Ban on Celebrating Mass During Lockdown: the French Government’s Abuse of Power

Ban on Celebrating Mass During Lockdown: the French Government’s Abuse of Power

A judge of the Conseil d’État, ruling in summary proceedings, decided this Saturday, November 7, not to restore full freedom of worship, thus rejecting the appeal filed by the Conference of Catholic Bishops, Congregations and Faithful. This decision deserves several comments.

Article published in the French weekly Newspaper Valeurs Actuelles on Novembre, 9.

A first observation is obvious: the decline in the knowledge of Catholicism by public authorities, and the resulting historical choice of the bishops to take the government to court to defend their liberties. This is a cultural change.

For the government, commerce is more worthy than religion; and at no time has the Conseil d’État questioned this axiom. Freedom of worship would be only one aspect of freedom of assembly and would be worth less than freedom of demonstration, which is still permitted.

This is a considerable fall because never before had the drafters of the 1905 law imagined that freedom of worship would be belittled in this way. International law even places this freedom of religion above the other freedoms by admitting “no derogation” from it, even “in the event of a public emergency which threatens the existence of the nation and is proclaimed by an official act.” Surprisingly, the judge deliberately ignored this provision of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Nor did the judge note the government’s abuse of power in deciding which religious ceremonies can be celebrated in a church (marriage and burial with 6 and 30 people respectively) to the exclusion of others (baptisms, confirmations, ordinations, etc.), which clearly violates the 1905 law. The Republic is supposed to ignore religious practices.

However, we can be grateful to the Conseil d’État for providing several useful clarifications:

The faithful may go to places of worship located more than one kilometre away and for a period of more than one hour, by checking the box “urgent family reason” [in the auto-attestation form that is compulsory to go outside during the lockdown in France]. In this regard, the judge in charge of summary proceedings invites the Government to correct the form to “explain” this option.

The ministers of religion may receive the faithful individually, go to their homes and to the establishments where they are chaplains to exercise their ministry. Catholic priests may therefore administer the sacraments in the church, in private homes, as well as in schools, prisons or hospitals, without being subject to the limit of six persons constituting a group when this does not apply.

The faithful may also go to places of worship while the priest is celebrating Mass, provided that they avoid “any gathering with persons who do not share their home.” On this last point, the criteria are still unclear. As the government acknowledged at the hearing, one can be more than six people in a large church without creating a grouping… it all depends on the size of the place of worship. It is regrettable in this regard that France has not adopted an objective criterion of density of faithful per square meter, as many countries have done.

 

Finally, the scope of this decision should be put into perspective.

Like every summary proceeding, it is a decision taken by a single judge, in a state of urgency. It is not final and is only valid “in the state of the investigation and at the date of the present order.”

Thus, the judge may be called again in summary proceedings as soon as new circumstances can be invoked in support of the release of the cult. In this respect, the judge emphasized that the extension of the state of health emergency “presupposes the commitment to a consultation with all the representatives of the main religions, aimed at clarifying the conditions under which these restrictions could evolve.” In doing so, the judge discreetly supports the request of the representatives of the cults to be heard.

Finally, any believer can still appeal to the Conseil d’État against the decree of October 29, 2020, so that the judges, sitting this time in a collegial manner, can decide this question on the merits. A priority question of constitutionality (QPC) could even be added to the procedure. But this procedure will take several months.

In the meantime, it remains possible to declare at the prefecture the holding of demonstrations in public squares, to demand full freedom of worship while celebrating mass. Priests can also celebrate daily requiem Masses with thirty faithful, even in the absence of a body, as the decree authorizes them to do.

This is a eclj.org opinion piece by Grégor Puppinck

Ref: https://eclj.org/religious-freedom/french-institutions/ban-on-celebrating-mass-during-lockdown-the-governments-abuse-of-power

A right diminished – Tonio Borg

A right diminished – Tonio Borg

The government has proposed a law which reduces our constitutional rights

The human rights chapter in the Maltese Constitution is the bedrock and shield of our rights as citizens. Any attempt at changing the contents of such a chapter needs to be scrupulously examined and vetted. Since 1964 every time the chapter was amended, this was to increase rather than reduce the rights enshrined in it.

The first Fenech Adami administration introduced gender as a prohibited ground of discrimination, and the immunity hitherto enjoyed by certain pre-1964 codes of law from the human rights chapter came to an end. Sexual orientation was added as a prohibited ground of discrimination in 2013.

This is set to change.

