Author: lifenetwork

BBC.co.uk reports: Calls for law to stop anti-abortion protests outside clinics

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) is calling for new laws to move anti-abortion protesters from the doorstep of its clinics.

BPAS, one of the UK’s main abortion providers, has told Newsbeat some patients are being confronted by graphic content.

These include large posters and leaflets with pictures showing dismembered foetuses.

But anti-abortion groups, like Abort67, say they are “educating” the public.

Department of Health figures for 2013 suggest there were 185,331 terminations in England and Wales.

“We’ve really asked protesters to think a lot harder about the kind of activity that they’re undertaking outside clinics,” says BPAS spokeswoman Clare Murphy.

“We completely respect people’s right to protest, but we simply feel that approaching women, causing them harassment and distress at what’s already quite a difficult time in their life, really isn’t right.”

BPAS is now campaigning for the Government to create “access zones” outside British abortion clinics to help women access them without be confronted by pro-life protesters.

Submission for the Gender Identity (GIGESC) Consultation by Life Network and Gift of Life Foundation Malta

A Bill entitled An Act for the recognition and registration of the gender of a person and to regulate the effects of such a change, as well as the recognition and protection of the sex characteristics of a person.

The proposed law may seem to apply to a minority group, however the way that the law is worded and the implications thereof will affect the whole population. Some of the most salient parts of the law and their application are listed (in bold) below:

(2) Without prejudice to any provision of this Act (a) a person’s rights, relationship and obligations arising out of parenthood or marriage shall in no way be affected; and

(b) the persons rights arising out of succession, including but not limited to any testamentary dispositions made in one’s favour, and any obligations and, or rights subjected to or acquired prior to the date of change of gender identity shall in no way be affected.

Transfers/liabilities:

What about transfers/liabilities acquired inter vivos prior to change of sex and name as per article 11(1)?

Penal charges:

What happens if there is a change in gender in the period between committing a crime and being charged for it? Would the charge be considered null and void, because the particulars do not correspond to the particulars listed on the charge?

Why should one be permitted to change one’s gender on the basis of one’s ‘experience of gender’, but not one’s birth date if one feels that one ‘should’ be a different age?

(1) It shall be the right of every person who is a Maltese citizen to request the Director to change the recorded gender and, or first name in order to reflect that person’s self-determined gender identity.

Security:

What happens if the gender chosen does not correspond to the person’s bodily appearance? Is this safe or even legal? The law will demand new practices in the identification of people.

Example: What happens at airport security if there is a mismatch? Will the police be allowed to investigate? What about international security?

Gender change registration in cases of gender dysphoria:

It is well known that gender dysphoria may be a symptom of schizophrenia and of other mild psychoses. There are several gender dysphoria syndromes that may result in a temporary altered gender identity and reassignment of gender in these persons, at least, is not only harmful to themselves but also to society. (Levine and Lothstein J Sex Marital Ther. 1981;7:85-113; for a summary of a more recent paper, see the end of this document). More generally, for the protection of the individual and of society, there should be more attention to the psychiatric and psychological assessment of those with gender dysphoria before any official change of gender is contemplated.

Expenses:

Will the individual have the right to have the cost of expensive gender reassignment surgery and hormonal therapy met by the government as a result of official recognition of gender change?

Gender change registration:

How many times is one allowed to register a change?

(2) The request shall be made by means of a letter which makes clear reference to the public deed published in accordance with article 5.

Legal loophole: The request is to be made by means of a letter which makes clear reference to a public deed. A true copy of the public deed must be attached to the covering letter as proof.

Also, there is room for abuse, since in Malta the Public Registry (Acts of births+ deaths) and the Public Registry (Assets and Liabilities/ transfer of immovable property) are not in any way linked or intertwined.

5 (2) The Notary shall explain to the applicant the legal implications of the change of the assigned gender and shall require the applicant to declare understanding of such implications.

Notarial duties: Since when are Notaries trained to explain that the legal implications will also have psychological, medical and social implications to mention but a few?

6 (3) The Director shall cause an index of the Gender Register to be made and kept in the Public Registry Office in Malta and in Gozo; and no-one shall be entitled to search that index.

This is not acceptable or in the public’s best interest. Birth certificates are available to any and all – they are public documents, and that is why the Registry is public.

Note: Articles 8 and 15 both refer to Protection of minors

(1) The persons exercising parental authority over the Minors. minor or the tutor of the minor may file an application in the registry of the Civil Court (Voluntary Jurisdiction Section) requesting the Court to change the recorded gender and first name of the minor in order to reflect the minor’s gender identity.

(2) Where an application under sub-article (1) is made on behalf of a minor, the Court shall:

(a) Ensure that the best interests of the child as expressed in the Convention on the Rights of the Child be the paramount consideration; and

(b) in so far as is practicable, give due weight to the views of the minor having regard to the minor’s age and maturity.

Protection of minors

The Act recognizes a “minor” as a person who has not as yet attained the age of eighteen years. Adolescence is one of the most difficult phases of the life cycle of human beings during which a child/adolescent goes through different stages in how he or she understands his or her body (including for some, a feeling, which will often have begun much earlier, that their physical characteristics do not reflect their “real” gender).

