Earth Ought Not to Look Like Hell by Richard Aleman

“These dazed dupes will gather again together and attempt to believe their dreams and disbelieve their eyes.”

These are the words of GK. Chesterton aimed at eugenicists, following his successful campaign to defeat the “Feeble-Minded Control Bill,” the 1912 proposed legislation to confine and sterilize mental or “moral defectives” for “the improvement of the British breed.”

William Inge, the Anglican dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral, publicly rebuked the English writer, saying that only “irrationalist prophets like Mr. Chesterton” could resist the “logic” of eugenics.

Chesterton’s so-called attack on reason would be justified if only his defense of the weakest and most vulnerable wasn’t so reasonable and logical.

By terminating the reproductive capabilities of these “undesirables,” eugenicists believed they could reduce or completely eliminate negative traits from spoiling future generations. They would do so by wielding the power of the State to sterilize and confine anyone they deemed degenerate and unworthy of procreating.

This “scientifically organized State” intentionally wrestling with the “old culture of Christendom” by means of the cleansing of society of undesirables, served as fodder for Chesterton’s 1922 book Eugenics and Other Evils:

“I do not deny, but strongly affirm, the right of the State to interfere to cure a great evil. I say that in this case it would interfere to create a great evil.”

Some contemporaries of Chesterton, such as eugenicist George Bernard Shaw, urged the use of gas chambers for eradicating the disabled and unfit: in a 1910 lecture, Shaw reportedly said, “A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”

However, most “enlightened” eugenicists attracted supporters by using language that sounded humane, appealing to science and progress.

But Chesterton understood exactly what they meant when they spoke of the “feeble-minded.” They meant the lower classes. They mean: ‘humanity minus ourselves.” And when they spoke of enriching humanity, they meant something else entirely:

“They mean that the public is to be given up, not as a heathen land for conversion, but simply as a pabulum for experiment… They do not know what they want, except that they want your soul and body and mine in order to find out. . .. All other established Churches have been based on somebody having found the truth. This is the first Church that was ever based on not having found it.”

Eight years after Chesterton devoured the eugenicists for breakfast, Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical Casti Connubii. The Holy Father singled out the unrelenting eugenicists, who “by public authority wish to prevent from marrying all those whom, even though naturally fit for marriage, they consider, according to the norms and conjectures of their investigations, would, through hereditary transmission, bring forth defective ofispring…”

Pius’s condemnation of eugenics drew responses from the official organs of the eugenics movement, failed to engage the substance of teaching and proceeded predictably to question the encyclical’s authority, raising the possibility (in the minds of those soft on eugenics) that Pius may have overreached rather than called upon the weight of his office.

With respect to abortion, American eugenicists such as Margaret Sanger accused the pontiff of hiding behind papal pedagogy to mask his own “defiant medievalism” and of “condemning many a woman to die in the hopeless agonies of childbirth.” They intended this rhetoric to re-ignite an anti-Catholic prejudice and fan the flames of fear about Rome’s supposed plot to destroy Protestant America.

The eugenics movement had indeed found a formidable enemy in the Church. Catholic advocacy groups were well-oiled, organized, and impassable opponents. Clergy worthy of their cassocks rejected eugenics in the United States and proved themselves loyal to mater ecclesiae. For example, the most prominent Catholic social thinker of the period, Rev. John A. Ryan, described eugenics as a “pseudoscience” designed by “the immoral perversion of the human faculty,” and attacked contraception as the frustration of new life that “prevent it from attaining its natural end.” Ryan also wisely observed the implications of subordinating “the weaker groups to the welfare of society,” which would become “instruments to other human beings,” perfectly echoing Chesterton’s sentiments about eugenics breeding wage-slaves for “docility” and fostering “enterprise in a few masters.”

Although Casti Connubii warned against the state’s tampering with “the integrity of the body.” and Chesterton feared that eugenics would lead to the leviathan state, Julian Huxley – whose paternal grandfather Thomas Henry enjoyed a friendship with Charles Darwin – did not mince words about government’s enforcement of eugenics. “In one or two centuries…we shall tell the man who can’t provide for himself and his family that he cannot have State aid unless he agrees not to have any more children.”

Twenty-six years after Margaret Sanger renamed her American Birth Control League the “innocuous” Planned Parenthood, Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae “precipitated a storm of dissent.” Its rejection of artificial contraception was met with opposition by self-proclaimed pragmatists, who turned their backs on marriage, the poor, the elderly, and the handicapped.

In hind-sight, Paul has been proven right. Men and women today are objectified, the marital act has been divorced from procreation, and our posterity continues to be extinguished systematically by our culture’s cheapening of human life.

Chesterton closes Eugenics and Other Evils with the irony that eugenicists, “naturally fearing they might be deficient… [are] so truly scientific as to have resort to specialists.”

Today, as science predicts the unnatural selection of perfect human beings, and the appetites of the world’s ravenous wolves strategically discredit the teachings of the Church, may we tremble before the Blessed Sacrament and pray that Our Lord’s swift justice prevails upon the hearts (and minds) of men, because “Earth is not heaven, but the nearest we can get to heaven ought not to look like hell.”

GILBERT MAGAZINE  – May/June 2016

A camouflaged deception by Dr. Miriam Sciberras

The debate on emergency contraception/morning-after pill in Malta must be confusing all those trying to make sense of the conflicting statements presented in the local media.  It is so difficult to analyse facts when they are completely masked in doublespeak and when redefinition of terms come into play. This is grossly unfair to the general public who deserve to know the truth.