The government has proposed a law that will diminish rather than embellish our rights set forth in the constitution. The right to a court of law in criminal proceedings was laid down in a 1983 landmark case where a law allowing a price control tribunal to decide criminal cases was declared null and void. Along the years this guarantee of access to a court of law in criminal cases, and nothing else, was extended to cover cases where hefty and punitive so-called “administrative penalties” could be imposed.

Since 2016, by a ruling of the Constitutional Court these cannot be imposed except by a court of law. In 2018 the same court decided that such cases had to be made available both at first and second instance i.e. at all stages of the proceedings.

This bill deserves to be dumped in the bin of legislative history– Tonio Borg

The government is proposing to bury this jurisprudence and rulings and allow administrative tribunals, rather than courts of law, to impose administrative penalties which are in effect criminal in nature.

There is no doubt in my mind that this is being done to save a provision in the equality bills which allows the equality board – not a court of law – to impose hefty fines on private individuals and organisations. A Church school or organisation may be hauled before such administrative tribunal and be given a hefty fine. The opposition, during the second reading of the bills through Clyde Puli and Therese Comodini Cachia rightly criticised this provision as being unconstitutional. What does the government intend to do? Rather than amend the draft law it wants to amend the constitution to regularise the ‘unconstitutional’ provisions!

Thankfully, this bill needs a two-thirds majority of all MPs in its final voting to be approved. I have no doubt in my mind that the opposition will oppose tooth and nail this nefarious draft law. I am saying this for the simple reason that in 2018 the party in opposition, following the institution of a constitutional human rights action, managed to have a law declared as unconstitutional which allowed the Electoral Commission to impose hefty fines against any political party found to have breached the Party Financing Act.  

Besides, I am reliably informed that this provision, which needs a two-thirds majority to be approved, was launched by the government without any form of consultation with the opposition whose support it needs to enact this constitutional amendment. Even for such an act of arrogance this bill deserves to be dumped in the bin of legislative history!

To add insult to injury, this bill is being justified on the grounds that it aligns the Maltese Constitution with the European Convention on Human Rights and eliminates a ‘discrepancy’ with the latter. This is pure legal nonsense, and a deceitful assertion; for the Convention allows, indeed encourages, member states of the Council of Europe to provide for rights and guarantees in addition to, or more generous than, the Convention. It does not allow member states to provide lesser guarantees not more.

A solution to this problem would be to set up a special administrative court presided over by a sole member of the judiciary to decide questions relating to administrative penalties.

Changing the Constitution to allow lay tribunals to decide criminal cases would be a first in constitutional history. A first to be ashamed of.

This is a timesofmalta.com opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/a-right-diminished-tonio-borg.825019

Pharmacists join call for conscientous objection in Equality Bill

Pharmacists join call for conscientous objection in Equality Bill

Say Bill discriminates against pharmacists

The Pharmacy Council is concerned about implications on the pharmacy profession in the Equality Bill.

In a statement on Thursday, the council said the proposed law, which is aimed to provide a legal framework against discrimination, discriminates against pharmacists and other healthcare professionals and undermines pharmacists’ professional autonomy, moral convictions and integrity.

Moreover, it does not include a conscientious objection clause.

Pharmacists, in practising their profession, take decisions based on science and ethical principles inherent to the pharmacy profession and their conscience, the council said.

But the Bill’s articles seven and eight contemplate placing pharmacists into a conflict of conscience in relations to their legal obligations to render a professional service which goes against their conscience.

Acting against one’s conscience was also in breach of the pharmacists’ fundamental right to Freedom of Conscience and Religion as enshrined in the Constitution, the European Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the EU.

A similar call has already been made by doctors and the bishops have warned about serious implications on individual freedoms.

The council said it is most concerned about the proposed articles three and 32, the supremacy articles.

These rendered the proposed legislation supreme over any other present and future legislation, the code of ethics of the pharmaceutical profession and the oath taken by pharmacists to practice

“It is inconceivable that pharmacists would be obliged to render a professional service, which is in breach of the oath they have pledged to adhere to,” it said as it called for the deletion of article 32.

The council said it is imperative to include a conscientious objection clause under article six (exceptions).

“This clause must include a proviso stating that patients are informed of any conscientious objection in a timely manner, and that the State should make provisions to ensure access to lawful health services to protect patients’ rights.”

Malta as a Democratic State should ensure that pharmacists and other health care professionals are protected from a conflict of conscience and from any other form of discrimination, the council insisted.