Helping children and young people to mature should be a matter of helping them understand and appreciate their body and physical sex, rather than seeing their body as something “wrong” which needs to be “corrected” or “rectified” through surgery.

The Bill refers to the “right to bodily integrity”(31 (d)) but does not uphold the right to bodily integrity in practice where a child’s physical sex is unambiguous, but the child is experiencing difficulty in coming to terms with it.

A holistic approach is required to address the diverse needs of the child during such a traumatic and vulnerable time.

While it is always a questionable response to gender dysphoria to agree with the person that his or her physical sex needs “correction” or “masking” by dress, those under 18 in particular should be protected from well-meaning attempts of parents or doctors to “correct” what does not in fact need correction (the body and the way it is presented to society), rather than addressing the young person’s emotions in themselves.

Gender reassignment of children who are physically healthy (as opposed to “intersex” children who are born with ambiguous physical sex) is difficult to defend in relation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child including article 8 which refers to the child’s right to preserve his or her identity, article 19 referring to protection from physical injury and article 37 referring to inhuman or degrading treatment.

Penal Liabilities

Surgical intervention and any gender reassignment treatment, particularly if this treatment is irreversible, should at the very least be postponed until the minor reaches the age of majority. The law should stipulate penal liability for professionals who conduct any irreversible therapy on the child before age eighteen.

(1) Accessibility to the full act of birth shall be limited solely and exclusively to the person who has attained the age of eighteen years and to whom that act of birth relates or by a court

order.

This is highly discriminatory with respect to the rest of the population since full acts of birth of the rest of the population can be attained.

(1) A person who in the course of the discharge of official duties was involved with a matter relating to this Act may not unlawfully disclose such matter in accordance the Professional Secrecy Act and the Data Protection Act.

(2) Whosoever shall knowingly expose any person who has availed of the provisions of Act, or shall insult or revile a person, shall, upon conviction, be liable to a fine (multa) of not less than one thousand euro (€1000) and not exceeding five thousand euro (€5000).

Does this apply to marriage bans? Wouldn’t this be “discriminatory to the innocent party”? What if institutions are called on to explain why a particular person is considered male or female by them and therefore not suitable for a position reserved to one or other sex (such as the priesthood in the case of the Catholic Church)?

(1) Every norm, regulation or procedure shall respect the right to gender identity. No norm or regulation or procedure may limit, restrict, or annul the exercise of the right to gender identity, and all norms must always be interpreted and enforced in a manner that favours access to this right.

This does not respect children’s need for a mother and a father or existing social institutions that try to meet that need. This can be abusive and result in coercion of those who do not accept the normalisation of (for example) same sex/transgender marriage or use of surrogates and donors by those in same sex/transgender unions who wish to have a child.

In many countries, where similar laws were enacted, this has resulted in court cases against parties who in principle cannot support such lifestyles. Parents who were morally opposed to gender mainstreaming have been incarcerated and penalised for trying to protect their children.

There are examples citing such discrimination and attacks on the right to religious tolerance on many websites. The following is one such site:

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY (IN CANADA AND the US) http://www.christianpositivespace.com/discrimination-cases.html

Reproduction requires a male and a female in nature, and, in the best interests of the offspring born of this union. The Embryo Protection law applies to heterosexual couples, and is not only oriented to achieving a pregnancy but towards embryo protection. It should also be noted that this law took a lot of discussion and finally agreement from both sides of the House to come to fruition. It cannot just be altered to accommodate anyone who now wants to change it.

14 (2) The public service has the duty to ensure that unlawful sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics’ discrimination and harassment are eliminated, whilst its services must promote equality of opportunity to all, irrespective of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics.

How will this be interpreted as regards application to public education and education in schools?

Will comprehensive sex education become mandatory?

Will parents be allowed to opt out for their children, or will they be silenced, coerced, or even imprisoned, as we have seen happening in other countries?

Two recent examples are included:

Germany : Mandato d’arresto a genitori “non allineati” Sta suscitando polemiche la vicenda dei coniugi Martens, ai quali è stato notificato un arresto perché non hanno acconsentito alla presenza della figlia a scuola durante le “lezioni di gender”

Italy:Parents united against gender, “emergency social and anthropological An initiative promoted by Italian parents to stem the ‘gender’ teaching in schools. Rome, November 24, 2014 ( Zenit.org ) Federico Cenci

Church Schools and the Right to Religious Freedom:

Can the state declare that the Right to Religious Freedom will be upheld?

Gender ideology goes against basic tenets of the faith. It fails to acknowledge God as the Supreme Creator. It does not accept Natural law i.e. that part of the moral law that can be accessed by human reason alone. It does not accept marriage as made up of the exclusive union of one man and one woman. It negates the complementary nature of male and female (which today is even scientifically backed by brain scan technologies). Motherhood and fatherhood, so essential for the optimal holistic development of the child is also denied.

Catholic Church schools and institutions, and practising Catholic individuals, cannot accept Gender mainstreaming.