Life Network Foundation Malta, as an interested party, recently attempted to give a presentation of facts at the conjoined parliamentary committee discussing this issue. Unfortunately, we were constantly interrupted and most of the committee did not seem to be interested in the facts or the credibility of the science presented. This was most unjust as our only possibility to contribute as an NGO is through these parliamentary committees.

It bears restating that scientific evidence underpinned by all textbooks on embryology, tell us that a new human life starts with the fertilisation of an egg by a sperm. This new single cell organism, called a zygote, starts to multiply and grow as it travels down the fallopian tube to implant itself in the uterus. Implantation of the embryo occurs about the fifth to the 12th day of its life.

In 1965, the American College of Gynaecologists (ACOG) decided to redefine pregnancy as “established only at the conclusion of implantation of a fertilised egg”. According to this definition any drug/device that endangers the life of the embryo in the first two weeks of life is not an abortifacient since according to this definition pregnancy has to be established first.

This definition purposely ignores the first two weeks of human embryonic life.  However, in this country, under the Embryo Protection Act, embryonic life is protected from conception.

The ACOG defines abortifacient as “an agent that disturbs an embryo already implanted in the uterine lining, after a pregnancy has been established”. The ACOG is a pro-abortion organisation that sees nothing wrong with aborting a child in utero.

Thankfully, in the US there is also the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (AAPLOG), who do not accept the new redefinitions of the ACOG. Accordingly, the AAPLOG “reaffirm the unique value and dignity of individual human life in all stages of growth and development from fertilization onward”. The newly conceived life is acknowledged and protected.

The ACOG wrongly defines as contraceptive both “an agent which prevents fertilisation of an egg” and also one that “prevents implantation of a fertilised egg, preventing a pregnancy from taking place”. This is aborting a new life before implantation.

Most institutions see no problem with abortion. When quoting studies, it is imperative to know who is sponsoring the research, what their stand on life is, and what they mean by ‘not abortifacient’.

The Medicines Authority Regulator was more intent on endorsing the emergency contraceptives and mentioning product characteristics than listening to the discussion on the anti-life risks involved.

The authority should have remained impartial, heard all the sides and then pronounced its stance.

At no point was there any acknowledgement of Malta’s Embryo Protection Act or its endorsement.

Life Network Foundation Malta is currently sending printed copies of the presentation and scientific papers attesting to the abortifacient effects of emergency contraception to all members of Parliament.

A dedicated section on MAPs has been set up on http://staging-lifenetwork.stagingcloud.co/index.php/resources/map .

Life Network Foundation Malta acknowledges and thanks Donna Harrison from AAPLOG for her assistance in this presentation. The debate on emergency contraception has been shamelessly camouflaged in deception.

Protection of human embryonic life is not being given centre stage.  The public should be aware of this. This devious campaign is a denial of the humanity of the first two weeks of embryonic life.

Its aim is to leave a window open to the trafficking, disposal, selection, donation and freezing of embryonic human beings at will, embarking on the road to abortion. This means altering the stand that Malta has always had in providing a safe haven for the unborn from conception.

This was not in the electoral manifesto of either political party and our parliamentary representatives are urged to take up their responsibility in defending life from conception and to make their stand publicly.

Dr. Miriam Sciberras is chairwoman of Life Network Foundation Malta.

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160903/opinion/A-camouflaged-deception.623891

Defend life in all stages by Dr. Josie Muscat

Much has been written and proclaimed about when life starts and the methods and reasons to prevent or terminate it. Both sides of the political spectrum still profess to be against abortion and the termination of intra-uterine life at whatever stage of gestation.

I attended the final ‘stage managed’ session of the morning after pill debate of the Social Affairs Parliamentary Committee.

That the matter had been already decided upon was evident from the chairman’s and minister’s attitude towards arguments brought forward by NGOs and members of the public who were arguing against its importation. A few days later, the chairman writes a Talking Point arguing that life begins when there is brain activity. On the basis of such reasoning many could well argue that life begins when the baby is born or when it can go and live on its own.

Papers for and papers against were presented. This is proof enough that the matter contains as yet unresolved grey areas. But it seems that what our politicians think is more important and sacrosanct than what science cannot definitely prove. They know it all. Just factor in the hardships that many are enduring since the gates of divorce were opened on the pretext that unhappy marriages too were hardships. What will emanate from gay adoptions is still a joy to come. Poor children – our modern toys.

I have always tried to follow the wise saying that ‘when the stable door opens the horse bolts’. We have opened more than a stable door. I believe we have opened the floodgates. We have thrown overboard our past values and morals in the name of progress and individual rights. Once abortion is legalised, we would have achieved it all. I say legalised, for abortion is among us and its practice is a stark fact.

That women can buy abortifacient tablets over the internet is another fact. That doctors are prescribing the pill, that women buy it over the counter and use it as an abortifacient is undisputable. But does all this justify legalising tablets when there is lack of consensus over whether they are or are not an abortifacient? Do we want to open the floodgates?

Are women right in stating and believing that their body is theirs and that they have a civil right to do what they want with their body? Are men right in forcing women to abort because they do not want their babies or because their babies are the result of their infidelity or of sexual abuse or of their refusal to wear condoms? And haven’t methods of contraception actually contributed to the increase of sexually-transmitted diseases, not least among which HIV and HPV and Herpes, which haunt our female population to their death? All of this is in the name of progress, civilisation, civil rights and being European.

