Kburi niddikjara li jien KONTRA l-ewtanasja. L-ebda persuna , inkluz il-politiku, m’ghandu dritt li jintervjeni b’xi mod fil-mixja tal-hajja la qabel it-twelid , la waqt it-twelid u fl-ebda fazi tal-hajja tal-bnedmin. Il-PN huwa ukoll tal-istess hsieb fuq l-Ewtanasja.
Robert Cutajar
Almost seven years ago, in September 2009, the Times of Malta reported that Joseph Muscat, the current Prime Minister, said he disagreed with the morning-after pill even in cases of rape. He added that he could not accept any method, including the morning-after pill, that stopped life.
Such a stand did not seem to ruffle the feathers of the public, not even highly educated women, Alternattiva Demokratika, the Humanist Association or any of the feminists who so vociferously cry out for women’s rights. None made their voice heard.
Yet, today the climate has changed, although the facts have not. The morning-after pill is a contraceptive but, if fertilisation has occurred, it has an abortifacient effect. In a culture where abortion is accepted and legalised, such a reality does not bother the public conscience.
As Ivan Padovani put it so eloquently (July 3 “If you don’t have a problem with abortion as a form of birth control, then you won’t have a problem with the morning-after pill either.”)
So far, Malta is different. It does not accept abortion. Should we be ashamed?
I can understand that some men are perfectly happy that women bear the responsibility of getting pregnant and are totally indifferent to whatever method they use. However, I am dismayed that so many women are willing to swallow hormonal drugs and implant devices in their wombs and even resort to abortion, all in the name of women’s so-called emancipation.
Some men are perfectly happy that women bear the responsibility of getting pregnant and are totally indifferent to whatever method they use
In an article of the Guardian (November 2014), Holly Grigg-Spall is decidedly against contraceptives. She writes: “When we take the pill our sex hormones are suppressed and replaced with synthetic versions, released in a steady stream. Gone are the fluctuations we experience monthly.
“This means every system related to our hormones is disrupted – our metabolic and endocrine systems and our immune system. This is what leads to the insidious, slow-build side-effects that women can experience. That’s the science behind the headlines.”
She adds: “A lack of feminism more widely might explain why research that connects the pill to increased risk of breast cancer, cervical cancer and pulmonary embolism leading to stroke or even death is more likely to get swept aside as anomalous or negligible.”
She concludes that women shouldn’t be expected, let alone encouraged, to sacrifice their health and well-being.
If anything, in the light of such facts, I would expect women to clamour for a male pill and place the onus of all the physiological and psychological disruption in the male camp. That would really be revolutionary and… equally stupid.
Even so, would women trust men who claim they are ‘on the pill’? The only pills men may be keen to take are those like Viagra that enhance their sexual potency.
Again, in 2009, Carl Djerassi, one of the key researchers who developed synthetic progesterone that led to the ‘pill’, outlined the “horror scenario” that occurred because of the population imbalance, for which his invention was partly to blame. He said that, in most of Europe, there was now “no connection at all between sexuality and reproduction”.
The fall in the birth rate in his country, Austria, he said, was an “epidemic” far worse but given less attention than obesity.
Scientists also point out that many so-called contraceptives have an abortifacient effect by preventing implantation of the embryo. Spanish doctor José Maria Simon Castellvi refers to the “devastating ecological effects” of the tons of hormones discarded into the environment each year, adding that sufficient data exists to show that one of the causes of male infertility in the West is the environmental contamination caused by the products of the ‘pill’.
Finally, contraceptive methods violate at least five important rights: the right to life, the right to health, the right to education, the right to information (its dissemination occurs to the detriment of information about natural methods) and the right of equality between the sexes (responsibility for contraceptive use almost always falls to the woman).
If such facts are branded hysterical and if criticism of contraceptives and abortifacients are criticised as shameful, then so be it. I hope that people who think rationally will conclude otherwise.
Dr. Klaus Vella Bardon is deputy chairman of Life Network Foundation Malta.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160718/opinion/Case-of-shameful-hysteria.619194
The issue of emergency contraception has been around for decades but up until now our laws did not allow doctors to prescribe such pills as they are not available in a single pill form wrongly called ‘morning-after pill’. I am writing this piece in my capacity as a family doctor. As GPs we are the first doctors to encounter requests for such measures as emergency contraception.
