Life Network Foundation worried about bill which may exclude ‘unborn children’, introduce euthanasia

Life Network Foundation worried about bill which may exclude ‘unborn children’, introduce euthanasia

Bill no. 198 currently tabled in parliament is “seriously preoccupying” as Government may change the meaning and substance of words like ‘person’ or ‘life’ in Article 33 of the Constitution and may exclude “unborn children” from the definition of ‘persons’, Life Network Foundation Malta said in a press release.

The Life Network Foundation describes itself as a life affirming organization, where they work to raise awareness on issues related to human life, marriage, and family based on a Catholic ethic of life.

The Bill in question states:

“Where any Act, whether passed before or after this Act, confers a power upon a public authority which exercises regulatory, supervisory, compliance, investigatory or enforcement functions to impose a civil penalty, an administrative fine or other civil or administrative pecuniary or non-pecuniary sanction or administrative measure, such a penalty, fine, sanction or measure may be interpreted as constituting a punishment of a criminal nature and the infringement in respect of which the said penalty, fine, sanction or measure may be imposed may be interpreted as substantively constituting a criminal offence subject to the following provisions of this article.”

The Life Research Unit, which is the Advisory Legal Unit within Life Network Foundation, voiced their concerns over such a bill.

“It is very worrying that this bill may go against and nullify sentences of the Constitutional Court which have established that in all the stages procedures which may lead to administrative fines amounting to thousands of Euros, citizens have the right to appear in a court of justice, rather than in front of a tribunal, officials or public corporations,” the statement read.

The foundation said that the proposed Interpretation Act, the legislator is “trying to change the meaning of the Constitution with a simple majority in Parliament instead of the required two thirds.”

This is a “highly disquieting precedent”, the Life Network Foundation said, as according to them, if such a proposal comes into effect, “a nasty precedent will have been created, whereby in the near or distant future any Government enjoying a majority of one may change the meaning and substance of words” such as ‘person’ and ‘life’.

The foundation also said that the Government “will allow the Equality Board in Bill No 97 (Equality) to inflict large administrative fines (20,000 Euros fine and penalties of 500 Euro daily) on organisations and/or institutions who are deemed guilty by lay persons nominated by government of ‘discrimination’.” They said that, as the Constitutional Court notes, only the Courts of Law can impose fines and penalties like these.

“The Constitution should remain the highest protection for the law in our country. It is very important for people to be aware that this precedent can constitute a threat to the Constitution. Therefore, we call upon all NGOs and others who are conversant with the law to express their concerns as well. We request the highest authorities in the land, including His Excellency the President of Malta to ensure that the Maltese Constitution is not undermined.”

This is www.independent.com.mt opinion piece

https://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2021-03-25/local-news/Life-Network-Foundation-worried-about-bill-which-may-exclude-unborn-children-introduce-euthanasia-6736232063  

Photo sourced from https://unsplash.com/@tingeyinjurylawfirm   

“Can you be an athlete? You, pregnant? You, a mother? That depends.”

“Can you be an athlete? You, pregnant? You, a mother? That depends.”

The message behind Nike’s advert mirrors the ultimate prolife slogan.

Nike released a new video advert to promote their maternity range. The message behind the advert is clear: pregnancy and motherhood do not prevent a woman from being an athlete—or, in actual fact, from following any other activity that she loves.

The message behind Nike’s advert mirrors the ultimate prolife slogan. Prolife organisations worldwide are constantly encouraging women in crisis pregnancies by stating that being a mother should not necessarily stand in the way of them achieving their dreams, whether it is to become an athlete, graduate from school, or have a career. Nike’s endorsement of this message is testament to the fact that the prolife culture in the United States seems to be gaining ground. This could indeed be life-changing for the prolife movement worldwide.

The empowering video, featuring pregnant women and mothers, opens with the questions: “Can you be an athlete? You, pregnant? You, a mother? That depends.”

