020   |   6:02PM    WASHINGTON, DC

Ref: https://www.lifenews.com/2020/09/26/pro-life-groups-support-scotus-nominee-amy-coney-barrett-shes-an-absolute-all-star/

This equality bill that will destroy diversity – Alan Deidun

This equality bill that will destroy diversity – Alan Deidun

There are those who will resort to every trick in the book to silence the Church

The term ‘diversity’ is normally a byword for abundance, choice, alternatives and a plethora of other positive connotations. The positive timbre of the term extends to different contexts and domains, from the biological sciences (the safeguard of ‘biodiversity’ has become a global conservation priority) to philosophy (having a ‘diversity of views’ in society is seen as the best antidote to an authoritarian view) as well as to human rights (which advocate against discriminating towards the diverse minorities within society on the basis of sexual orientation, religion or creed, race, etc).

It is against this backdrop that the current equality bill 96/97 is being peddled by Parliamentary Secretary for Equality Rosianne Cutajar, with such a bill being bandied about as the champion of diversity, when in actual fact it’s anything but.

In fact, some of the clauses within the bill have an inherently homogenising effect, by promoting the watering down of any differences in ethos between Church and non-Church schools on these islands, thus effectively doing away with the supposedly cherished diversity in schooling, reeking of a communist, one-size-fits-all philosophy.

Perhaps two of the most maligned provisions of the equality bill concern the recruitment of educators and the relegation of their Catholic ethos to the religion class only, in Church schools.

Concerning the first issue, I heard a very fitting anecdote from a friend of mine within a similar mindset on the proposed bill. According to him, removing the discretion of Church schools to screen applicants for a post at their premises on the basis of their ethical/moral constitution is tantamount to a casino running the risk of recruiting applicants who are vehemently against gambling or to a wildlife sanctuary management organisation running the risk of recruiting a convicted arsonist.

Swinging the pendulum back from such extreme scenarios, Church schools have not shied away from employing individuals who might not be viewed as complying with the tenets of Catholic ethos, embracing diversity in views and lifestyles in a practical way. Thus, the trepidation within the movement behind the proposed equality bill is hard to fathom, especially when considering the inclusive human resources recruitment track record of Church schools. The relegation of any moral/ethical teaching to the prescribed religion class can be couched within the decades-long debate in this country concerning the role in society that the Church should take.

While the secular nature of our republic and the distinct separation between Church and state matters are cast in stone and recognised by all and sundry, the attempt at rendering the Church ever more redundant in today’s society by relegating its teachings to religious buildings and activities only betrays a lack of understanding of the Church’s mission as a key societal stakeholder, that of promoting its ethos and lifestyle model in everyday life.

“Parliamentary secretary Rosianne Cutajar would do her portfolio justice if she endeavoured to make the Equality Bill less discriminatory and more inclusive”

Given the Church’s advocacy role in contemporary society, on issues related to environmental degradation, human rights and dignity (being evident in debates on abortion, migration, drug legalisation), there are those who will resort to every trick in the book to silence it as they are uncomfortable with the message it is conveying. Church schools are just the latest battleground in such a struggle.

The merits of the argument are even easier to grasp if we limit ourselves to Church schools only. Presumably, most, if not all, parents of students attending Church schools do so since they specifically wish their offspring to be instilled in a Catholic ethos and not just on academic grounds. It’s a conscious decision and choice, and the parental faculty to decide on their children’s education will be eradicated if the equality bill gets the green light. The same proposals also avoid giving any quarter to an educator’s right to conscientious objection on the premise that this is discriminatory, paving the ground for witch-hunts of staff members deemed as incompliant and despite the fact that such a right is entrenched within the legal books of many countries and institutions.

Proponents of the ‘equality bill’ repeatedly refer to the agreement between the Holy See and the Maltese Republic on Church Schools (1991) which supposedly gave successive Maltese administrations an implicit foothold in the running of Church schools on the premise that teachers employed within such schools are being paid for by the state. In doing so, the same proponents are implicitly or explicitly oblivious to the fact that, within the same agreement, the Maltese state recognises the right of the Church to establish and direct its own schools according to their specific nature and autonomy of the organisation and that the Church was true to its end of the bargain by passing over vast tracts of land to the state.