First of all I must say that contraceptive pills have been on the local market for decades and some doctors use them as a form of emergency contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies after a couple would have performed sex a number of hours before. This is done by giving more than one and up to six contraceptive tablets in one dose depending on the brand, followed by a second loading dose 12 hours later. These can be given up to 120 hours after intercourse. So we must not illude ourselves that emergency contraception is not practised in Malta.
The problem arose when a single pill wrongly called ‘morning-after pill’ of whatever brand was proposed to be made legal. These emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) can be taken up to 120 hours after intercourse and can still be effective, so it is not just the morning after. On the international market there are three types of such pills.
Scientifically we know that life begins with fertilisation but the pro-ECPs lobbyists say instead pregnancy begins with implantation
There are, the combined containing both, oestrogen and progestin, progestin-only and others containing an anti-progestin. The latter are out of the question for many women, as they are used as abortion pills and currently only available in Armenia, China, Russia and Vietnam. So the first thing which should be cleared is which of these will be available.
They have different mechanisms of action, effectiveness and side effects. What is most important in my opinion is their mode of action. It is known that combined pills can inhibit or delay ovulation provided you take them before ovulation.
Now the time of ovulation is difficult to calculate and there is no easy and practical way of knowing. So these are very effective if taken during the first half of the menstrual cycle, before ovulation has occurred. In this case they are purely preventing ovulation and there is no question of being abortive.
But if taken later on they act by impairing endometrial receptivity to subsequent implantation of a fertilised egg. So we are speaking of a life which has already begun even though a bunch of cells. Scientifically we know that life begins with fertilisation but the pro-ECPs lobbyists say instead pregnancy begins with implantation, which is totally different.
At this stage human life has already started, so these pills have an abortive effect. Also, these combined pills are as effective as it is claimed because they must have a mechanism of action other than delaying or preventing ovulation.
Regarding the other type of pills, the levonorgestrel-only pills, their method of action is dual. If taken before ovulation the primary mechanism of action is blockade and/or of ovulation. So in such cases only, they are purely contraceptive and they have no abortive effect. But the reduced efficacy of these pills with a delay in treatment suggests that interference with implantation is likely.
These are the objective facts.
My point is that, no matter what is their mode of action in general and how this is stated on the package insert, every pill when taken acts on a unique way on a particular patient.
Nobody knows what really happens, whether a prevention of ovulation or prevention of implantation has occurred. Both things can happen.
In the latter case it is abortion.
Dr. Mario Saliba is a specialist in family medicine.
Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160707/opinion/Emergency-contraception-pills.618002
Mark Anthony Falzon (June 19) makes a creditable argument in support of the introduction of the so-called ‘Morning-After Pill’ (MAP) in Malta.
I agree with his view on accreditation. I would go further, in fact, and lament the haste with which people seem to deliver themselves of their uninformed, often severely prejudiced, opinions, only adding fuel to the confusion of already-complex subjects, to the detriment of all involved.
The main problem with Mr Falzon’s perspective is that he makes the same error that hordes of others are making in the course of this discussion. This error centres on the acceptance of a tacit presumption that merely editing the definition of when a pregnancy officially begins has any bearing on the presence or otherwise of a human life. This detail is so exclusively crucial to the entire issue of the properties of the MAP that it must be looked at a lot more closely.
Years ago, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists chose to re-define the origin of pregnancy as the point at which the fertilised egg, following passage through the Fallopian tubes, is successfully implanted in the uterus.
This newly minted definition chimed so well with the emergence of the MAP that it remains anybody’s guess as to whether it was purely coincidental or not, but the fact of the matter is that it meant that this pill, from being something that could end a pregnancy, was transformed overnight into something that only ever prevented it from occurring.
The trouble began once the work of re-defining the initialisation of pregnancy had been completed. Little further thought seems to have been given to the status of the human embryo from the moment of its conception, through its lonely journey down the Fallopian Way, up to the point of implantation.
Consequently, it was left to a universal audience to subconsciously infer that this entity had ceased to be of significance. In fact, the entire construct of the pill’s modus operandi is predicated on an insidious suggestion that the state of pregnancy and the existence of a human life are co-dependent and interchangeable terms. This is, quite simply, untrue.