(1) It shall be not be lawful for medical practitioners or other professionals to conduct any sex assignment treatment and, or surgical intervention on the sex characteristics of a minor which treatment and, or intervention can be deferred until the person to be treated can provide informed consent.
(2) In exceptional circumstances treatment may be effected once there is an agreement between the Interdisciplinary Team and the persons exercising parental authority or tutor of the minor who is still unable to provide consent: Provided that medical intervention which is driven by social factors without the consent of the individual concerned will be in violation of this Act.

Protection of minors It is not clear whether 15.2 would protect children from medical intervention which is in fact “social” rather than medical but is not admitted to be social (that is, the child is physically healthy but the child’s self-perception is seen as causing psychological problems which gender assignment is proposed to “treat”).

17(6) The members of the working group shall review the current medical treatment protocols in line with current medical best practices and human rights standards and shall, within one year from the date of their appointment, issue a report with recommendations for revision of the current medical treatment protocols.

Which protocols would need to be changed to be in line with this proposed law? Is this referring to the The Embryo Protection Law?

Objects and Reasons

The objects of this Bill are to provide for the recognition and registration of the gender of a person and to regulate the effects of such a change, and due recognition and protection of the sex characteristics of a person.

This proposed law is imbued in human rights language and presents itself as protecting minority rights.However in its legal application it violates not only the rights of, in particular, children with gender dysphoria (as explained above) but also the rights of those without gender dysphoria. According to Gabriele Kuby, embracing gender mainstreaming means a whole different world view which can encompass when translated into policy:

“An”equality” between men and women built on a false premise.

More “equality” leads allegedly to greater justice. It is never questioned whether we are in fact enforcing equality or “sameness” between that which is not the same but is different and/or complementary.

Subversion of the identity of man and woman by destroying “gender-stereotypes”, beginning in schools.

Deregulation of normative standards of sexuality: Any kind of sexual practice or self-perception – be it lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgender (LGBT) – has to be accepted by society as equivalent to heterosexuality. And this would have to be taught to children at school.

Early sexualisation of children through obligatory comprehensive sexual education.

The gender ideology attempts to create a new man, whose freedom would include the choice of his sex and sexual orientation. This means to arbitrarily decide whether he or she wants to be man or woman, heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual (GLBT). This view of freedom and sexuality, according to the will of the UN, EU and most European governments is to be imprinted onto the minds of children from the nursery onwards.” (Ref Kuby G, Gender Mainstreaming — The Secret Revolution)

Camille Paglia, a lesbian and self-described “notorious Amazon feminist” comments negatively on the gender ideology. She “sees a connection between society’s attempts to paper over the biological distinction between men and women pushing a version of feminism that says gender is nothing more than a social construct”.

State parties are duty bound to protect minors. It has been amply proven that minors from single parent families suffer from the absence of a missing parent. Mother and father figures are essential to the holistic child development.

This law will have the effect of destroying society’s recognition of the need for these role models. Children are likely, in the future, to be bombarded with presentations of all sorts of different sexual relationships from an early age, and eventually encouraged to choose. Any attempts by parents to teach their children about the traditional heterosexual marriage, based on biology and on children’s real needs, will suffer the full brunt of the law. This goes against the fundamental human right to family life, which right is supposed to be exercised and enjoyed without undue interference from the state.

According to Article8, Chapter 319 Laws of Malta

(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Ref: Article8, Chapter 319 Laws of Malta .This is a constitutional source of law and is supreme to all other laws of the land, which prevails if in conflict with another law.

This Bill if enacted will be imposed on an absolute majority of heterosexual people to accommodate a minority of gay, lesbian, homosexual or transgender people, whose own genuine interests are not obviously served by the Bill.

Babies are biologically born either male or female. Their sex is anatomically visible at birth. In very rare cases, intersex babies are born. In these cases scans and karyotyping would determine which sex organs are present or most developed, and remedial surgery could be performed at an appropriate age if it is truly in the person’s interests. This law applies not to the biologically intersex person alone but to those whose biological sex is absolutely clear but who have difficulty accepting that sex and need psychological support.

A paper entitled “The Psychopathology of “Sex Reassignment Surgery”: Assessing its Medical, Psychological and Ethical Appropriateness” (NCBQ Spring 2009) whose main authors are psychologists and family therapists, reached the following conclusions about such surgery, based on a wide review of the available scientific literature:

Sexual Reassignment Surgery (SRS) violates basic medical and ethical principles because a) it mutilates a healthy, non-diseased body and therefore violates the medical principle “first do no harm”.

Demands for SRS result from a misperception of the self and SRS therefore offers a surgical solution to psychological problems (which may include failure to accept the goodness of one’s masculinity or femininity, lack of secure attachment relationships in childhood with same-sex peers or a parent etc.).

SRS does not accomplish what it claims to accomplish because it cannot, in fact, “change” a person’s sex and cannot benefit the person in the way sought.

Finally, SRS is a “permanent”, effectively unchangeable and often unsatisfying surgical attempt to change what may be only a temporary (i.e psychothepeutically changeable) psychological/psychiatric condition.

As can be seen, the enactment of this law will change the concept of society as we know it. Although the law ostensibly applies to a minority group, the way that the law is worded and the implications thereof will affect the whole population. As well as failing to protect the right of children with gender dysphoria to bodily integrity and to genuine psychological support, the Bill will limit the rights of the majority without gender dysphoria, including parents wishing to teach their children about the body, sex and marriage. As is amply demonstrated from court cases abroad, this results in a minority dictatorship which is in fact in no-one’s interests.