I reason from a different perspective:

As long as a woman is not pregnant, she can do what she likes with her body as long as she does not turn to society to bear the consequence of her actions. Every right must carry its responsibilities and obligations. We are living in an age of rights. But where are the responsibilities and obligations these carry?

Once a woman becomes pregnant, her body is no longer hers alone. She bears an embryo, foetus or baby with a distinct and diverse DNA and, if we are true to our civil rights proclamations, this embryo, foetus or baby has a divine right to life.

The woman bears a genetically distinct human organism, which, although she can claim to be hers, still gives her no God-given or legislative power to destroy it. Thou shall not kill makes no reference to in or out of the womb.

The woman bearing the embryo, foetus, baby is not the sole creator or procreator. This necessitated a male who is fully conscious of the results of his acts. Let’s not be naive that, in the present day, two having sex do not do so in full knowledge of the consequences.

The new embryo/foetus/baby bears the particular genetic combination of both and, therefore, is the responsibility of both and belongs to both. Today, a simple DNA test helps to identify the real perpetrator.

The claim that the child the woman carries is her own to do with what she likes is actually absolving the male from his share of responsibility.

Is it fair for society to carry the can he has abandoned even while preventing the innocent from the consequences of today’s hedonism? Should the womanbe left to carry the responsibility on her own? Shoulder the responsibility? Should the male be allowed to shed his semen without hindrance or any responsibility for his actions?

The argument should not be based on the destruction of life (abortion) as a solution to an unwanted pregnancy. If we do not want to develop dysentery, we do not eat raw meat. If we do not want to get hurt, we stay away from danger. If we do not want to acquire a sexually-transmitted disease, we wear a condom. If we do not want an unplanned pregnancy, we must take proper precautions.

This is the education and help the nation must give. This is the responsible message and solutions our legislators must send.

It is only when we recognise and shoulder our responsibilities as well as our rights that we can then solve or deal with the exceptions that today we use as pretext for blanket solutions or, possibly, unmitigated disasters.

Can a society that destroys life rather than cherish it claim to be a ‘whole’ and ‘caring’ society?

Let us wake up and stop this selfish approach. Let us wake up to our rights as much as to our responsibilities. Let us wake up and stop this fast downward trend to hardship and sufferings for the many who fall into the trap disguised as ‘modern’ and ‘progressive’. Let us stop this new poverty, which is fast growing.

For centuries, the men and women of these islands have fought tooth and nail, have suffered and endured, to live, love and procreate on the pieces of rock we are proud to call home.

Are we now turning the knife on ourselves and doing what so many of our historic enemies could not accomplish?

Let us proudly determine to defend life in all its stages. Only then can we be truly worthy of the sacrifices our ancestors have undergone in the creation of our very specific Maltese identity.

Josie Muscat is chairman, Saint James Hospital Group.

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160826/opinion/Defend-life-in-all-stages.623085

 
 

The accepted ‘art of dying’ by Mgr. Charles Vella

I agree and disagree on some points raised by martin scicluna in his interesting article ‘last human right’ (Times of Malta, August 10).

I think that, although a lot is being written about euthanasia and the heartbreaking appeal by two suffering patients, who are in my prayers, very little has been said about the art of dying, or ars moriendi,which originated in eastern Germany at the Council of Constance (1414-1418).

In Malta, we had the tradition of the buona morte, followed by the vjatku, a procession from the church to bring the blessed sacrament to the homes of the moribund. Scicluna made reference to the living will as a means to alleviate prolonged suffering without infringing upon the fundamental value of the sanctity of life, as God’s most precious gift to man. In my 30 years at San Raffaele scientific Hospital in Milan, I was close to many patients at the moment of death.

I do understand the grief at that moment and, I must confess, I too shed some tears.

Till the very end, the patient must be considered a human person without any distinction, but the right to terminate life is only God’s. We should be giving priority to ‘being close to’ and ‘looking after’ the patient.

We are called to ‘accompany’ the dying till the very last moment. after Vatican Council II, the Church, in its liturgy and pastoral care, simplified the rites of the dying.

Christian death is now Christ-centred, as He overcame death and returned to life. i have often found solace in the prayer of st Gregory of Nyssa: “You turned our fear of death to hope. You have changed the end of our life into the beginning of true life. to those who are afraid You have given the sign of the Cross, which is an assurance of eternal life.” this is how we can accompany the dying.

It was what inspired Cicely Saunders, founder of the hospice movement. i

It was also what inspired Mother Teresa, whom I met twice in her ‘Home for the Dying’, where she often said that these “people lived like animals and now they die as angels”.

She never made a distinction between Christians and non-Christians. What both these women did was to make death more comfortable “to help them live a full life till the very end”. This should also be what inspires all doctors and paramedics. scicluna very aptly quoted the Hippocratic oath, written 2,500 years ago, but alas, many a patient today dies alone. anthropological studies show that the product of the present secularised human culture has boosted our fear of pain and suffering.

As Elisabeth Kübler-Ross affirmed, today we have “a crisis between death and pain”. Death is now a collective taboo. as Plato said: “in order to become a good doctor, we must first experience suffering.”

I have seen many patients facing death bravely, whether believers or not. often, the situation next to their bed becomes a school of love, courage and faith. the bed becomes an altar where the liturgy of suffering is celebrated. i often remind people of the case of Rosanna Benzi, who for many years, had to live her life in a steel lung. another case is of a student nurse, who in a letter to colleagues wrote: “What are you afraid of?