This agreement obliges Maltese Church schools to follow the National Minimum Curriculum submitted by the education division but not to shy away from promoting the Catholic ethos. From a more mundane perspective, the state’s subvention of Church schools is limited to just the core/regular teaching staff and an additional 10 per cent payment, with parents having to financially support the engagement of assets such as counsellors, lay chaplains and inclusion coordinators among others, besides regular maintenance and upgrading works within Church school buildings.

It is inherently hypocritical to witness those who profess to be firm believers in a diversity of views, sexual orientations, religious creeds and races to concomitantly be so against a diversity in schooling on these islands. It is perhaps more sinister to witness the same paladins of human rights being so openly discriminatory against those (who are definitely not the ‘privileged few’) who consciously opt for an inclusive Catholic education for their children.

Parliamentary secretary Cutajar would do her portfolio justice if she endeavoured to make the equality bill less discriminatory and more inclusive.

Prof. Alan Deidun is Director of the International Ocean Institute – Malta Training Centre and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Biology (London)

This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/this-equality-bill-that-will-destroy-diversity-alan-deidun.819829 

Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies at 87

Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies at 87

The Supreme Court says pro-abortion Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died of metastatic pancreatic cancer at age 87. Her death will undoubtedly set off a massive campaign to determine her replacement and President Donald Trump may fight aggressively to appoint her successor — whether he is re-elected in November or if pro-abortion Joe Biden wins.

Should President Trump be able to name a replacement, the new SCOTUS justice will likely be someone who upholds the rule of law and isn’t willing to go along with left-wing judicial activism. That would make it much easier to uphold pro-life legislation saving babies from abortion — and could realistically make it possible to envision the overturning of Roe v. Wade and its allowance for abortion on demand.

Just 9 days ago President Trump released a list of potential Supreme Court nominees from which he would nominate any future judges on the nation’s highest court if he is re-elected to a second term. The list includes the kind of conservative jurists pro-life groups support because they have a history of upholding pro-life legislation or following the rule of law rather than legislating from the bench.

Ginsburg, an idol of abortion activists, has has ruled against rights and protections for unborn babies. She also has made some discriminatory statements that are reflective of the old eugenics thinking rooted in abortion activism.

In 2019, for example, when she accepted the Berggruen Prize, she brought up poor women as a reason for her support of abortion:

Ginsburg noted that poor women are the only people being affected by lack of access to abortion.

“One of the things that happened after Roe v. Wade is that women wanted to be able to control their own destiny. They won, so they retreated. And the other side geared up, and we have the situation that we have today,” Ginsburg said. “[People should] care about it the way they did when many women didn’t have access, didn’t have the right to choose. It is so obvious that the only people restricted are poor women. One day, I think people will wake up to that reality.”

Though abortion activists portray such talk as sympathetic, their solution is not to help struggling women out of poverty but to abort their unborn babies.

In 2009, Ginsburg caused a stir when she made comments about Roe v. Wade that also hinted at eugenics.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of,” Ginsburg told the New York Times.

Then, in 2014, she told Elle magazine something similar, “It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.”

Ginsburg consistently rules against all abortion regulations and restrictions that reach the high court.

In 2016, she was one of the five justices who sided with abortion activists in the decision Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which struck down Texas abortion clinic regulations that protected women’s health and safety. Ginsburg and four other justices ruled that these safety regulations were an “undue burden” on women’s access to abortion.

She also sided with the Obama administration in trying to force nuns with the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for drugs that may cause abortions in their employee health care plans.

After a majority of the high court justices sided with Hobby Lobby in a similar case, Ginsburg accused them of being sexist. In an interview with pro-abortion media icon Katie Couric, Ginsburg lashed out at her colleagues and claimed they have a “blind spot” towards women because they decided that Hobby Lobby should not be forced to pay for drugs that may cause abortions for their employees.

Last year, Ginsburg criticized fellow Justice Clarence Thomas for referring to women who have abortions as “mothers.”