It continues by defining what an athlete is: “Someone who moves; someone who gets it done, no matter what; someone who listens to her body; someone who defies gravity; someone who deals with the pain, hits her limit and pushes past it; pushing, pushing, pushing; someone who earns every single win.” Each defining phrase is backed by a resounding “You”, emphasising the fact that mothers are strong and that pregnancy is not a reason for them to quit the things they love doing. The video ends by reaffirming this sentiment:

“So, can you be an athlete? If you aren’t, no one is.”

 

Nike’s powerful advert portrays various well-established athletes—among them tennis, soccer, and track professionals—in different stages of pregnancy and motherhood. These transformative experiences and life changes may feel overwhelming to a woman, especially when she is new to them. Pregnancy can indeed be the utmost test of stamina and endurance for a woman. But, as the advert ascertains, mothers are actually much tougher than they are given credit for.

It is truly empowering to acknowledge that women can be mothers and accomplish their life goals. If they cannot, no one can!

Kont f’paniku w onestament ħsibt fl-abort

“Kont f’paniku w onestament il-ħsieb ta’ l-abort għadda min moħħi. Nixtieq ngħid grazzi lil Life Line Malta għax bis-saħħa tagħhom it-tarbija tagħna ġiet salvata!”

Din hija l-istorja vera ta’ mara li esperjenzat tqala mhux pjanata u li ġiet megħjuna minn Life Line Malta.

Nisa li jinsabu fi krizi ta’ tqala, dijanosi negattiva waqt it-tqala jew akkompanjament lin-nies li għaddejin mit-trauma tal-abort, ċemplu lill Life Line Malta fuq 20330023.

Life Line is the support and care arm of Life Network Foundation  

Bdejt naħseb fl-abort għaliex diġà kelli t-tfal

“Bdejt naħseb fl-abort għaliex diġà kelli t-tfal u peress li kelli problema tad-droga, ma stajtx inkun l-omm li xtaqt li kont.”

Din hija l-istorja vera ta’ mara li esperjenzat tqala mhux pjanata u li ġiet megħjuna minn Life Line Malta.

Nisa li jinsabu fi krizi ta’ tqala, dijanosi negattiva waqt it-tqala jew akkompanjament lin-nies li ghaddejin mit-trauma tal-abort, ċemplu lill Life Line Malta fuq 20330023.

Life Line is the support and care arm of Life Network Foundation

Life Line Malta gave me light in time of darkness

“Accidentally I got pregnant for the second time and I wanted to end my pregnancy. Life Line Malta gave me light in time of darkness.”

This is the real story of a young woman who was in a crisis pregnancy situation. She received all the help needed from Life Line Malta. Listen to her touching story!

For women in crisis pregnancy, negative pre-natal diagnoses & post-abortion healing please call Life Line Malta on 2033 0023

Life Line Malta is the support & care arm of Life Network Foundation

Bħala familja lesta biex tgħin lin-nisa li għaddejjin min kriżi ta’ tqala

“Life Network hija bħala familja lesta biex tgħin lin-nisa li għaddejjin min kriżi ta’ tqala.”

Din hija l-istorja ta’ mara li esperjenzat tqala mhux pjanata u li llum il-ġurnata tghin  nisa ohra li għaddejjin mill-listess sitwazzjoni simili taghha.

Nisa li jinsabu fi krizi ta’ tqala, dijanosi negattiva waqt it-tqala jew akkompanjament lin-nies li ghaddejin mit-trauma tal-abort, ċemplu lill Life Line Malta fuq 20330023.

Life Line Malta is the support and care arm of Life Network Foundation

Mother who adopted baby with Down’s syndrome shares her inspiring story

Mother who adopted baby with Down’s syndrome shares her inspiring story

A mother who adopted a child with Down’s syndrome has shared her inspiring story.

The anonymous mother, who adopted Harry, shared her adoption story with the Metro, as part of their ‘Adoption Month’ news coverage. 

After struggles with infertility and a miscarriage, the mum decided she wanted to adopt, and was approved to adopt a child aged three or older. 