At the beginning of fertilisation, a new human being begins to exist
So-called ‘test tube’ babies are living proof of the presence of a newly created human life independent of any pregnancy.
The point is that the definition of the commencement of pregnancy may be tinkered with from time to time but the moment of creation of a human life is scientifically beyond dispute.
The ‘Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development’ are often referred to as “the Bureau of Standards” of human embryology. They are verified and documented by the international Terminologia Embryologica committee, which consists of more than 20 experts, academically credentialed specifically in human embryology, from around the world. After reviewing the latest research studies in human embryology, their deliberations are published in the international Nomina Embryologica, part of the larger Nomina Anatomica.
It is clearly acknowledged that at the beginning of fertilisation, when the sperm penetrates the oocyte, a new, living, genetically unique, single-cell human being begins to exist. This has been known scientifically for almost 130 years, (e.g., in the work of Wilhelm His.)
These are the long-known and long-acknowledged objective scientific
facts of when sexually reproduced human beings begin to exist. They have been and remain the international standards used today.
The notion that the very existence of a human life is dependent on the current definition of a pregnancy, and that the absence of one necessarily defines the absence of the other, is the core fallacy of the MAP campaign.
Broadly speaking, there are three mechanisms of action attributable to the MAP. Two are exclusively contraceptive in nature. The third, however, is abortive and it is this that is the focus of all objections.
Essentially, if it happens that fertilisation has already taken place, i.e., an embryo exists, the MAP prevents it from implanting – and death follows.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, professional opinions on this, the third mechanism of operation, are not unanimous. There seems to be evidence that it may not operate as claimed. But there is a whole lot more that indicates it does.
In conclusion, if you don’t have a problem with abortion as a form of birth control, then you won’t have a problem with the morning-after pill either. But if you do, then it’s a matter of very serious concern.
What does emerge clearly, however, is that if the principle of informed consent still has any meaning, then the least that the MAP’s manufacturers and proponents owe to society is a realistic confirmation of its full potential.
When all is done and dusted, it may well turn out that Gift of Life were nearer the mark than many were led to believe.
Dr. Ivan Padovani is a board member of Life Network Foundation Malta
Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160703/opinion/The-presence-of-a-human-life.617526
Towards the end of the month of July 2009, the Prime Minister of Albania, Sali Berisha, announced he intended to propose a motion in Parliament to approve ‘same-sex marriage’.
The following day, some journalists decided to gauge the opinion on this topic among the religious groups represented in Albania.
The Catholic Church was the first to be approached, despite the fact that it only represents 15 per cent of the population. It ranks third after Islam and the Orthodox Church, yet, it enjoys high credibility and esteem for various reasons. Due to my position, I was the person who was approached first.
Within a week, the Catholic bishops of Albania made a declaration, which was published in all newspapers, in which we explained the position of the Catholic Church. Very soon after, the Moslems, the Orthodox and the Bektashi Order (a Sufi Moslem sect) also reacted.
So, together we published a joint declaration as the Inter-Religious Council of Albania. There was widespread reaction in the Albanian media, the vast majority sharing our stand against the introduction of the so-called ‘marriage’ between persons of the same sex.
Although Albania is secular, the religious groups are always consulted and listened to whenever a law will impact on religious issues, directly or indirectly such as education in private schools. It bears emphasising that this takes place in a secular, non-confessional country.
Therefore, I had good reason to be very surprised when, recently, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, a friend of mine and a person I know has the good of the family at heart, stated he is in favour of ‘gay marriage’ and that the time is ripe to discuss this possibility.
I was equally surprised when Simon Busuttil, the leader of the Opposition and leader of a party whose banner once carried the words Religio et Patria, also stated that he agrees with legislation to introduce such a ‘marriage’.
Berisha took heed of the position taken by the mainstream religions in this country and he soon withdrew from his previous statement. Was this a sign of weakness or was he a good listener? I feel it is a huge mistake when legislators ignore the religious sentiments of their people.
In an interview I gave to local television regarding ‘marriage’ between homosexuals, the interviewer asked: “Countries that are more emancipated than ours are today approving this type of ‘marriage’; is it possible they are all wrong?”