And in October, former President Bill Clinton admitted that abortion was a major factor in his decision to nominate Ginsburg to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

This is a lifenews.com opinion piece

Ref: https://www.lifenews.com/2020/09/18/pro-abortion-supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies-at-87/

There is nothing more progressive and liberal than protecting human life – Bishop Galea-Curmi

There is nothing more progressive and liberal than protecting human life – Bishop Galea-Curmi

Homily by Bishop Joseph Galea-Curmi for Mass organised by the LifeNetwork Foundation in memory of abortion victims around the world 

Today, we are commemorating the precious human lives which were cut short during their development, and thus could not be born. They never had the opportunity to show the world their potential. We mourn the loss of these unborn lives, because human life should always be cherished. Their loss is a great loss for us all. It is not only a loss for those who believe in Christ, but also a loss for all those who, in one way or another, value human life from its conception.

However, today, we also mourn with those who took the decision to terminate human life in its early stages. There could have been so many reasons for them to do this.  They might have found themselves in a situation where they could not understand fully what they were doing, and what the consequences would be. Perhaps they faced great hardship and did not find the support they needed. Instead of finding people to help them, they could have been under pressure to terminate human life. Whatever the reason, may they now find people to support them as they go through the process of forgiveness in order to arrive at complete healing. May those who made this wrong decision find the help they need to be able to start afresh, and work fervently in favour of life.

Whoever wants to end human life in its early stages is not progressive but regressive. It has been said correctly that the strength of a society is measured by the progress of the most vulnerable.

Protection in Society

We are also here today to renew our commitment to work actively in favour of life, even when we are faced by a mind-set that is promoting a culture of death. We should remember that, when slavery existed, this mentality was commonly accepted. By time, thanks to the involvement of courageous people, a number of societies understood the injustice involved, and began to work wholeheartedly against slavery, rejecting the concept completely, because it went against human dignity.

Today, in various parts of the world, there is a mentality which accepts and promotes the ending of a human life which has been conceived, but not yet born. It is a widespread mentality. We hope and pray that the time will come when, just as different societies saw the error of their ways and worked wholeheartedly against slavery, they will do the same in the case of human life, that is, become fully aware of the reality, and work passionately against the idea that someone can end another person’s life.

Progressive and liberal

At times, it is said that if one is progressive and liberal, one must advocate for the right to choose to eliminate human life that has started, but has not yet been born. However, if you take the time to reflect on the meaning of progressive and liberal, you will realise that there is nothing more progressive and liberal than the safeguarding of human life.

We pray for consistency where the cherishing of life is concerned … Anyone who is begging for help because he is drowning, literally or metaphorically, should also have his or her life safeguarded.

What does it mean to be progressive? It means that you want progress; you want people to move ahead in life. I presume it means that you would want progress for everyone. A person is progressive when s/he can guarantee that the few cells that are present at the beginning of human life can continue progressing. On the contrary, whoever wants to end human life in its early stages is not progressive but regressive. It has been said correctly that the strength of a society is measured by the progress of the most vulnerable.

What does it mean to be liberal? It means that you treasure liberty, and that you do not want anyone to obstruct liberty. This implies that we should respect everyone’s liberty to develop and have a better life. When there is human life at an early stage, being liberal means allowing it to live, not eliminating it.

A Prayer

Today we ask the Lord to strengthen our resolve to value life and protect it from all danger. In a special way, we value the life of the most vulnerable, those without a voice, those who depend on others completely.

We pray for consistency where the cherishing of life is concerned – that is, from the moment of its conception to its natural death, and in its every stage. Anyone who is begging for help because he is drowning, literally or metaphorically, should also have his or her life safeguarded.

We pray that doctors, nurses, and those who work in the health sector, will always be faithful to their mission of upholding the value of life, as is their duty, and to do this even when it means obeying their conscience and saying ‘No’.

We pray especially for those mothers who are facing difficult situations, that they may find the help and support they need for the protection of life, and that they never end up victims of abusive systems.

We also pray for our country, that it will never succumb to the pressure against life but will be a country that accepts and appreciates every human life, creates awareness about the value of life, and has laws that protect and safeguard life.

Joseph Galea-Curmi Auxiliary Bishop, Archdiocese of Malta

 

This is an article from The Archdiocese of Malta Website 

Ref:  https://church.mt/there-is-nothing-more-progressive-and-liberal-than-protecting-the-human-life-bishop-galea-curmi/

A call for diversity and more transparency

A call for diversity and more transparency

The Equality Bill as presently formulated has several shortcomings

The quest for social justice, equality and the adherence to fundamental human rights has always been embraced by Church schools. As many students can attest, our schools safeguard and promote these values – which is why we welcome initiatives such as those included in the draft legislation Equality Bill 96 and 97.