After several months in the process, she was given Harry’s profile.

“I asked specifically for a child with Down’s syndrome and the very next day, I received Harry’s details.”

Harry was a dream from day one

When the mother received Harry’s details, he was just four months old. 

Despite being only approved to adopt a child aged three or over, her unique experience meant that the adoption agency made an exception and allowed her to adopt Harry.

The mum had grown up in a family where disability was not uncommon. 

“To me, disability isn’t something unusual – it’s just a part of life. My little sister has Down’s syndrome and is just a few years younger than me, and I also have other disabled family members.”

In July 2016, after six months of paperwork, she finally got to take him home. “Harry was a dream from day one,” she said.

“My family were overjoyed when I adopted Harry.”

There were challenges of course: “When he was young, he used to often be sick at night, all over the bed, due to reflux issues. Cleaning up the vomit for the millionth time is the only time I thought to myself ‘I can’t do this’ – but you just have to grin and bear it.

“That’s what being a parent is at times!

“He is so bright and super sociable. We both love being outdoors and often walk around the lake near our house or visit animals at the nearby farm.

“To me, Harry is just a boy. Some days, I completely forget that he has Down’s syndrome.”

I’m now looking at adopting a second child

Children born with Down’s syndrome are often hard to place. “There are so many kids out there who need a home. I would absolutely encourage people to adopt a disabled child, as they can be the hardest to place but have so much love to give.”

“I’m now looking at adopting a second child, perhaps one with Down’s syndrome – but I am keeping an open mind. Fingers crossed, Harry will have another sibling next year.”

Scale of Down’s syndrome abortions

Sadly, this inspiring story takes place against the backdrop of 3,183 disability selective abortions across England & Wales in just 2019, with 656 of those occurring following a prenatal diagnosis of Down’s syndrome.

At the same time, a recent report revealed that pregnant mothers who refuse to abort their children with Down’s syndrome are being pressured by some medical professionals to change their decision.

One mother, whose child is now four-years-old, said medical professionals told her they could leave her baby with Down’s syndrome to die if it was struggling after birth.

Another mum recounted that even at 38 weeks pregnant she was being offered an abortion.

Right to Life UK spokesperson Catherine Robinson said, “Unfortunately there is so much stigma surrounding Down’s syndrome and more inspiring stories like this one need to be heard. But there is hope. The High Court in London will soon hear a landmark case against the UK Government over the country’s discriminatory abortion legislation, which singles out babies with disabilities by allowing terminations right through to birth for conditions including Down’s syndrome, cleft lip and club foot.”

“This young mum’s story is just one example of the positive impact that the Down’s syndrome and disability communities have across the United Kingdom. In 2019, 656 babies were aborted due to a prenatal diagnosis of Down’s syndrome. Every one of those lives lost represents a failure of our society to embrace those with disabilities inside and outside the womb.”

 

This is www.righttolife.org.uk opinion piece

Ref: https://righttolife.org.uk/news/mother-who-adopted-baby-with-downs-syndrome-shares-her-inspiring-story/ 

  

Abortion, Not COVID-19, Named Leading Cause of Death in 2020 With Nearly 43 Million Killed Worldwide

Abortion, Not COVID-19, Named Leading Cause of Death in 2020 With Nearly 43 Million Killed Worldwide

More people died in 2020 from abortions than any other cause of death worldwide.

That’s right. Despite the overwhelming number of deaths that 2020 brought us through the coronavirus pandemic, abortion was once again named the leading cause of death last year, killing nearly 24 times more people than the coronavirus.

Data compiled by Worldometers — a highly accredited site that collects official data from governments, scientific journals, and other reputable groups like the World Health Organization — revealed that as of December 31, 2020, an estimated 42.7 MILLION abortions had been performed over the course of the year.

Those staggering statistics, when compared to the number of babies born in 2020, would suggest that nearly a quarter of all pregnancies worldwide (23 percent) ended in abortion. For every 33 live births last year, 10 babies were aborted.