Dr Miriam Sciberras Mr Paul Vincenti

BChD(Hons) MABioethics President

Chairman, Life Network Gift of Life Foundation – Malta

Prime Minister Muscat On Abortion

During a visit by the Prime Minister Joseph Muscat’s at the Life Network’s stand, members of the Life Network gave exposure to the value of life and took note of his comments.

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_video title=”Muscat On Abortion” src=”“//www.youtube.com/embed/zxGCpXsdkWM“” width=”“560“” height=”“315“” frameborder=”“0“” link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxGCpXsdkWM”][vc_column_text]Life Network is currently present at the Fresher’s Week on University Campus. During the brief encounter with Hon Muscat, the Prime Minister gave his comments with regard to the issue of abortion.

His comments gave a great indication into what he believed the Maltese people agree upon in this regard. He stated that his belief is that ‘there is a consensus’ of the Maltese people against abortion. Using the word consensus implies that there is more than a general feel against abortion but a unifying agreement against its introduction. He also noted that that he has ‘no doubt’ that the consensus will remain as is.

Hon Muscat was shown a leaflet portraying the effects of abortion on the unborn child. To the images on the leaflet Hon Muscat said nothing and likewise he did not give any indications on his personal opinion on this matter.

Life Network is an NGO devoted to educating people about the value of human life (See our mission statement). The NGO has formed a new youth wing on the University Campus (see press release) where they will be present between the 1st and 8th October 2014.

For news about the Youth Wing On Campus go to: https://www.facebook.com/events/1526524097594487/[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Pro-Life Student Wing On Campus

The Pro-life foundation Life Network youth wing would like to cordially invite all the University staff students to visit their stand during Fresher’s week.[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Life Network is a voluntary pro-life foundation just recently set up with a mission statement to promote and maintain a pro-life culture in Malta.

If we are to remain a country “free to choose life”, we cannot afford any complacency regarding protection of human life at any stage. The fundamental principle that all rights flow from the human person must remain at the heart of our society.

Peace cannot be taken for granted, lest we have war. The same is true with life. If we are not vigilant in protecting the intrinsic value of human life in all its stages, the anti-life mentality will creep in…… slowly but surely.

Malta remains the only country in the EU that fully respects human life from conception; however the unremitting pressure to comply with women’s so called ‘reproductive rights’ including abortion remains.

The pressures on Malta will keep increasing. How will we respond? It is not going to be easy, but…. if we do not prevail in our pro-life stance we face the lethal implications of abortion for the unborn child victims like most countries.

Please help us in our mission. Join us, help us, and donate towards our work.

Miriam Sciberras

BChD(Hons) MA Bioethics

Chairman Life Network

www.staging-lifenetwork.stagingcloud.co

26.09.2014 [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_cta_button2 h2=”Help Us Help Life” style=”rounded” txt_align=”left” title=”Make Your Donations” btn_style=”rounded” color=”juicy_pink” size=”md” position=”right” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fstaging-lifenetwork.stagingcloud.co%2Findex.php%2Fabout-us%2Fhelp-us-help-life%2F|title:Donate|” h4=”Why Support Life Network?”]

We need your support in order to be able to spread the news on the value of life. Your donation will help us to educate people of all ages, organise pro-life seminars and buy books & materials to facilitate educate. Like every life is infinitely priceless, so is every donation. Thank you from the bottom of our hearts.

Life Network

[/vc_cta_button2][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Life Network First Pro-Life Event

Ms Aisling Hubert, a member of Abort67, was the guest speaker of an educational pro-life event organised by Life Network. The aim of this event was to show the implications of allowing abortion in Malta as well as educating students about the value of life.[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

The First Pro-Life Event

The event, the first public event organised by the Life Network, was a huge success where it attracted a very good number of University students, Medical students and members from the political community. Over 70 people attended this educational programme which was held on the 24th September at the PKI Institute in Floriana.

The Programme

Ms Hubert’s programme talked of topics relating to generating awareness of the abortion genocide, the situation of abort with respect to Malta and educating students on the arguments in favour of life. Throughout the presentation videos, images and arguments were brought to light with much passion by the guest speaker, that left everyone who attended with a new awareness.

Genocide of Abortion

One of main aspects discussed was that abortion has become the greatest genocide ever in history. With twice the amount of babies aborted annually than people lost in World War II, the situation is very critical. Malta, having kept the illegality of abortion intact, is still resilient in the face of this age discrimination mass murder but the country has to be careful as forces are pushing to throw the last EU country into the abortion pit.

A Choice Of Arguments

Abortion is validated by Pro-Choice and Planned Parenthood advocates with a great number of arguments. Ms Aisling Hubert dismantled them all and she argues that in the face of the miracle of life no arguments stand strong. By finding common ground (in being empathic with the people facing the choice of abortion), giving comparisons and asking questions one can look beyond arguments that favour the murder of the unborn child.

Lack of Awareness

One of the main aspects pointed out was that people do not have the full picture of what abortion is and what is happening. People need clear examples and graphic images to actually show the horrors of abortion. Ms Hubert advocated the use of graphic images which are the real truth behind abortion.