We are stakeholders in the national effort to promote equality but we are also educators with a mission and a duty to uphold our school ethos and tolerance. We work hand in hand with those hundreds of parents who send their children to our schools to learn about our Christian faith and our ideals. We want a law which respects diversity, not one which is oppressive, imposes a bland uniformity on all and leads to persecution by prosecution.

This is the reason why we put forward proposals to Parliamentary Secretary for Equality Rosianne Cutajar. The Equality Bill as currently formulated has several shortcomings, several of which threaten freedom of religion and freedom of expression. The Venice Commission (European Commission for Democracy through Law) has also commented unfavourably on certain aspects of the draft equality legislation which shows that we are not the only ones to voice concern about it. The Independent Schools Association has also presented its amendments to the bill. Sources from other faith communities are also very concerned.

Our proposals to the parliamentary secretary Rosianne Cutajar were primarily twofold. In the first place, we want to continue our mission to promote and celebrate our particular school ethos by being allowed to employ persons who respected that ethos, particularly in the leadership roles within our institutions. School leaders are the interpreters of faith to the community. It is not discriminatory to expect the leaders of our schools who will perpetuate that ethos, who are not hostile to it and who will fashion a framework around that Christian ethos.

We want to retain the freedom to engage such educational leaders in this crucial role. We cannot understand why the parliamentary secretary is so adamant in closing the door to this eminently reasonable suggestion. The leaders of a political party, of trade unions are expected to embrace its ideals, so why are Church school educators and leaders being denied this right? Why is this being described as discriminatory only when Church schools wish to engage leaders who reflect and perpetuate their values? It is ironic to see that legislation, which is supposed to promote equality, is actually discriminatory in effect.

If the law is enacted as formulated, Church schools will have next to little choice as to whether to engage persons who are openly hostile to their values. This is utterly disrespectful of the hundreds of parents who wish their children to experience religious values and norms in a communal educational setting. There are parents who wish to send their children to Church schools specifically for this reason.

We want a law which respects diversity, not one which is oppressive and imposes a bland uniformity on all

Relegating religious values to a 40-minute slot during a religion lesson is not what the parents wish for their children. Such values are imbibed during all lessons, activities and extracurricular outings and yes – we would like to be able to engage people who are willing to participate in these holistic activities. We don’t understand why Cutajar continues to describe this as discrimination. We are hurt to see her thinly veiled attacks on us, describing us as “the privileged few” and portraying us as being hostile to the LGBTIQ+ community.

It is a known fact that members of this community form an integral part of educational communities – even at senior management level. We value them and appreciate their contribution just like anybody else.

We also asked the parliamentary secretary to introduce a clause to allow persons to register a conscientious objection based on belief, creed or religion to perform, participate, endorse or promote any measure. This was deliberately misrepresented as a request for a licence to discriminate.

It is nothing of the sort. On the contrary – forcing people to participate or endorse acts to which they object because of deep moral objections is undemocratic and despotic.

The right to conscientious objection is recognised in many democratic states. In the Declaration on the Importance of Strengthening the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Conscience made in Brussels, on April 21, 2016. Members of the European Parliament stressed that freedom of conscience is a fundamental right that needs to be protected everywhere.

Only recently, 14 associations representing various medical specialities called for the inclusion of a conscientious objection clause in a new law on equality, currently before parliament. The associations stated that “Doctors should not be faced with clinical situations where they are forced to act against their ethical convictions or be deemed liable if they exert their freedom of conscience.” Like us, their support for the introduction of a conscientious objection clause is also motivated by the implications of the supremacy clauses included in the bill. These will allow the new law to override criminal and civil laws if a matter of legal contention arises.

Despite these repeated pleas to listen to reason and experts in the field, our suggestions have not been taken up. The process by which the bill is being passed through parliament is obscure and not transparent. It is a pity that stakeholders’ concerns and suggestions are not being taken on board. We are ready to continue promoting non-discrimination in good faith. We hope that our proposals will not continue to fall on deaf ears.