 

This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/pharmacists-join-call-for-conscientous-objection-in-equality-bill.823159#.X37XNzDz8ks.whatsapp

Press Release – Most MAPs are abortifacient in effect

“Most MAPs are abortifacient in effect” says Life Network Foundation Malta

Superintendent of Public Health may become answerable at law

Life Network Foundation Malta refers to the ongoing discussion on the MAP, and the frequently misleading, as well as biased, information put about on local media, and observes that the most recent developments appear to have totally bypassed Malta’s laws, both on abortion and on the Embryo Protection Act.

The Malta Medicines Act (CAP 458) stipulates that the role of the Medicines Authority is only to give recommendations. It is the function of the Licensing Authority, a role taken up by the Superintendent of Public Health, to issue Marketing Authorisations for medicinal products intended for the Maltese market. Unless the Licencing Authority formally delegates this responsibility to the Medicines Authority, the function of the latter is limited to nothing more than making recommendations to the Licensing Authority.

The superintendent of Public Health, as representative of the Licensing Authority (or even of the CEO of the Medicines Authority in the event of such powers being formally delegated to him by the same Licensing Authority) subsequently assumes responsibility for ensuring that Marketing Authorisations (licenses) for medicinal products intended for the Maltese market comply fully with national legislation.

Therefore, abortion being illegal in Malta, if a license is issued for a MAP in the face of scientific evidence demonstrating its abortifacient properties, the issuing authority – in this case the Superintendent of Public Health – may  also become answerable at law.

Life Network Foundation Malta notes that the recommendations presented by Parliament through the Joint Health, Social Affairs and Family Affairs committee regarding the licensing of the morning after pill in Malta, have acknowledged not only that different types of MAP have different modes of action but that there are those that operate by the prevention of implantation of the embryo, thus achieving their goal by an abortifacient process.

Furthermore, there is clear and objective scientific evidence, presented to the conjoint Parliamentary committee, that most MAPs are abortifacient in effect.

Notwithstanding this, the individual authorities responsible for recommendations or deciding whether, or not, to introduce this product into Malta have seemingly chosen to ignore these facts and to recommend in favour of its importation nonetheless.

Life Network, however, has no reason to doubt the overwhelming volume of evidence that points towards the abortifacient properties of MAPs and reaffirms its commitment to the defence of life from conception to natural death. The circumstances of conception are many and varied but the right to live is a value inherent to us all.

Dr Miriam Sciberras

Chairperson

Life Network Foundation Malta

“Il-maggoranza tal-MAPs huma fil-fatt abortivi” tghid il-Life Network Foundation

Is–Supretendent tas-Sahha Pubblika jista’ jkun responsabbli quddiem il-Ligi

Life Network Foundation tirreferi ghad-diskussjoni li bhalissa ghadha ghaddejja dwar il-MAP, u l-informazzjoni zbilancjata ghal mod kif hi l-boghod mill-verita’ li qieghda tidher fuq il-Media lokali. Life Network tikkundanna l-fatt li l-ahhar zviluppi qed jindikaw li l-Ligijiet ta’ Malta qed ikunu ghalkollox injorati sew fejn jidhol id-delitt ta’ l-abort, kif ukoll fejn jidhol l-Att dwar il-Protezzjoni tal-Embrijun (Embryo Protection Act)

L-Att dwar il-Medicini (KAP458) jistipula li r-rwol tal-Awtorita’ tal-Medicini hu wiehed biss–dak li jaghmel rakkomandazzjonijiet. Hija l-funzjoni ta’ l-Awtorita’ dwar il-Licenzjar, rwol li jaqa’ taht is-Supretendent tas-Sahha Pubblika, li tohrog  awtorizzazzjonijiet ta’ tqeghid fis-suq (licenzji) ghall-prodotti medicinali biex jidhlu fis-suq Malti. Sakemm l-Awtorita’ dwar il-Licenzji ma tiddelegax formalment skond regoli stabbiliti mill-Awtorita’ dwar il-Licenzjar lill-Awtorita’ dwar il-Medicini, l-uniku rwol ta’ l-Awtorita’ dwar il-Medicini hu biss limitat ghal xejn aktar hlief li taghmel rakkomandazzjonijiet lill-Awtorita’ tal-Licenzjar. Is-Supretendent tas-Sahha Pubblika, bhala rapprezentant tal-Awtorita’ghal-Licenzjar (jew Ufficjal Ezekuttiv Ewlieni fil-kaz li dawn il-poteri jigu delegati lilu mill-Awtorita’ dwar il-Licenzjar), taqa’ fuqu r-responsabbilta’  biex jizgura li l-licenzja ta’ prodotti medicinali mahsuba ghas-suq Malti huma konformi mal-Ligi Maltija.