After all, it is I who am dying”. I confess that, at my ripe age, i think of death daily, but only faith helps me to overcome fear.

I also think that, after the celebration of the eucharist, accompanying the dying is living to the full our ministry. I also plan to write on the living will, which i see as a way not to prolong life.

It is part of the accepted art of dying.

Mgr Charles Vella spent 30 years as director of San Raffaele Hospital

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160820/opinion/The-accepted-art-of-dying.622527

Truth about morning after pill by Dr. Margaret Spiteri

Embryonic life starts after the male sperm fertilises the female egg or ovum to form a zygote. Everyone who has some common sense knows this.

Sperm transport through the cervix is affected by endocrine, immunological and psychological factors. Around the time of ovulation, sperm reaches the site of fertilisation in the tubes within two to 10 minutes. Emergency contraception sometimes acts by delaying ovulation.

Nevertheless, statistical evidence effectiveness (62 to 85 per cent) of these medications suggest that if the regimen is as effective as claimed, it must have a mechanism of action other than delaying or preventing ovulation. This is the grey area.

Most medical authorities, including FIGO, the United States Food and Drug Administration/National Institutes of Health and several colleges of obstetricians and gynaecologists, today conveniently define the beginning of life as the time when the embryo implants in the womb after having made it through the fallopian tube. Justifying experimenting and interfering with human embryos in the first two weeks of life then becomes easy.

The decision to authorise emergency contraception in Malta has been left to a panel of parliamentary representatives who should currently be analysing the data provided by different groups of relevant people.

On July 20, Prof. Mark Brincat and Prof. Anthony Serracino Inglott were given ample time to make their case for agreeing to authorise these drugs. A week later, a few organisations presented data which show why the drugs should not be authorised in Malta as they are abortifacient.

Following some of the presentations, one of the doctors in the panel said it was evident that these drugs were definitely not abortifacient, ignoring what had just been presented.

None among the panel and no professors or otherwise among those presenting this or the previous week’s presentation are experts in this area. To critically analyse such data properly, one must be a true expert.

Prof. James Trussell PhD, from Princeton University, published a 35-page review article only last month. He is a seasoned expert as his recent research has been focused in three areas: emergency contraception, contraceptive failure and the cost-effectiveness of contraception. He has actively promoted making emergency contraception more widely available as an important step in helping women reduce their risk of unintended pregnancy.

Yet, in this review article he concludes that “interference with implantation is likely not an inevitable effect of emergency contraception. To make an informed choice, women must know that emergency contraception prevents pregnancy primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation and fertilisation but it is not scientifically possible to definitively rule out that a method may inhibit implantation of a fertilised egg in the endometrium”.

In simple language, emergency contraception works by delaying ovulation as well as interfering with survival of an embryo, and therefore can be abortifacient. Coming from such a staunch supporter of emergency contraception, this should make us ponder!

Some argue that other tablets and intrauterine devices can also be abortifacient and are readily available in Malta. Thus, adding emergency contraception to the list is not a big deal. However, the sole reason for taking emergency contraception is to specifically interrupt an imminent pregnancy.

These drugs have only been available since 2009. There are other adverse effects of emergency contraception on society. Randomised trials suggest that easier access to them has increased the frequency of having sex, which potentially leads to more pregnancies.

Women who like taking emergency contraception report that they did not want to use either condoms or another contraceptive method. Besides leading to more pregnancies, this would defeat the point of educating daring young girls and boys to wear condoms and prevent sexually transmitted disease. Trussell concludes that only one of 15 published studies has demonstrated that increasing access to emergency contraception can reduce pregnancy or abortion rates.

Women can make a habit of taking it repeatedly. Emergency contraception has a high dose of hormones affecting progesterone, which has a great effect on the deve­lopment of breast cancer, and it is early days to see the full effect of these drugs.

The rate of abortion, sexually transmitted disease, the need to take children from parents and foster them, as well as the rate of divorce all over the western world have been on a constant rise over the last few decades, even if women have increasing armamentarium to prevent pregnancies.

One wonders if we dare take this same route in Malta or dare be different and take a different approach to life. Our ancestors had the courage to pass on many life principles to this generation. It seems however, that this generation prefers to follow in the steps of ‘developed’ countries, leading to increasing family disharmony.

Margaret Spiteri is a consultant gynaecologist.

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160821/opinion/Truth-about-morning-after-pill.622598

In breach of the Maltese Constitution by Dr. Michael Asciak

 

In sections of the Maltese press, the head of the Medicines Authority in Malta, Professor Anthony Serracino Inglott states that there is no scientific reason why emergency contraception products should not be authorised for sale in Malta. He says scientific studies show that emergency contraception cannot interrupt an established pregnancy or harm a developing embryo. It seems he is speaking about the effects of Levonorgestrel on the uterus. There are other preparations (ulipristal, mifepristone) available for use as an emergency contraceptive device, some work in a similar fashion to Levonorgestrel (affects higher progesterone levels), and some work differently.