Fr Charles Mallia is Delegate for Catholic Education; Fr Jimmy Bartolo is Rector of St Aloysius College and coordinator of the Church Schools Association; Claire Bonello is representative for Church Schools Parents’ Associations; Sr Rachel Frendo is Provincial of Augustinian Sisters and vice president of the Council for Religious Major Superiors.

This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/a-call-for-diversity-and-more-transparency.818551

 

At the mercy of equality – Miriam Sciberras

At the mercy of equality – Miriam Sciberras

As parliamentary committees reconvene after the summer COVID-imbued break, the Equality Bills discussion rears its ugly head again.

Why should equality laws cause worry and concern to the ordinary law-abiding citizen?

Why have so many people – educators, doctors, employers, organisations, parents, faith groups, schools and NGOs – sounded warnings over such a seemingly innocuous positive legislation?

The dual Bill legislation 96 and 97 is set to change our Maltese landscape like nothing else before.

Vague definitions that include harassment will pose a threat to peaceful people who dare express an opinion on any of the protected characteristics.

Pitching in both sexual orientation and religion together as protected characteristics in these Bills will obviously lead to an escalation of controversy at some point in time.

All Christians, including Catholics, have clear teachings on sexual conduct which no law can change. This has never been a problem until now because people are free to believe, to reject or to embrace their faith and live it in the public square as they deem fit for them.

The Equality Bill makes a mockery of religious freedom by relegating it to a barely tolerated issue– Miriam Sciberras

If Bill 96 sails through without including an overriding clause on religious freedom and conscientious objection, faithful believers will be sued and will be at the mercy of a police state where they will be suddenly under a gag order if they fail to endorse what they do not believe in.

There will be an obvious conflict established by the new law, and the hierarchy of rights will be challenged.

Treating people with respect, tolerance and love of neighbour can never mean endorsement, support or approval of behaviour that goes against their conscience or faith.

Imposing acceptance or endorsement in the name of equality is unacceptable. Threatening people into compliance is tantamount to brainwashing and Marxist indoctrination.

This moral code, which has been the backbone of families and our country for centuries, is now at the mercy of an ‘anti-discrimination law’, which ever since its evil inception was targeted at believers and marketed as a desirable quality. In fact, anti-discrimination laws worldwide do not allow religious freedom and conscientious objection because that is what they are targeted to exclude.

One look at the aftermath of equality laws in other countries shows that peaceful law-abiding citizens are being persecuted for simply living out their faith.

People have been taken to court for wearing a cross around their neck; pastors preaching the Gospel have been sued; children have been taken from their parents if the letter failed to endorse hormone treatment of their minors; midwives have been struck off the register for failing to assist in abortion procedures, and doctors struck off the register or paediatricians sued; writers have been questioned by the police over the publication of leaflets on human sexuality; and schools have been forced to close unless they change their curriculum. These and so many other examples are there for all who want to look up and see what’s in store for us unless we get some serious amendments in these Bills that will make living with them acceptable.

We are moving from freedom as a way of life to freedom as an exemption under these laws.

This is very serious for those who cherish journalistic freedom of expression and religious freedom in the public square.

Religious freedom as a pre-eminent right will now fall under exemptions. How can one relegate a cherished value set in our constitution to an exemption? Exemptions imply bare tolerance that can be removed over time.

The Equality Bill makes a mockery of religious freedom by relegating it to a barely tolera­ted issue. This is a very dangerous subtle attack on the Church in Malta, on faith and on all believers.

The time to speak out is now.

 

Miriam Sciberras is chair, Life Network Foundation Malta.

This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/at-the-mercy-of-equality-miriam-sciberras.818071

Love Louder – Jeff and Jennifer Christie

Love Louder – Jeff and Jennifer Christie

If I had listened to you,

I wouldn’t have woken up this morning with five year old toes in my face.

There wouldn’t be light up Batman sneakers in the shoe rack,

or goldfish crackers swimming on the floor of our SUV.

If I had listened to you,

I wouldn’t know all the words to the Paw Patrol theme song,

or the names of the Bubble Guppies.

I wouldn’t have seen Frozen in the theater.

Twice.