In the U.S. alone, where nearly half of all pregnancies are unplanned and 4 in 10 of these are terminated by abortion, there are over 3,000 abortions per day.

Abortion and The Global Death Toll

According to Johns Hopkins University, worldwide deaths from the coronavirus in 2020 totaled 1.8 million.

By comparison, Worldometers revealed that 8.2 million people died from cancer, 5 million from smoking, and 1.7 million of HIV/AIDS.

With deaths from abortion exceeding those from cancer, HIV/Aids, suicide, malaria, and car accidents combined, several pro-life activist groups are calling abortion “the social justice cause of our time.”

In a year when our eyes were opened even more to the racial injustices our country and world faces, we can’t ignore the facts that our unborn black brothers and sisters are at an even higher risk of abortion.

 

Abortion and The Black Community

According to data published in the Journal of Primary Care and Community Health, black women have been experiencing induced abortions at a rate nearly 4 times that of White women for at least 3 decades, and likely much longer.

“The science community has refused to engage on the subject and the popular media has essentially ignored it,” the authors write. “In the current unfolding environment, there may be no better metric for the value of Black lives.”

In a podcast with Nick Cannon earlier this year, Kanye West called abortion “black genocide.”

“Planned Parenthood was set up and placed in minority communities to kill black people,” West said, noting that “over 1,000 black babies are aborted every day.”

Cannon, who is also a vocal pro-life advocate, pointed to the racist beliefs of Margaret Sanger—the founder of Planned Parenthood, and listened intently as West read an excerpt about her from his phone.

“Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an avowed racist whose goal was to reduce the black population in America and she succeeded,” West read from his phone. “Eighty percent of abortion clinics in America are in minority neighborhoods.

The organization recently disavowed Sanger over her “harmful connections” to racist movements, like eugenics.

“We are inside genocide as we speak,” West says.

When we count each and every one of these babies — the same way God sees and knows and loves every single one of them — as humans who died, the actual number of deaths worldwide in 2020 was approximately 101 million.

Pro-Life Advocacy

Although pro-life advocates are working tirelessly to put an end to abortion, their efforts continue to be met with social and political reform. And with complications posed by the coronavirus pandemic, it remains an uphill battle.

Although abortion rates in the U.S. are reportedly on the decline, it is still one of the leading causes of death, robbing the lives of an estimated 1 million U.S, babies annually. And a report from the UK Department of Health earlier this year revealed that in 2019 — the most recent year on record for which the Department has revised abortion statistics — the number of abortions in the UK hit an all-time high. Official figures show it was the highest number of abortions in a year since the historic vote in 1967 to legalize abortion in Britain through the Abortion Act.

Later this month, thousands will gather in Washington D.C. for the 48th annual March for Life rally on January 29th. This year’s theme is “Together Strong: Life Unites.”

The annual march commemorates the January 22, 1973 Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade, which invalidated 50 state laws and made abortion legal and available on demand throughout the United States.

This is a www.ForEveryMom.com opinion piece

Ref: https://foreverymom.com/society/abortion-not-covid-19-named-leading-cause-death-2020/

Abortion – Womb or Tomb? – Giovanni Bonello

Abortion – womb or tomb? – Giovanni Bonello

The University Għaqda Studenti tal-Liġi has come out strongly in favour of decriminalisation of abortion in Malta. No one disputes their fundamental right to hold and spread opinions, all the more so when the opinions are necessarily subjective and often more emotionally than rationally based. Perhaps they could have been more cautious where angels fear to tread.

I propose to deal briefly with some current legal misconceptions, avoiding as much as possible the equally relevant minefields of science, ethics, cultural traditions and religious belief.

So, exclusively law, and starting with fundamental law. It is often repeated that a woman’s right to abortion is her fundamental human right. Is it? Who says so?

In Europe there is an empirical but universally accepted standard as to what is a fundamental human right and what is not. In brief, fundamental human rights are only those which the European Court of Human Rights says are fundamental human rights (though domestic law is entitled to add to the list).