There is an implicit pun, play on words or trick in the utterances of the Medicine Authority’s chief. He states quite clearly that this pill cannot interrupt an established pregnancy or harm a developing embryo. In other sections of the press, he has already stated that for him, pregnancy starts at nidation or implantation of the embryo in the uterus. However, everyone knows that human life starts at conception or fertilisation which occurs seven days before that event in the fallopian tube, before the embryo travels down the tube where implantation normally occurs (or not) in the uterine body. In fact, sometimes the embryo implants in the fallopian tube and there is then an ectopic pregnancy! It is quite possible that Levonorgestrel may not disturb an already implanted embryo, and even on this there is academic doubt, but there is no doubt that there is the ever present possibility of prevention of nidation or implantation of the human embryo with Levonorgestrel and other drugs. That, Professor Serracino Inglott does not say, quite conveniently!

The Medicines Authority in Malta is a pharmaceutical expert and authority on the action of medicines on human beings. It is not an expert in Bioethics or one which determines when human life begins. All experts in Embryology as attested by the Terminologia Embryologica define human life as starting at complete fertilisation of the ovum by the sperm (stage E2.0.1.2.0.0.9 – Zygotum; Embryo Syngamicum, stage 1c Gradus Carnegiensis – Carnegie Stages of human development). Besides this, such deliberations should not be the remit of the Medicines Authority but of a Bioethics Committee which has never been appropriately set up and remains without a head after its chairperson Deborah Schembri became Parliamentary Secretary. I have already written at length that issues of Bioethics should not be academically handled by politicians or by public debate first, but by a properly constituted National Bioethics Committee (as in other EU countries) properly established by law (not ad hoc) with multidisciplinary representation from the appropriate disciplines including the sciences and the humanities especially philosophy. The National Bioethics Committee in Italy works beautifully and is an example to behold.

However, there are other issues of a legal nature here. Maltese law already defines what an embryo is. In the Embryo Protection Act which all PL and PN deputies voted in favour of in 2012, including Minister Helena Dalli who seems to want to rely on the Medicines Authority exclusively to satisfy her own purported civil rights purposes (not the right to life of a human being it seems!), the Embryo is defined in article 2 as:

“‘Embryo’” means the human organism that result from the fertilisation of a human egg cell by a human sperm cell which is capable of developing and shall further include each totipotent cell removed from an embryo or otherwise produced that is assumed to be able to divide and to develop as a human being under the appropriate conditions.”

Nowhere here is the definition of pregnancy mentioned or defined as the implantation of the embryo into the uterus! Human life starts at but is not limited to fertilisation (conception) as totipotent cells can be formed by other means which same law also protects the human embryo. Modern epigenetics and genetics today prove more than ever that human life starts at fertilisation. Article 8 (1) of the same law states: “Whosoever, other than for the purpose of implantation in a woman as may be authorised by the provisions of this Act disposes of, hands over or acquires a human embryo produced outside the body, or removes such embryo from a woman before the completion of implantation in the womb, shall be guilty of an offence and, on conviction, shall be liable to the punishment of a fine (multa) of not less than five thousand euro (5,000) and not exceeding fifteen thousand euro (15,000) or to imprisonment not exceeding three years or to both such fine and imprisonment.”

Maybe Minister Dalli has a short memory and seems to have forgotten that she too voted for this law and that she too is liable under the law, or maybe she needs to ask the opinion of the Embryo Protection Authority which is established by the same law and which has certain powers and obligations with regard to the same law’s application.

In the Maltese Constitution, Article 33 (1), it is written as: “No person shall intentionally be deprived of his life save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence under the law of Malta of which he has been convicted.”

The Maltese language version of the Constitution which is superior to the British translation goes even further and uses the word “Hadd” meaning no one or nobody and therefore specifically refers to a human being, which human being is proved by science to start at conception.

I already stated in a previous article that especially in cases where there is violence in the sexual act there is a moral case for the use of certain formulations of the morning after pill before ovulation has occurred and there is a simple urine test for this to be ascertained. Before ovulation has occurred the pill does work by preventing fertilisation and by preventing ovulation, that is, no egg is released from the ovary and if such egg is realised no fertilisation is able to take place, sperm and ovum are not able to unite. These details and circumstances have to be left to the doctor and the patient to administer together. In the light of this, the state would be right in approving Levonorgestrel for the specific indication for use before ovulation has occurred, as it is today indeed legally approved in a lower dose as a method of ordinary contraception and as a five year slow-release intra-uterine formulation. On or after ovulation, approval or prescription of the high dose drug would lead to breaking Maltese law and the Maltese Constitution. Administrative decisions to that effect would also be in breach of the law and the Maltese Constitution.

I have always held that women have a right to decide issues regarding their own fertility but these rights have to give way to the right to life of any other human being which prima facie is way above all other human rights and claims. It is a first degree right so to speak, that the right of innocent human to life is absolute. The golden rule of wishing for others what one would have wished for oneself holds water here!

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2016-08-21/newspaper-opinions/In-breach-of-the-Maltese-Constitution-6736162652

Guidelines on MAP by Arthur Galea Salomone

The debate in respect of the licensing of the morning-after pill has many facets and should be guided by scientific findings, ethical considerations and full respect for human rights.

The issue has sometimes been presented as a tussle between science and ethics, a clash between women’s civil rights on the one hand and the rights of the unborn on the other hand. In an attempt to reconcile apparently conflicting considerations, it is sometimes necessary to outline basic principles.

It is not uncommon for competing rights to conflict with one another. It is for this reason that in developed legal systems there exists a hierarchy of rights.

Within this hierarchy, the first guiding principle is that fundamental human rights trump civil rights and not vice versa. Besides, the right to life tops the hierarchy of rights which exists in our legal system.