Finally the event was a great opportunity for the pro-life organisation to come together and meet. Bringing different people from different ages, mentalities, occupation and political creed, the huge success of this event is a testament to Malta’s stand in the face of abortion. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_gallery type=”image_grid” interval=”3″ images=”346,347,348,349,350″ onclick=”link_image” custom_links_target=”_self” title=”Photos From Newsbook.com.mt” img_size=”400×300″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_cta_button2 h2=”Help Us Help Life” style=”rounded” txt_align=”left” title=”Make Your Donations” btn_style=”rounded” color=”juicy_pink” size=”md” position=”right” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fstaging-lifenetwork.stagingcloud.co%2Findex.php%2Fabout-us%2Fhelp-us-help-life%2F|title:Donate|” h4=”Why Support Life Network?”]

Life Network

[/vc_cta_button2][/vc_column][/vc_row]

“Ta’ 12-il sena ghandhom ikunu jafu dwar l-abort” – Newsbook.com.mt

Aisling Hubert tfajla Ingliza ta’ 21 sena ilha ghal dawn l-ahhar 7 snin tahdem biex tbiddel il-mod kif in-nies iharsu lejn l-abort.

Aisling bhalissa tinsab Malta ghal-laqgha organizzata mill-ghaqda Life Network bhala parti minn progett ta’ edukazzjoni pubblika dwar l-abort.

Ma’ Newsbook.com.mt, Aisling qalet li hemm bzonn li l-adoloxxenti jkunu jafu x’inhu abort.

Dwar ta’ liema età z-zghazagh ghandhom jibdew isiru jafu dwar l-abort u l-konsegwenzi li jgib mieghu, Aisling qalet li kif il-genituri jhallu t-tfal taghhom jaraw films u loghob vjolenti, bl-istess mod m’ghandhomx izommuhom lura milli jaraw ritratti grafiċi.

Kompliet tghid li fl-Ingilterra tifla ta’ 12-il sena ghandha d-dritt taghmel abort minghajr il-kunsens tal-genituri, allura, fi kliem iz-zaghzugha, ta’ dik l-età ghandhom jibdew jitghallmu dwar il-hajja li tibda fil-guf.

Qalet li “xi darba l-guf kien il-post li joffri kenn u sigurtà ghat-tarbija, izda issa dan sar l-aktar post perikoluz”.

Dwar jekk tahsibx li l-abort xi darba ghad jidhol f’Malta, it-tfajla Ingliza qalet li normalment, irid ikun hemm generazzjoni, madwar 20 sena, biex jibdew jittiehdu passi, u milli rat, dan digà qieghed isehh.

Sostniet li jekk mhemmx l-edukazzjoni xierqa, kaz wiehed ta’ abort jista’ jkun il-bieb ghal-legalizazzjoni tal-abort.

Skont l-Uffiċċju Nazzjonali ghall-Istatistika u d-Dipartiment ghas-Sahha fir-Renju Unit, mill-1990 sal-2012 kien hemm 1,275 kaz ta’ nisa Maltin li ghamlu abort fl-Ingilterra jew Wales. Dan ifisser li fuq medda ta’ 22 sena, kull sena, 58 mara Maltija ghamlu abort.

Aisling tahdem ma’ Abort67, parti minn progett tal-Bioetika fl-Ingilterra, li jqajjem kuxjenza dwar kif persuna thares lejn l-abort.

Dr Miriam Sciberras minn Life Network, qalet li l-edukazzjoni ssir billi persuna tara l-verità, anke jekk ghas-soċjetà dan huwa tabù.

Sostniet li f’Malta hafna min-nies huma favur il-hajja, izda l-lingwagg qed jinbidel biex jahbi x’inhu l-abort, u ghalhekk hemm bzonn ta’ kampanja edukattiva.

Dr Sciberras fakkret li ghal kull ghazla hemm konsegwenza.

See source article, taken from Newsbook.com Julia Callus “Ta’ 12-il sena ghandhom ikunu jafu dwar l-abort”.

President of Malta Promises Not To Legalize Abortion – Hilary White

Malta’s recently-elected president, Marie Louise Coleiro Preca, told a delegation of pro-life advocates last week that her government would never legalize abortion.[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]During a “courtesy meeting” with Malta Unborn Child Movement (MUCM) an umbrella group representing 45 local organizations, the president said she is “personally dead set against” abortion and that as president, she would never sign such a legislation, MUCM said.

After the legalization of “limited” abortion in the Republic of Ireland, Malta became the last European nation, and one of the last in the world, to totally outlaw all abortion. The tiny Mediterranean country has been the target of decades of relentless pressure to legalize abortion at the international level.

A member of the group, and the co-founder of Life Network, the country’s newest pro-life activist organization, told LifeSiteNews.com that the president “realised that over the issue of abortion, although Malta does not enjoy a universal consensus, it was imperative that we all worked together in promoting the protection of the unborn child and against abortion.”

President Feels Encouraged Of Malta’s Life Shield

Dr. Miriam Sciberras told LifeSiteNews.com, “The President of Malta said she wanted the widest possible backing to combat the pro-abortion culture.” She added that the president’s words were “an encouraging pro-life shield against the anti-life movement that is being forcefully promoted both locally and abroad.”