Now, in its 61 years existence and its tens of thousands of judgments, a number of which dealt specifically with abortion-related issues, not once, repeat, not once has the supreme court of Europe qualified abortion as a human right.

The closest it came was to rule that, if domestic legislation allowed abortion, then it would be a violation of a women’s rights to deny her, directly or indirectly, that option. Never has the supreme court of Europe ruled that a state must legalise abortion. Every sovereign state remains free to legalise abortion, to decriminalise it in given circumstances or to criminalise it.

A second legal misconception: rights only begin at birth. Not quite so. Our law deems a woman, whether one week or nine months pregnant, as a “woman with child”.

A look at current Maltese law dismisses the fable that a foetus is merely “a clump of cells”, the same way a beauty-spot, a bunion or a blister is. Not at all. The very words of the Criminal Code negate this.

Abortion, according to the code (Article 241), occurs when anyone causes the miscarriage of “a woman with child”. Not the miscarriage of “a woman with a clump of cells”. A foetus, however early, is by Maltese law considered to be a child, with some of the rights and the expectations of a child – among them, the right not to be quashed before birth.

This the Criminal Code repeats in the notion of grievous bodily harm. The law qualifies a harm as grievous when, if “committed on a woman with child, it causes miscarriage” (Article 218). A harm is not grievous if committed on a woman with “a clump of cells”. It escalates in gravity when a woman is “with child”.

Maltese law dismisses the fable that a foetus is merely “a clump of cells”. Above is an illustration of an early-stage embryo. Photo: Sciepro/Shutterstock.comWhen protecting the right to life, for the purposes of establishing criminal guilt, Maltese law does not differentiate between a foetus and a born child. It safeguards them equally, however early the pregnancy. There is only a difference in the punishment, not in the criminal guilt.

Though not specified in the written law of procedure, in practice our traditional system of protection under the law has adopted the institute of ‘curator of the womb’ known by its old-style name of curatore al ventre. When a pregnant married woman is widowed, the court may, at the request of any interested person, appoint a curator to safeguard the interests of the unborn child.

The court does not appoint a curator to defend the expectations of a clump of cells but to protect an unborn being deemed to be holder of potential or actual rights.

And, before capital punishment was abolished in Malta in 2000, it was official government policy to commute the death penalty of any woman who was pregnant at the time of sentencing or of execution. Did the state care about not sending to death a woman with a clump of cells, or was it concerned with not terminating the autonomous life of a separate being who had not been convicted of any crime?

On the horns of a dilemma, the state preferred that a guilty pregnant woman should escape just retribution, rather than that an innocent foetus should have his or her life terminated. I am now being told that the state was not choosing between justice, on one hand, and an unborn child on the other. Oh no, the state was officially opting for injustice to society in order to save… a clump of cells.

In prohibiting the execution of pregnant women, Malta was following the principle now enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “Sentence of death shall not be carried out on pregnant women” (Article 6). The life of a criminal mother is spared, obviously not to upset a clump of cells.

I understand that a purely ‘legal’ configuration of the abortion narrative informs only a part of the debate and that powerful arguments militate on either side of the fence. But it is simplistic to reduce complex and contentious issues to black or white.

There is excellent material in this Position Paper, though it is massively one-sided in problems so seeped in controversy. I wished the Għaqda Studenti tal-Liġi, whose function it is to promote the study of law, had been more balanced and nuanced.

Giovanni Bonello, ex-judge at the European Court of Human Rights

 

This is www.timesofmalta.com opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/abortion-womb-or-tomb-giovanni-bonello.841637

An ominous resolution – Tonio Borg

An ominous resolution – Tonio Borg

The EU cannot interfere on matters such as abortion

Poland was recently at loggerheads with the European Union. It was objecting to a new mechanism which permitted the withdrawal of EU funds to countries that do not abide by the rule of law.

Thankfully, Poland finally yielded and now the mechanism, with certain safeguards, will be launched. A country cannot abuse of its sovereignty in rule of law matters while belonging to the Union, benefitting from its membership but ignoring its values.