Accordingly, any debate in respect of women’s civil and reproductive rights, including a debate in respect of the morning-after pill, cannot be carried out in isolation. It should be placed in the context of an established hierarchy of rights and the right to life tops that hierarchy.

The second principle to bear in mind is that life starts from the moment of conception and accordingly should be protected and treated with dignity from that moment.

Maltese law is replete with provisions which recognise the principle that life starts at conception and that accordingly legal protection is provided to the conceived though as yet unborn.

A technical committee to report on the scientific findings of the effects of morning-after pills is understandable and advisable

Thus for example, the Embryo Protection Act defines an embryo as a “human organism” that results from fertilisation. Politicians should therefore be unequivocal about the start of life and the deliberations in respect of the morning-after pill should be placed in this context.

The corollary to the above principle is that a morning-after pill which prevents ovulation and/or fertilisation is a contraceptive and not an abortifacient. On the other hand, a morning-after pill which interrupts life after conception by preventing implantation is an abortifacient and not a contraceptive, regardless of how it is labelled.

Contraceptive and abortifacient effects are not invariably mutually exclusive, as there may be instances where an intended contraceptive is also potentially abortifacient. In this case responsible decision makers or prescribing doctors are called upon to decide whether to err on the side of life or on the side of death.

The precautionary principle and the dictates of prudence would suggest that when in doubt life should be safeguarded and not endangered.

An unbiased understanding of the effects of the morning-after pill is therefore critical for legislators and authorities to take an informed decision. The pharmacological effects of morning-after pills differ from one pill to another.

From a legal perspective, it is therefore not possible to generalise and categorise all forms of pills uniformly as either contraceptive or abortifacient. Besides, academic research is not entirely consistent in its findings.

In this context the suggestion coming from various quarters, including the Medical

Association of Malta, for a technical committee to report on the scientific findings of the effects of morning-after pills is understandable and advisable.

To ignore this suggestion would be rash and indicative of a parliamentary committee which is prejudiced, in the sense that it has prejudged the matter without giving due consideration to conflicting views and legitimate concerns.

The constitution of a technical committee should not however be the pretext for our politicians to pass on the buck of their responsibility.

The competence and responsibility of technical specialists should be to highlight prevalent scientific findings and to convince decision makers that various forms of morning-after pills are not abortifacient in the sense that they do not interrupt life by preventing implantation.

The onus and responsibility of politicians and local authorities is then to take their onerous decision in respect of the legalisation and licensing of the morning-after pill in the light of scientific findings, bearing in mind the hierarchy of rights, the value of life, as well as the existing position at law, in terms of which, life starts at conception and should therefore be safeguarded from the moment of conception.

 Arthur Galea Salomone is president of the Cana Movement.

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160816/opinion/Guidelines-on-MAP.622153

We are no barbarians by Tony Mifsud

As coordinator of the Malta Unborn Child Movement (MUCM) I was invited to speak at the parliamentary hearings on the morning-after pill by the chairman of the Family Committee of Parliament.

At the hearing, I started reading a prepared short paper which was not supposed to take more than five minutes, according to the chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee Etienne Grech.

After only two minutes I was abruptly stopped by the chairman, and asked to state in a few words my position on the morning-after pill. My reply was that MUCM’s position was made public in the press from the beginning and after two hearings in which a number of medical experts and experts on ethics expressed their doubts whether the pill is abortifacient or not, we should adopt the precautionary principle and not act in any direction for the moment.

When I stated my and the MUCM’s position, the chairman ordered me to retire. At that moment Civil Liberties Minister Helena Dalli was sitting very close to the chairman.

The precautionary stance was recently adopted, very wisely, by Environment Minister Jose Herrera on the use of the weed killer glyphosate “which is considered a probable human carcinogen”.

Before retiring, as ordered, I drew the chairman’s and Dalli’s attention to the fact that what I had said, and was going to say, was based on facts and I, and MUCM, were being discriminated against and denied the right to freedom of expression, and of speech on the morning-after pill.

Besides it was an extreme lack of ordinary courtesy, if not much worse, to treat in such a bizarre and unorthodox way a person, and an organisation, invited by the same Joint Committee, to give its views on the matter.

This was supposed to help Parliament come to an informed decision on the very delicate matter of whether the morning-after pill is abortifacient or not, which is the crux of the whole matter.

I added that I was being prevented from delivering my complete presentation when all other speakers before me had done so.

Practically all of them took much more than five minutes, including, especially, the chairman of the Medicines Authority who took almost 75 minutes when he was supposed to finish after 10 minutes. I attended the three hearings.

They don’t mind breaking this or that law about unborn children as long as they have it their way

The incident was brought to the attention of the Speaker of the House.

During the two minutes of my very short and interrupted speech I had made some very constructive criticism of the long paper of the chairman of the Medicines Authority.

In spite of the three parliamentary hearings, and in spite of the fact that Dalli was present for the three hearings, she has reiterated many times that she is going to base her decisions on the licensing, importation and distribution of the morning-after pill on the recommendations of the Medicines Authority. Many understood, exclusively.

If this is going to be the case, why were the three parliamentary hearings held? Why were all those people, and organisations, called to advise the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the morning-after pill?