“It’s very encouraging to have her say these things publicly. She could have chosen not to say anything, to stay silent or not invite us. If we had more people who are not ashamed to speak about these things I’m sure the situation would be much better.”

Malta Has Always Spoken Against Abortion, And So Has Labour

The president’s promise backs up another made by Leo Brincat, the Labour Party’s representative at the Council of Europe, who said in 2008 that there is “one unifying factor among the parties represented in our country’s parliament,” that “Malta has always spoken with one voice in its stand against abortion.”

“As for my party…there are no ifs or buts on this issue. The Malta Labour Party always was, is and will remain against abortion. The issue does not feature on our agenda.”

But the abortion mentality is growing in large segments of Maltese society, as the population, with little opposition from the clergy, slides slowly away from its historic Catholic roots. Despite an officially 98 percent Catholic population, Mass attendance has fallen dramatically in the last ten years, while during the period between 2002 and 2011, records from the UK’s Department of Health showed that 591 women travelled to Britain for abortions, a significant number in a country with a total population just over 420,000. No records are available on how many travel to nearby Italy for the same reason, though it is widely known that the practice is common.

Dr. Sciberras said the Life Network was founded this summer in response to the growth of this “anti-life mentality” that includes the contraceptive mentality and wider acceptance of the homosexualist “gender” ideology.

RU-486 (Morning After Pill) Discussed

Artificial contraceptives are nearly universally accepted, including hormonal contraceptives, despite the fact that their abortifacient nature is well known. Although the country still outlaws both the abortion drug RU-486 and the so-called morning-after pill, a 2012 article in the Malta Medical Journal showed that contraceptive use, including “barrier method, hormonal manipulation, and sterilisation” is common.

The effects of this new cultural paradigm can be seen in Malta’s falling total fertility rate, which stands at 1.45 children born per woman, far below the 2.1 required for maintaining a stable population.

Dr. Sciberras said, “We look at the growth of the anti-life mentality, which is pervasive. It’s everywhere. We know that we’re up against a change in lifestyle that is promoting the Culture of Death instead of the culture of life.”

First Priority Is Educational

“Our first priority is educational, showing people the meaning of being pro-life, that it is not just a statement, it’s a way of life,” she added.

Their first educational campaign will be to reach out to schools and parishes, and the group has already identified a core of students at the University of Malta to launch a project there. UofM already has active organizations on campus making posters and pamphlets available to students promoting homosexuality and the feminist ideologies.

She said her group wanted to take up the defense of all life, at all its stages and conditions, “be it with disability, with dementia… embracing the full spectrum of life.”

The Life Network

Life Network is also not restricting itself to issues related to abortion and euthanasia, but Dr. Sciberras says their dedication to the “full spectrum” includes the moral defense of the natural family based on marriage between one man and one woman. She acknowledges also that the government has embraced a contradiction with its pro-life position in its enthusiasm for the homosexualist agenda’s push towards “gay marriage.”

“‘Life issues’ take place within the context of the family,” she said. “You cannot protect a child without protecting his family. He comes from the union of a father and a mother.”

“It is the right of every child to have a father and a mother. This is a basic principle.” She says that there is a growing element in Maltese society that has moved away from these principles, and warned that it would lead to conflicts. “When you start compromising, you always get in trouble. You go against the natural law,” she added.

Responding to the recent passage by President Preca’s Labour government of the same-sex civil unions legislation, she said, “I know that a lot of things have been passed not with the consensus of all the people. Just because a government passes a law doesn’t mean it has the backing of the whole country.”

Maltese Legislation

Since the surprise legalization of divorce through a referendum in 2011, Malta’s laws on the nature of the family have changed with astonishing rapidity. This year saw the civil unions bill pass, and the country’s first same-sex civil unions registered. Last year, Helena Dalli, the Labour government’s Minister for Social Dialogue headed the Maltese delegation to a UN meeting in which she assured delegates that Malta’s “new Government was fully committed to the protection of the rights of LGBTI persons.”

This month saw the passage of the “transgender anti-discrimination” bill, as promised by Dalli at a “transgender” congress in Hungary in May. Dalli told that meeting that while her government’s focus had up until then been mainly on homosexuals, they would shortly be turning their attention to “trans” people.
She boasted that her government “amended the Constitution in such a way as to provide protection on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. I am told that we are the first country in Europe to have included an express reference to gender identity in the Constitution.”

This rapid succession of changes resulted in Malta being named by the EU’s leading homosexualist organization, ILGA Europe, one of the two “fastest climbers” among EU nations with regards to the goals of the organization.

Paulo Côrte-Real, co-chair of ILGA-Europe’s executive board, said in a statement attached to the organization’s Annual Review, “It is very encouraging to see countries like Malta and Montenegro make such huge progress in the space of one year. It shows that so much is possible when there is political leadership, especially when it is coupled with meaningful engagement of civil society.”

See source article, taken from LifeSiteNews.com Blogger Hilary White’s ‘ Malta’s president promises not to legalize abortion’.