This mechanism could be a lifesaver for any country whose government tries to cross the red lines of what it is allowed to do.

What is, however, perturbing is that in the midst of this crisis, the European Parliament passed a controversial, even though non-binding, resolution which condemned Poland because its Constitutional Court has ruled that the right to life protects even unborn children who are physically or mentally deformed or disabled.

The charge against Poland was that “many pregnant women who have been informed that there is a high probability of the foetus having a severe and irreversible abnormality or an incurable disease have had their access to legal abortion restricted”.

It then “strongly condemned the Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling and the setback to women’s sexual and reproductive rights in Poland”. It also affirmed that “the ruling puts women’s health and lives at risk”. It even assumed that wilful termination of a pregnancy is a fundamental right although no European instrument of law recognises such right.

This resolution, even though not binding, is astounding. Since when is the apex court of an EU member state subject to criticism for its judgments on matters which are outside the powers and jurisdiction of the EU organs such as abortion?

In fact, European commissioners have repeatedly made it clear that, according to the principle of subsidiarity, abortion and euthanasia are matters to be dealt with by the member states themselves. Some allow them. Others, like Poland and Malta, are vehemently against.

The government cannot cajole the Catholic vote on the one hand and allow its pundits and MEPs to encourage the introduction of abortion in Malta– Tonio Borg

This intrusion on the subsidiarity principle and the margin of appreciation, which each member state enjoys in such matters, was conveniently forgotten by the European Parliament. It is appropriate to recall that, during the negotiations leading to Malta’s accession to the Union, the Fenech Adami government had managed to include a protocol in the Treaty of Accession to the effect that, even though the current legal position is that the EU cannot interfere in such matters as abortion, Malta retained the right that, should the rules change, it remains the arbiter to decide whether to introduce the wilful termination of a woman’ pregnancy in Maltese law.

Now for the rules to change, one needs the unanimous decision of the member states. Yet, to be doubly sure, a Nationalist government insisted on including such a protocol.

It is sad to note that out of six Maltese MEPs, only two, namely Nationalist MEPs Roberta Metsola and David Casa, voted against the EP resolution. Even though the official position of the current Labour government, as expressed by the prime minister, is that the current administration is against the introduction of abortion, two Labour MEPs, in Pilate-like fashion, washed their hands of the issue and actually abstained on a resolution condemning a country for restricting abortion.

Another Labour MEP did not turn up for the vote. But, worse than that, one Labour MEP, Cyrus Engerer, voted in favour. In his considered opinion, the selection of healthy unborn children and the elimination of the unhealthy ones in their mother’ womb could actually be even considered as a human right, an evil that could be one day be taken as laudable and morally right.

He stated that “the ruling of October 22 by Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal to make abortion illegal in cases involving severe and irreversible foetal defects “puts women’s health and lives at risk”, 

Besides, the inertia, and, in one case, the outright approval, regarding the resolution by Labour MEPs has created a dangerous precedent for Malta whose laws are in line with the ruling of the Polish Constitutional Court.

We inevitably shudder when we read about the extermination of disabled, deformed or abnormal human beings during the last World War by totalitarian regimes in pursuit of the superior race doctrine.  Still, it seems that some of us find nothing objectionable if such human beings are exterminated before they are born. They style themselves pro-choice but the only persons who have no choice at all are the unborn.

This is similar to a recent boast by one member state that practically there were no longer any children born with Down Syndrome in its territory, not because a cure was found for such condition but because all unborn children showing signs of such condition were eliminated before having the chance of being born!

It is useless paying only lip service to the right to life. The right to life needs to be defended every day. The government cannot cajole the Catholic vote on the one hand and allow its pundits and MEPs to encourage the introduction of abortion in Malta.

Tonio Borg is former European Commissioner.

 

Ref: This is a timesofmalta.com opinion piece

https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/an-ominous-resolution-tonio-borg.839705#.X977ob14ooQ.whatsapp