Why did the chairman of the third hearing say many times that the joint committee of the social, family and health committees of Parliament was going to study and analyse all the documents submitted by individuals and organisations? A very pertinent fact is that the chairman of the Family Committee, Godfrey Farrugia, a family doctor and former minister of health, has already declared his position that the morning after pill “may be is abortifacient”.

My very short paper, on behalf of so many unborn children, challenged, firstly, certain alleged ‘facts’ in the presentation of the chairman of the Medicines Authority, and secondly certain bizarre behaviour by the same chairman in my regard immediately after the first hearing in Parliament.

Unfortunately, all the women organisations, with the exception of the National Council of Women, who made presentations at the parliamentary joint hearings, spoke only about the rights of women over their bodies.

Nothing was said about the rights of unborn children from conception onwards; and this even though we have eight laws which protect the well-being and rights of unborn children from conception.

They don’t mind breaking this or that law about unborn children as long as they have it their way.

Even though we have it from Farrugia that demand for morning-after pill comes mostly from “single women” who don’t mind going for “unprotected and casual sex”.

That’s not really from the assorted groups of women as claimed by the Women’s Rights Foundation in their judicial letter to the Maltese courts and in the parliamentary hearing.

This is happening at a time when Maltese society has even introduced laws for the well-being and legal protection of animals. Amazing.

In defence of all unborn children at whatever stage of their gestation, MUCM strongly appeals to all Maltese parliamentarians to take note also of what was said lately by Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. Commenting on the big number of abortions carried out in the US, he warned the American people: “Future generations will call us barbarians.”

Tony Mifsud is coordinator, Malta Unborn Child Movement.

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160812/opinion/We-are-no-barbarians.621744

Dead or alive by Dr. Ivan Padovani

I am truly surprised that Etienne Grech (August 5) should still be touting the old abortionist’s red herring that “there can be no life before the brain has started to form”.

He argues that “death occurs when brain function ceases, hence, life must begin when brain function commences”. This line of reasoning may resonate due to its beguiling simplicity but I would have expected better from a medical practitioner.

He cites Goldenring but omits to mention that the Goldenring/Brady view violated every mainstream textbook of embryology in the known world and was clearly driven by motivations not primarily scientific in nature. It was laid to rest by Beckwith in 1991 and has been given little attention since.

The Goldenring argument puts the cart before the horse. Beckwith explained it more elegantly but the essential fact is that the older human being must have a functioning brain to coordinate and control everything whereas the youngest, that is, the embryo, does not yet need one to progress smoothly to the older stage where it does.

There are two starkly clear, reductive arguments that may help put the matter into better focus. One, an embryo is clearly a genetically whole organism. If, at any stage, it is not a living human being, on which of these two qualifications does it fail?

If not living, then the embryo must be either dead (so it must have been alive) or non-living (and, like a pebble, it will never become living). If not human, does it therefore belong to some other species, morphing by some magical process into our own at some randomly-assigned point in its life ?

Two, is it not obvious that the only conceivable starting point for an organism consisting of a huge number of coordinated cells is, and can only ever be, one?

Dr. Ivan Padovani is a member of Life Network Foundation Malta

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160813/letters/Dead-or-alive.621826

Press Release

Press Release

 

Life Network Foundation Malta, referring to the current debate on the Morning After Pill (MAP)/Emergency contraceptives (EC’s), as discussed lately at parliamentary committee level hearings, notes that a number of studies have been submitted which show differing and conflicting views on the abortifacient effect, or otherwise, of the said MAP.

Purportedly authoritative papers, tabled and presented as evidence of the MAP’s non-abortive effects, such as the papers of Gemzell-Danielson et. al.  and Cecilia Berger et. al., were shown to have dubious validity by further scientific papers subsequently presented by other speakers during the parliamentary committee. For instance, certain papers did not represent real life scenarios (in vivo) while others were not actual studies at all but merely pilot studies. Indeed, most of the studies presented turned out to have been based on artificial human tissues/organs inadequately representative of the full complement of tissues that could properly be said to constitute the human female body. (This was also admitted to by the researchers who carried out the actual studies.)

Life Network Foundation Malta, in consultation with the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, presented papers which showed that the MAP does indeed cause post-fertilization changes and consequent abortifacient effects. In view of the seriousness of this issue and considering the status of protection, under Maltese law, of the preborn child from the point of fertilization, we urge all our Members of Parliament to shoulder their collective responsibility by assessing and subsequently expressing their individual views on the MAP.

Life Network Foundation Malta is making both the presentation and the documents presented to the Committee publicly available on their website (www.staging-lifenetwork.stagingcloud.co).  Additional scientific papers presented by third parties will also be included. The Foundation urges all interested parties to thoroughly review all the documents tabled in order to make an informed decision on the subject. The level of bias and prejudice that is emerging in the course of this discussion cannot but lead one to question the existence of unstated ulterior motives or hidden interests throughout the entire process

It is pertinent to note that different EC drugs with different modes of action have been considered without differentiation between them. Levonogestrel and Ulipristal acetate (Ella One) have different mechanisms of action. The studies presented by other scientific third parties show that certain clinical studies (in vivo) show very similar effects (anti-progesterone and negative endometrial effects) between emergency contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs (e.g.  Ulipristal acetate and Mifepristone). Ulipristal acetate has anti-progesterone effects, which in turn inhibit implantation of the embryo, i.e. an abortive effect.