Surprisingly, there and then, the words of the Desert Fathers came to my mind: a time will come when all people will go crazy and when they see one who is normal, they will laugh at him and say “look at that madman’”.
Unfortunately, the state that approves of this type of bond, wrongly called ‘marriage’, is today considered an emancipated country.
We later got to know that an ambassador of one of the first countries to introduce ‘marriage’ between homosexuals was applying pressure on the Albanian government to introduce this type of ‘marriage’ to show Europe it is no less backward than other emancipated countries.
In the statement we released as the bishops of Albania, we first mentioned that both the Church and the State have a sacred duty to defend the dignity and integrity of marriage and the family.
Aware of this responsibility, we feel we have to raise our voice against the proposal of the Prime Minister regarding the legislation of ‘same-sex marriage’.
Then, as Christians, we presented the teachings of the Bible regarding marriage as a bond between heterosexuals.
In the first pages of Genesis, we read that God created us in His image as male and female. After creating man, God said: “It is not good for the man to live alone; I will make a suitable companion.” In metaphorical terms the creation of woman was formed from his rib. When the man saw the woman, he exclaimed: “At last, here is one of my own kind – bone from my bone and flesh from my flesh. Woman is her name because she was taken out of man.”
We then have the definition of marriage, with the following statement: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united with his wife and they become one flesh.”
These statements are enough for us to understand what meaning marriage had and still has in God’s plan. Human beings are created in the image of God, male and female. The woman has the same dignity of the man. Both, as two individuals, having the same dignity, join together in marriage and become “one body”.
Therefore, the diversity of sex is willed by God, who intended this for marriage which includes the possibility of procreation of children, something that is obviously excluded in the case of ‘marriage’ between homosexuals.
One has every right, if one does not want to live as a Christian, to reject this but a Christian cannot play around with the Word of God, which is crystal clear.
We continued by stating that, in every era, every culture and religion, marriage was always defined as the full bonding between a man and a woman. No Parliament has the competence to change this definition. For the sake of truth, let us not consider calling ‘marriage’ a bond between two people of the same sex or say that this is a right.
One says this without any lack of respect towards homosexuals. What is stated by the catechism of the Catholic Church must be accepted with respect and every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
Finally, the cells that form society are not individuals but families. Not every change inevitably means progress. We should not fool ourselves into thinking that approving such a law places us in the league of the more emancipated nations. Let us, therefore, defend the ethical values that really guarantee authentic and healthy families.
This statement was very well received by the press and public opinion. Naturally, not everyone agreed with us but no one insulted us saying we were narrow minded or medieval.
Mgr George Frendo is Auxiliary Bishop of Tiranë-Durrës in Albania.
It is rather disconcerting and depressing to witness the manner in which the so-called liberal agenda is being forced through in Malta. The latest attempt to undermine the value of the fullness of life is the judicial protest by a group of women clamouring for the ‘right’ to have the ‘morning after pill’ available in Malta.
Labour whip Dr Godfrey Farrugia dismissed their arguments that the ‘morning-after pill’ is a reproductive right, adding that: “Freedom of thought, opinion, liberty and to assemble are human rights, but interfering with the very origins of life do not fulfil those rights.”
Malta always seems to be in a hurry to adopt lifestyles and cultures that have proved so damaging to the social framework elsewhere. The facts speak for themselves.
Pope Paul VI cautioned about the consequences of the contraception culture that was ushered in with the widespread use of the ‘pill’ in the 1960s. He prophetically warned that contraception would lead to promiscuity, loss of respect for life, marriage and the family, and breakdown of essential social structures.
Statistics clearly show the close link between divorce rates and abortion with the use of contraceptives. Besides undermining the family, their use has resulted in a demographic catastrophe in Western countries where the birth rate is so low that there are not enough young people to run the economy and sustain an increasingly ageing population.
Yet the powerful financial interests of the pharmaceutical giants downplay the side-effects of contraceptives, some of which are very serious indeed, such as the higher predisposition to breast, cervical and uterine cancer and vascular disorders.
The West has succumbed to forces lined up against human life, marriage, the family and religion.