You can learn more about Life Site News here and join their Facebook group here.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Right To Kill – Dr Vella Bardon

In the article ‘Who decides when a person should die?’ [The Sunday Times of Malta, 27^th July], Ariadne Massa questions whether Malta is prepared to put compassion before doctrine.

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This query implies that our doctrine is not compassionate – another sad example that anti-Catholic spin seems to have become the hallmark of the local media.

It would be relevant to point out what the Catholic Catechism actually says about Euthanasia. It states that putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick or dying persons is morally unacceptable adding in no uncertain terms that it constitutes a ‘murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person’.

On the other hand, it also states that ‘discontinuing burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate…‘over-zealous treatment’ can be legitimate. The administration of drugs to alleviate suffering, even at the risk of shortening the days of the sick and dying is good medicine as long as it is not deliberately intended to accelerate the death of the patient.

The Church does not consider suffering a good in and of itself. Avoidable suffering is not a virtue and the Church has been a pioneer of palliative care which it considers ‘a special form of disinterested charity’. Mother Theresa is the perfect example of a person who valued the dignity of life and lavished love and care on the rejects of Indian society who were left to rot in the streets.

Advances in the treatment and management of the terminally ill and seriously handicapped have improved enormously and medical breakthroughs in treating what were once untreatable conditions are another very positive development. Experts in the field claim that only a small proportion of patients suffer of intractable pain and even then there are means to keep them comfortable.

Most religious leaders oppose euthanasia because it discredits the value and sacredness of life and undermines the common good. Discovering and studying the reasoning of the Catholic Church against euthanasia is in itself an exercise of deep thought and altruistic concern for the vulnerable of society.

Legalising euthanasia or assisted suicide allows one person to kill another. It’s more the question of the ‘right to kill’ as death is not a right but an inevitable reality. Euthanasia erodes the basic trust that life should be protected. It corrupts and discredits the medical profession whose very raison d’être is to save and promote life. Indeed, in coming years, medical professionals who believe in the Hippocratic Oath’s prohibition against killing could well be driven out of medicine.

Here in Malta, we suffer from the ‘goat syndrome’ and follow blindly, and without proper deliberation, negative trends that take place elsewhere. We fail to see the negative consequences of well-meaning but misguided legislation elsewhere. It is a case of the fool learning from his own mistakes when very often it is too late to correct them.

In 1937, G. K. Chesterton shot down the concept of euthanasia with his inimitable wit by saying: -“… in my own country, some are proposing what is called Euthanasia; at present only a proposal for killing those who are a nuisance to themselves; but soon to be applied progressively to those who are a nuisance to other people. As it applies by hypothesis to an almost moribund or partially paralyzed person, the decision will presumably rest with the other people.”

In an interview of 2012, Lord Alton points out that in Holland, where euthanasia has been legalised since 2002, 4,000 deaths were recorded every year. 2,700 of which were in the early stages of dementia of which 1,000 were done without the consent of the patient. In 2008, Baroness Warnock had the gall to state that: – “If you are demented, you are wasting people’s lives, your family’s lives and you’re wasting the resources of the NHS.”

It is therefore not surprising, that all the major national disability groups in UK are rigorously opposed to proposals to change the law. They most of all demonstrate that this is not about values that only appeal to people of faith but about universal ones, most essentially the equal dignity and value of all people.

The Church defends human rights, human life in all its stages and human dignity. It believes in the sacredness of human life as it recognizes that every person is made in the image of God. For this reason it is against abortion, infanticide and euthanasia.

As Pope Francis recently said (Evangelii Gaudium, number 214): “It is not progressive to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life.”[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

‘Do you want us to let you die?’ – by Hilary White

“Do you want us to let you die?” It’s not exactly the sort of question one expects to hear when talking to a health professional when you’re living in a care home.

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]But that’s exactly what happens all the time, according to an article published by the Daily Mail this week, which says that it is becoming routine for nurses to ask elderly patients whether they “would agree” to a Do Not Resuscitate order.

The first thing I thought when I read it was, “Oh yes, they’ve been doing this sort of thing for ages. Why is it only becoming news now?” I still remember the day my dear friend John Muggeridg brought home a form they’d given him in the care facility where his wife, Anne Roche Muggeridge lived.

John and I had sat down to have our tea one day, and visibly upset, he showed me this form. It gave a long list of possible health care crises that Anne might suffer and asked John to mark down in each case what he wanted the facility’s response to be, on a scale of one to five. One of these asked whether he wanted her to receive antibiotic treatment in case of pneumonia, that killer of the elderly and fragile.

The kicker was when John told me that they had done this repeatedly, asking him to come into meeting after meeting to tell them whether he was “ready” to downgrade her care instructions. John, though sick with cancer himself, visited Anne every day, gently feeding her meals and praying the Rosary with her. He shook the form a bit as he said in his cultured Cambridge accent, “I want them to save her life! Every time it’s in danger!”

“It has become a common experience for people requiring medical care to be harassed if they decide they actually want medical care, and to be supported and encouraged if they decide they do not want further medical care.” John and Anne were important and influential figures in the Catholic pro-life scene in Canada through the 1980s, and it might strike a person as ironic that towards the end of her life, Anne, the author of two important books, was briefly threatened by that same Culture of Death she and John had fought so long. It was quite clear that the administration at this care home was trying to wear him down with these repeated requests for confirmation. I was so angry, and couldn’t help thinking, “Don’t these people know who this is?”