I have a few more stretch marks,

A little less money,

less time,

and more fine lines around my eyes.

If I had listened to you,

I wouldn’t know the tug of little arms around my neck,

sticky hands tenderly patting my face,

random requests for mommy snuggles.

If I had listened to you,

the phrase “beauty for ashes” would be one dimensional,

healing would have been a slow, uphill climb,

and so much pain would have so much less purpose.

I have a little more patience,

and a little less pride,

less selfishness,

more faith in the Great I AM.

If I had listened to you,

to the world,

to the doubt and the fear,

I’d miss hearing a croaky morning voice tell me he misses me when he’s asleep.

But I didn’t listen to you.

I listened to love.

The heart of God,

the motion of mercy,

the song of grace,

the soul of the mother that I already was and was destined to be again.

Sounds of love, louder than the anxiety, drowning out the agony.

Louder.

I listened.

I followed.

And just look what I got.

Life with no regrets.

Jennifer Christie

Of nothingness, DNA and embryonic life – Patrick Pullicino

At the centre of every strongly held anti-life (pro-choice) belief is a desensitisation to the wonder of not only life, but also of being, and even of existence. I would, for a moment, like to try to put the wonder of our simple existence into some perspective.

There is a hierarchy of existence on earth. At its pinnacle is human life with our ability to love, think rationally and distinguish good and evil – the supreme gifts.

Below us are mammals and other animals that have many of our animal characteristics and have DNA that maintains their species-specific continuity over time and generations.

Plant life is yet a further step below, with DNA but without the complex brain that movement and animal interaction requires.

Below this, inanimate objects or chemicals are not alive but they too have existence and a function in the world.

At the lowest end of this scale is the vacuum of space. It has no discernible things within it but it is not ‘nothingness’ as it is still part of the cosmos and is able to transmit light and electromagnetic waves.

So this brings us to nothingness. It is difficult to conceive of nothingness as it is outside of our experience. It is insightful to try to do this, however, as although individual human beings are made up of chemicals, our existence as individuals literally was ‘nothingness’ before we were conceived. We did not even exist as empty space.

This puts human conception in an entirely different light. Human embryos, however short-lived, are individuals that never previously existed. They are unique. Yes their DNA gives them the blueprint for their growth but that DNA is not necessarily unique, as identical twins have the same DNA.

It is not the DNA that gives individuality, it is our spiritual soul that is the core of our existence and of our individuality. Our body and DNA are just the ‘earthen vessel’ that holds our unique, created existence.

Individual human life when seen in the perspective of nothingness is all the more wonderful. Who but God can create out of nothingness? So every human conception, whether lasting an hour or a day or a hundred years, is in this deep perspective, a miracle.

Does the fact that many embryos die before birth devalue either human life or individuality or the preciousness of each and every embryo? No! How can it?

The practice of IVF and surrogacy has desensitised us to the astounding miracle of conception, set against the backdrop of the nothingness we came out of. And in-vitro fertilisation is not and could never be ‘creation’. 

 

I have previously called for the setting up of Malta as a centre for prenatal foetal medicine and intrauterine surgery

 

When a species becomes extinct, it has returned to the void out of which  it was created . Creation from that void of nothingness is true creation that only God can perform.

It is not only illogical but arrogant in the extreme to state that because many embryos die when they are still a few cells, therefore all embryos do not deserve protection.

Who are we to ask why God created these individuals? Maybe the majority of us die at an early stage to protect us from being contaminated by the errors and evils of the world that engulf us.

Rather than devaluing all embryonic life on the basis of the high loss of early embryos, we should cherish and protect embryonic life even more and pursue research to help reduce this early embryonic loss of human life.

It is wonderful that in Malta abortion is illegal. However, we cannot accept this bare legal minimum and must engender a wonder and respect of preborn life in society. 

I have previously called for the setting up of Malta as a centre for prenatal foetal medicine and intrauterine surgery.

As the only country in Europe that does not allow abortion, Malta could set up a prenatal medical centre with full surgical capabilities and take referrals from the rest of Europe and rapidly become a European and world leader in this area.

Patrick Pullicino, Catholic priest in London and retired NHS neurologist

https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/of-nothingness-dna-and-embryonic-life-patrick-pullicino.809727