Yet those who challenge the contraceptive culture are branded as suppressing liberty of women. Nothing could be further from the truth. Behind the fine talk of ‘the woman’s body’ and ‘woman’s choice’ lie the egoistic interests of men who are only too ready to leave reproductive responsibility in the lap of women. Women are saddled with taking powerful hormonal drugs, with inserting devices in their womb and then being scolded if they get pregnant – as if this was an unforeseeable result of sexual intercourse. They are then often faced between choosing abortion or being abandoned.
It is therefore essential that we educate young people to treasure life in its fullness and realise the importance of appreciating their human dignity. Young women in particular should cherish their bodies as they carry the sanctuary where life begins, is nurtured and grows.
Young people have to realise that their happiness depends on the loyalty and security that only love in all its totality can bring. People are being sold the false idea that respect, responsibility and sacrifice diminish the joy of life.
Women sell themselves cheaply when they willingly reduce themselves to commodities readily available with no strings attached to any transient romance that comes their way.
The callous disregard of some people at the possibility of destroying life with contraceptive drugs is a sad reflection of the sorry state of our society and the depths to which we have allowed ourselves to sink.
Contrary to what many think, such negative trends are not inevitable. Countries like the US are increasingly aware of the negative consequences of a contraceptive culture and the tide is turning as the younger generations become more aware of the consequences of irresponsible life choices that result in broken relationships and abortion.
Let us celebrate life by educating our youth to cherish their sexuality and find the discipline to cultivate relationships that are life-giving in all their dimensions and are underpinned by passionate love that does not wane in spite of the challenges that life inevitably brings.
Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160626/religion/Let-s-celebrate-life.616779
Press Release in response to the judicial protest to call for the legalisation of the morning-after pill in Malta.
Human embryonic life starts from conception. The egg released from the woman is fertilised by the sperm and the embryo created continues to grow as the new human life travels down to implant in the mother’s womb.
One of the effects of the morning after pill or emergency contraception is the alteration of the lining of the womb such that the embryo will not be able to implant and is thus intentionally lost. This is called the anti nidation (anti nesting) effect and is abortifacient.
The sale or use of abortifacients is prohibited by law.
In Malta, human life has always been protected from conception by successive governments.
Let us continue to keep the unborn protected from conception.
Co Signed by
Dr Miriam Sciberras
Life Network Foundation Malta,
Mr Paul Vincenti
Gift of Life Foundation
Mr Anthony Mifsud
Malta Unborn Child Movement
Today, the mention of the word ‘eugenics’ hardly attracts any interest. It is a word that seems to have vanished from our vocabulary, but eugenics is a reality of which most of us are largely unaware.
The word “eugenics” was coined in 1910 by an Englishman named Francis Galton, who termed it the ‘new religion’. He advocated “the betterment of mankind” as he wanted to improve the physical and mental make-up of human beings by increasing the proportion of those people with “superior genetic endowment”.
This ideology was enthusiastically greeted by the intelligentsia in Great Britain and the US. In Britain, these included figures such as H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Marie Stopes, John Maynard Keynes, J.B.S. Haldane, Bertrand Russell, Sidney Webb and Winston Churchill. Intentional killing, sterilisation and birth control were, in Wells’ view, a sound way of eliminating what he regarded as inferior peoples. He, along with his fellow eugenicists, believed that evolution, operating on its own, was not sufficiently effective.
Eugenics was not merely a utopian idea: it formed the basis of concrete policies; it led to the immigration-restriction statutes of the 1920s in the USA. But there were more direct and telling effects. Thirty-three American states passed laws that allowed the forced sterilisation of those deemed “unfit”. The Supreme Court’s upholding by eight votes to one of a Virginia law signalled their general acceptability and led to thousands of enforced sterilisations in the US.
Apart from G.K. Chesterton, no one spoke out against it. Almost singlehandedly, with his scathing wit and sense of humour, he succeeded in swaying public opinion in his country. Chesterton brushed off the derision and the insults he received. He was not fooled by labels and slogans and he fought for what he believed in, despite the odds. He challenged eugenics, strongly declaring that it ought “to be destroyed” as “a thing no more to be bargained about than poisoning”. He passionately believed in the right and duty of a free man to stand in a public place and say what he thought to be true.