We called Alex Schadenberg, the head of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and he arranged to attend the next meeting, and together they “explained” that there would be no downgrading, and that Anne’s life was valuable, precious, even if she could no longer recognize anyone or speak, because it was Anne.

John said it was a kindly looking hospital administrator, a social worker and a nurse at the meetings. They would talk in the warmest possible tones, but the message was cold and hard. Let them die because they’re a burden.
The Mail reports now that in the UK mobile district nurses are being sent out from GP offices under instructions from the National Health Service, asking older people to fill out forms indicating whether a DNR is what they want. The NHS is claiming, with wide-eyed innocence, that these questionnaires are merely a means to “improve care of the elderly and keep them out of hospital,” but the Mail noted, “It is not clear why DNR is on the forms.”

They quoted Roy Lilley, a health policy analyst and former NHS trust chairman, whose mother was visited by a nurse with the form,” who “described the policy as callous.”

Lilly said, “Elderly, frail but otherwise healthy people are being asked, by complete strangers, to sign a form agreeing they shouldn’t be resuscitated. It is outrageous. People will be frightened to death thinking the district nurses know something they don’t and will feel obliged to sign the form so as not to be thought a nuisance.”

The Mail says Mr. Lilley is warning patients and their families not to sign the forms, saying that by doing so they are “signing their lives away.” He related the story of a meeting with a nurse at his mother’s care home who asked her “within a few minutes” “Where would you like to die,” and, “If you ever need cardiopulmonary resuscitation do you agree to do not resuscitate.”

The cultural power in Britain of “mustn’t grumble,” particularly among that generation of English people who were raised in the old manner and depended upon it to survive the War, cannot be underestimated. My mother, a war baby, was raised in that way, and raised me with the same attitude. Older people in Britain have it written into their base programming from infancy that “making a fuss” or calling attention to oneself is simply unthinkable. There is certainly a kind of English person who would, literally, rather die that make a fuss.

But this story from the UK is only the tiniest scratch of the great iceberg that passive euthanasia has become in elder care and long-term care facilities. Alex Schadenberg told me that this kind of unsubtle pressure is becoming common around the western world.

It is particularly common in places that have come to depend exclusively upon government-funded public medical care where the goal is to spend as little money as possible. There has been a lot written about the threat of “triaging” of older people whom the strict utilitarian principles of bioethics regard as economically worthless burdens.

“Sadly, the societal attitude towards the elderly and people needing care is worsening while the government is attempting to control medical costs by examining new ways to encourage people to refuse basic care,” Schadenberg told me.

I have often wondered how many men and women had been sat down in those offices where John Muggridge and Alex Schadenberg sat, and ever so gently pressured to change the instructions and “let them go”. How many were confused and persuaded by this friendly talk of “end of life care” and did not have the years of experience in the pro-life movement, or the rock solid moral principles the Muggeridges had held and defended like a bastion for so long. How many would not know who to call for advice and help?

See source article, taken from LifeSiteNews.com Blogger Hilary White’s: ‘‘Do you want us to let you die?’: The bleak new reality in care homes for the elderly’.

[/vc_column_text][tmq_hr][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Malta – Soon to allow abortion? – DI-VE Editorial

Malta as a Catholic country is known that the people are believed to embrace its genuine beliefs and culture. While abortion has not yet been adopted in Malta, the idea of allowing abortion to come into place under certain circumstances seems to be growing rapidly.

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Now, understandably, Malta is still the last country standing in the European Union which has not yet allowed abortion as it clearly states in its constitution the following:

“(1) Whosoever, by any food, drink, medicine, or by violence, or by any other means whatsoever, shall cause the miscarriage of any woman with child, whether the woman be consenting or not, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from 18 months to three years;” and
“(2) The same punishment shall be awarded against any woman who shall procure her own miscarriage, or who shall have consented to the use of the means by which the miscarriage is procured.”

Following di-ve.com’s two week poll, which managed to gather an amount of votes, it shows that while 55% stated that their position on the issue of abortion is to be prohibited in all circumstances, around 32% have stated that they believe that abortion should be legal under certain circumstances; like rape incest and to save the life of the mother.

The rest of the votes, 9% agree on having abortion legal under any circumstance and 3% were unsure as to where they stand on such issue.

Bringing back the fact that Malta, as a Catholic country, still remains the last to not allow abortion on any circumstance the question which currently burdens many minds is “How longer till we, as a country, follow the herd?”

It is understandable that the majority of those who voted, 55%, do not agree that Malta should adopt the idea of having abortion legal, however the 32% cannot go unnoticed.

That 32% clearly shows that while many still carry the idea that Life begins at conception, many are adopting the idea that if a child is conceived not willingly or that the mother is in danger of dying, it has no right to be born and the decision making of if the child should be ‘allowed’ to still have a beating heart is left in the hands of another person and not God.

Questions still remain which challenge every thinking mind. Who gave the right to any human being, who is of the same level of living as an unborn child, to end a life so abruptly? And why isn’t abortion considered murder when the life which has still not yet been born is willingly ended?

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]