Abortion remains illegal in Malta and protection of life, until now, extends to all of life from fertilisation until natural death. A clear decision is therefore required of our legislators and civil authorities as to whether the MAP is abortifacient or not. This grave responsibility is rendered all the more so, coming, as it does, in the wake of several further issues that also impinge on the right to life and the dignity associated with it.

Life Network Foundation Malta would like to emphasise that this debate on emergency contraception is not simply about contraception but also about aborting a life that has already begun.

Legalisation of the Morning after Pill will signify the first breach of the dam that has, thus far, prevented the introduction of abortion in Malta.

Stqarrija ghall-Istampa

 

Life Network Foundation Malta, taghmel riferenza ghad-dibattitu prezenti rigward il-morning after pill (MAP)/emergency contraceptives (EC’s), liema diskussjoni saret ricentement fil-livell ta’ kumitat parlamentari, u tinnota li l-Kumitat gie ppreżentat b’numru ta’ studji li juru perspettivi  konfliggenti fuq l-effett abortiv tal-MAP.

Studji awtorevoli, li kienu pprezentati bhala evidenza li l-MAP mhix abortiva, bhall-istudji ta’ Gemzell-Danielson et. al u Cecilia Berger et. al, ġew meqjusa li għandhom validita’ dubbjuza minn studji ohra xjentifici li ġew ipprezentati sussegwentement minn kelliema ohra li ndirizzaw il-Kumitat Parlamentari.    Per eżempju, ċerta studji li kienu ppreżentati ma jirrappreżentawx dak li jigri fil-hajja reali (in vivo), filwaqt li studji oħrajn ma kienux studji attwali imma biss pilot studies.   Fil-fatt, ħafna mill-istudji ppreżentati rrizultaw li kienu bbazati fuq tissues umani/organi artifiċjali u li allura ma humiex rappreżentattivi tat-tissues kollha li jikkostitwixxu l-ġisem ta’ mara. (Dan kien ukoll ammess mill-istess riċerkaturi li għamlu dawn l-istudji).

Life Network Foundation Malta, b’konsultazzjoni ma’ l-American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, ippreżentat studji li juru li l-MAP verament tikkawża effetti wara l-fertilizzazjoni u konsegwentement fiha effetti abortivi.

Minhabba s-serjeta’ ta’ din is-sitwazzjoni, u meta wiehed iqis li f’Malta t-tarbija fil-guf hi protetta   sa mill-fertilizzazzjoni, il-Fondazzjoni tappella lill-Membri kollha tal-Parlament sabiex jaghrfu jerfghu r-responsabbilta’ kollettiva taghhom, billi jixtarru u sussegewentement jesprimi ruhhom individwalment fuq il-MAP.

Life Network Foundation Malta qed taghmel il-preżentazzjoni taghha u l-istudji esebiti fil-Parlament aċċessibbli ghall-pubbliku fuq il-website tagħha (www.staging-lifenetwork.stagingcloud.co).   Studji addizzjonali oħra li gew ippreżentati minn terzi persuni ohra ser ikunu wkoll inklużi.  Il-Fondazzjoni  tappella lill-persuni kollha nteressati sabiex jaraw sew id-dokumenti li kienu ppreżentati sabiex jaghmlu deċizjoni informata fuq is-suggett.   Il-livell ta’ bias u preġudizzju li qieghed johrog matul id-diskussjoni jaghti wiehed x’jahseb u jistaqsi jekk wara dan kollu hemmx xi mottivi ulterjuri, jekk mhux ukoll forsi hemmx xi nteressi moħbija.

Hu pertinenti wkoll li wiehed jinnota li hemm  varjeta’ ta’ emergency contraceptives li huma differenti minn xulxin u allura jahdmu b’modi differenti.  Imma dawn tqghedu f’basket wiehed u qed  jiġu kkunsidrati minghajr ma saret l-ebda differenzazzjoni bejniethom.  Per ezempju, il-pilloli Levonogestrel u Ulipristal acetate (Ella One) ghandhom mekkanizmi differenti ta’ kif jahdmu.    L-istudji ppreżentati minn terzi persuni xjentifici juru li ċerta studji klinici (in vivo) juru xebh qawwi (anti-progesterone u effetti negattivi fuq l-utru minn ġewwa) bejn l-emergency contraceptives u pilloli abortivi (bhal per ezempju Ulipristal acetate u Mifepristone).   Ulipristal acetate ghandha anti-progesterone effects, u minhabba f’hekk ma tħallix l-implantazzjoni ta’ l-embrijun, u ghaldaqstant ghandha effett abortiv.

L-abort hu llegali f’Malta, u l-protezzjoni tal-ħajja, għallinqas sa llum, testendi ghall-ħajja kollha mill-fertilizzazzjoni sal-mewt naturali.  Ghalhekk hi mehtieġa deċizjoni ċara mill- legislaturi u mill-awtoritajiet ċivili taghna dwar jekk il-MAP hijiex abortiva jew le.  Hija ferm inkwetanti u ta’ tħassib, din is-sitwazzjoni , u dan speċjalment  in vista ta’ proposti riċenti li jmorru kontra l-valur tal-ħajja.

Life Network Foundation Malta tixtieq tenfasizza li dan id-dibattitu fuq l-emergency contraception m’huwiex biss sempliċiment dwar il-kontraċezzjoni, iżda wkoll fuq l-abort ta’ ħajja li diġa’ bdiet.

Il-legalizzazzjoni tal-Morning After Pill ikun ifisser l-ewwel pass sabiex jiddaħħal l-abort f’pajjizna.