Unfortunately, the ideology of eugenics was wholeheartedly embraced by Hitler and by 1939, within six years of his coming to power, a quarter of a million Germans were sterilised. This paved the way for euthanasia and the wholesale murder of the so-called ‘sub-humans’ and the ‘Final Solution’ of Jews in Europe.
The horrors of Hitler’s Germany revealed after WWII helped to discredit eugenics. As a result, the victorious Allies, from the Nuremberg Trials to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, sought to vindicate the inviolable dignity of individuals.
Yet the notorious founder of the Planned Parenthood Foundation (PPF), the American, Margaret Sanger, who also pioneered eugenics, was quick to distance herself from eugenics and re-invented herself as a promoter of women’s ‘rights’ to contraception and abortion.
Her organisation remains an upholder of modern population control and eugenics. It uses its considerable finances to promote and facilitate internationally, sterilisation, abortion, contraception and also infanticide (particularly in China). It is funded to the tune of billions of dollars by the US, the UK and other Western governments. The ‘Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’ is also a key contributor.
Sadly, eugenics is also making a powerful comeback with the advances in genetic medicine. John Harris, a bioethicist at Manchester University, told the BBC in 2003 that eugenics was a laudable aim as: “It is the attempt to create fine healthy children and that’s everyone’s ambition.” Test-tube baby pioneer and expert on pre-implantation diagnosis, Robert Edwards, says: “Soon it will be a sin for parents to have a child that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease. We are entering a world where we have to consider the quality of our children.”
Once again, the inherent dignity of man is being sacrificed for the value of expediency. Expectant women are now submitting themselves to screening technologies designed to identify a “worthless life” and replace it with a “worthwhile life”.
The disgraceful emotional pressure applied to women to terminate a pregnancy is conveniently ignored as state policies in Europe’s aim to eliminate ‘defective’ babies. Coupled with the legislation of euthanasia to eliminate the terminally ill, it is all part of a pattern. It is eugenics all over again. The weak, the ill and the impaired are now at risk.
Chesterton saw that truth in eugenics long before the Nazis made it clear to the world. We should heed his warnings.
To be ‘well meaning’ is not enough. As the saying goes: ‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions’. A failure to remember and absorb the lessons of history carries dire consequences. When fundamental principles are forfeited, humanity is at risk.
Thursday 9 June 2016
Press release
The organizer’s committee of the ECI “Mum Dad & Kids” hails today’s decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Chapin and Charpentier v. France (Appl. Nr. 40183/07), in which it is clarified that under the European Human Rights Convention the term “marriage” has no other meaning than that of a union between a man and a woman.
The case concerned so-called same-sex “marriages” that were registered by the mayor of a French municipality in 2004 despite the fact that at that time (i.e., prior to the controversial Loi Taubira, which was adopted in 2013) the French legal order provided no legal basis for such “marriages”. As a matter of consequence, the false “marriage” had been declared void by the Tribunal of Bordeaux at the request of the public prosecutor’s office.
By their application to the ECtHR the two applicants claimed that the Tribunal’s decision to declare their “marriage” void violated their right to marry and found a family under Article 12, and their right to respect for their family life under Article 8, of the European Human Rights Convention. But with today’s judgment the ECtHR has confirmed that the term “marriage” in Article 12 has a clear and unambiguous meaning: a union between a man and a woman. This was so when the Convention was adopted in 1950, and it remains so today.
The President of the citizens’ committee “Mum Dad & Kids”, Edit Frivaldszky, said: “It is a great satisfaction to see that the Court confirms and corroborates the position that our ECI is promoting: marriage is something unique and special. One of the purposes of marriage is to provide a place where children can grow up happily, and it is in the child’s best interest to grow up in the love aund unity of his mother and father. The Human Rights Convention provides absolutely no legal base to pressure national legislators to re-define marriage. If in some quarters claims are made that same-sex ‘marriage’ is a human right, these claims are false, without foundation, and contrary to good faith”.
The Secretary General of the committee, Maria Hildingsson, added: “Article 12 of the Convention places the family into a direct context with marriage. It is therefore clear that today’s judgment has implications for the way in which the term ‘family’ is to be understood: it is based on the marriage between a man and a woman, and on descent.”
Please visit www.mumdadandkids.eu and sign for marriage and family!