Konsegwentement, la darba l-abort hu illegali f’Malta, jekk tohrog licenzja ghall-MAP meta hemm evidenza xjentifika cara u oggettiva li turi li l-MAP ghandha elementi li jikkawzaw abort(abortifacient), l-Awtorita’ li tohrog din il-licenzja – f’dal-kaz is-Supretendent tas-Sahha Pubblika, jista’ wkoll ikun responsabbli quddiem il-Ligi.

Life Network Foundation Malta tinnota r-rakkomandazzjonijiet li gew ipprezentati fil-Parlament mill-Joint Health, Social Affairs and Family Affairs Committee (Kumitat Parlamentari Konjunt) rigward il-possibilita ta’ licenzjar tal-MAP  f’Malta, li jirrikonoxxu mhux biss il-fatt li hemm tipi differenti ta’ morning after pills li ghandhom modi differenti ta’ kif jahdmu, imma wkoll li minn dawn it-tipi hemm minnhom li joperaw billi ma jhallux l-embrijun jaqbad mal-guf tal-mara, li allura ikunu wasslu biex jikkawzaw l-abort  (prevention of implantation).

Fuq kollox tezisti evidenza cara u oggettiva li giet ipprezentata lill-Kumitat Parlamentari Kongunt li fil-fatt li fil-maggoranza taghhom l-MAPs jikkawzaw l-abort (abortifacient). Madanakollu l-awtoritajiet koncernati biex jaghmlu r-rakkomandazzjonijiet jew biex jiehdu decizjoni jekk ghandiex tidhol fis-suq Malti, jidher li qed jinjoraw ghalkollox dawn il-fatti u minflok qed jirrakomandaw favur li jigu mpurtati dawn il-pilloli

Life Network Foundation m’ghandha l-ebda raguni ghalfejn tiddubita’ mill-evidenza massiva li turi bic-car li dawn il-pilloli ghandhom elementi abortivi u terga’ tikkonferma l-impenn taghha li tiddefendi l-hajja mill-koncepiment sal-mewt naturali. Ic-cirkostanzi ta’ koncepiment huma hafna u jistghu ivarjaw minn wiehed ghall-iehor izda d-dritt ghall-hajja huwa valur intrinsiku ghal kull wiehed u wahda minna.

Dr Miriam Sciberras

Chairperson

Life Network Foundation Malta

Press release

Press release by Life Network Foundation Malta on the Morning After Pill Debate

Life Network Foundation Malta notes the positive consensus that has emerged between Malta’s laws on abortion and the requirement to adhere completely to The Embryo Protection Act.

Life Network Foundation Malta reiterates the fact that life starts at conception. The word ‘abortifacient’, as used by international bodies, deliberately disregards the first two weeks of life prior to implantation, resulting in a play on words that is unfair as well as misleading.

According to the Malta Medicines Act (CAP 458) it is the function of the Licensing Authority, a role taken up by the Superintendent of Public Health, to issue Marketing Authorisations for medicinal products to be placed on the Maltese market. Unless this function is delegated by rules from the Licensing Authority to the Medicines Authority, the only role of the latter is to make recommendations to the Licensing Authority in relation to such licensing.

The superintendent of public health, or the CEO of the Medicines Authority if such powers are delegated to him by the Licensing Authority, is responsible for ensuring that Marketing Authorisations (license) for medicinal products intended for the Malta market comply fully with national legislation.

Therefore, abortion being illegal in Malta, if a license is issued for a MAP in the face of scientific evidence demonstrating its abortifacient properties, the issuing authority – in this case the Superintendent of Public Health – may be deemed guilty of committing a crime.

Life Network Foundation Malta notes the recommendations presented by Parliament through the Joint Health, Social Affairs and Family Affairs committee regarding possible licensing of the morning after pill in Malta, that have acknowledged that:

–   Different types of MAP pills have different modes of action.

–   Objective studies demonstrate that these pills have a potential abortifacient effect if they prevent implantation of the embryo.

Life Network notes that the Joint Committee made it an obligation that licenses for MAP be issued only after the necessary medical and ethical studies are carried out. There is clear scientific evidence, as presented to the conjoint Parliamentary committee, that MAPs are mostly abortifacient. Therefore, if a Marketing Authorisation for a MAP were to be issued, the Licensing Authority may be held accountable for producing the unbiased studies showing the sound scientific evidence upon which the decision was based.

Finally, Life Network wishes to express its support and appreciation to those Members of Parliament who have shown themselves willing to defend life from conception to natural death. The value of life is inherent to us all, irrespective of the circumstances in which conception occurs.

 

 

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.