10 WAYS TO SUPPORT HER WHEN SHE’S UNEXPECTEDLY EXPECTING

10 WAYS TO SUPPORT HER WHEN SHE’S UNEXPECTEDLY EXPECTING

I had been brought up to believe that life is always a gift, but it certainly didn’t feel like one when I gazed in shock at a positive pregnancy test. As a mom who had my first baby in college, I know that an unexpected pregnancy can sometimes bring fear, shame, and doubt.

However, I also know that an unexpected pregnancy can bring joy, excitement, awe, gratitude, and deeper love than I knew was possible—not to mention the little bundle who inspires these sentiments! About nine months after looking at that pregnancy test, I received the very best gift I have ever been given: my daughter, Maria*.

An unexpected pregnancy might be confusing along the way, but life—though at times difficult—is ultimately beautiful. Perhaps one of your friends has become pregnant unexpectedly. As someone who has been there, I encourage you to support your friend in her new journey of being a mother.

Not sure how to help or what to say? Here are ten tips:

  1. Be available.

An unexpected pregnancy can send a woman into crisis mode. If your friend just found out she is pregnant, she may not be thinking clearly, and she may feel she has no control over anything at the moment.

Be aware of how she is responding to you. Listen to her and let her know you love her and are there for her any time she needs you. Don’t pass judgment on her either interiorly or through words or body language.

  1. Respond positively.

When a woman experiencing challenging circumstances confides she is pregnant, the reaction of the first person she tells tends to set the tone for her decision-making. Avoid responding with shock or alarm, and be calm and understanding. Let her know you’re there for her and that it’s going to be okay. Pay close attention to her emotional state, and act accordingly.

Depending on where she is emotionally, it may or may not be helpful to congratulate her at that time. However, it is always important to affirm that every person’s life—including her child’s and her own—is precious and beautiful no matter the circumstances.

  1. Be honest.

The journey through an unexpected pregnancy is not easy, and it’s okay if you don’t know the perfect words to say. Just be honest. Let her know you are there for her, and ask her how she is feeling and how you can support her.

It’s a good way to open the door to communicate, and she may be grateful for the opportunity to talk freely with someone. She might become emotional at times, but be patient—let’s not forget hormones; the struggle is real.

  1. Offer specific help.

Don’t be afraid to ask her if she needs help with anything or to make specific offers to help. For example, you might offer to help with cleaning, finding a good doctor, or running to the store to pick up the one food that won’t make her feel sick. But remember to read her cues, and make sure you’re not being overbearing.

  1. Set up a support system.

In addition to the standard baby registry, you can help her get other kinds of support by lining up much-needed, practical help. Think outside the box. Food = love, so take advantage of websites that allow friends and family to sign up to make meals, send food deliveries, or simply donate money. Some websites can even help organize other assistance like rides to the doctor, babysitting other children she may have, or help around the house. You can also look into what programs and assistance may be sponsored by your local diocesan pastoral care or Respect Life offices.

  1. Tell her she is beautiful.

She may be feeling physically, spiritually, and emotionally drained with this pregnancy. Take the time to reassure her of her beauty, both inside and out, especially when morning sickness might make her feel otherwise.

  1. Help her recharge and relax.

First-time mothers may have difficulty crossing that threshold into their new life as a mother. Your friend may be fearful that her life is “over,” so help her see it’s okay—good, actually—to still focus on herself sometimes. Even though she is a mother, she will still continue to be a woman, so affirm that it’s healthy and important to take care of herself—not only physically, but emotionally, as well. Help her to do things she really enjoys. Take her out for a nice meal, a movie, or a day of pampering.

  1. Reassure her it’s okay (and good) to be happy.

It can be hard to be happy about a pregnancy that many people see as unfortunate timing at best and totally irresponsible at worst. Even if your friend wants to be happy about her bundle of joy, she may not feel she “deserves” to show that happiness. Get excited about her pregnancy in front of her, and she may just feel comfortable enough to share her own excitement with you.

Also, continue to show your interest and excitement throughout her pregnancy. Ask questions about her developing child. What is she learning at her doctor appointments? What names is she considering? Ask her what she thinks her baby looks like. Does she think they will have her eyes?

  1. Encourage her.

Society tends to focus on ways that an unexpected pregnancy can be challenging. Help your friend to think of the benefits. Remind her of the fluttering kicks, somersaults, and maybe even dance moves her son or daughter will be rocking once they grow a little more. With moms’ groups and opportunities for play dates, there’s a whole new social world to explore. And there are plenty of benefits to being a young mom—like having more energy to chase her kids around.

  1. Point out some real-life role models.

Many amazing young mothers and birthmothers have experienced unexpected pregnancies and still followed their dreams. Other women have discovered that, even when unable to follow their lives as planned, something beautiful and good came out of the twists in the road, bringing opportunities, growth, and joy they hadn’t imagined.

Point your friend to some of the many websites, blogs, and social media accounts dedicated to supporting young mothers. And let’s not forget Mary, whose “yes” to bearing Jesus affected the course of history. The Blessed Mother is a great person to pour her heart out to, and she’s a powerhouse of intercessory prayer.

 

An unexpected pregnancy can be a difficult and frightening time, and it’s important that your friend knows you are thinking of her and supporting her. Although the tips mentioned can be helpful, don’t forget the most important thing is to pray. Even if it’s just a quick two-second prayer, prayer is the most effective way we can help. Pray for her, for her child, and for guidance in how you can give her the best possible support.

Also, pay attention to how your friend feels most loved. One person might appreciate encouraging words, while another might feel more supported if you wash the dishes. Simple things—letting her know that you care and are always ready to listen, that you are available to help her, that you are praying for her—can give hope and courage when she might otherwise feel alone. Your support might be the only support she receives. Even if we never know how, the smallest things we do can change someone’s life. You can make a difference in her life. Will you?

The author is now a married mother of four who works as an advocate for young mothers facing unexpected pregnancies. She had her first baby in college and is a proud Catholic who supports life in every circumstance and at every stage.

This is a Respectlife.org opinion piece

Ref: https://www.respectlife.org/support-her

 

Il-Ministru lest jemenda l-Liġi tal-Ugwaljanza

Il-Ministru lest jemenda l-Liġi tal-Ugwaljanza

Il-Ministru Edward Zammit Lewis qal li huwa lest jemenda ż-żewġ abbozzi tal-Liġi tal-Ugwaljanza li hemm fil-Parlament. Il-Ministru tal-Ġustizzja semma li huwa lest jemenda l-artikli li jagħtu lil dawn l-abbozzi supremazija fuq kull ligi oħra barra l-Kostituzzjoni u anke l-partijiet li jolqtu ħażin lill-iskejjel tal-Knisja. Iżda kompla jgħid li mhux lest li jdaħħal fl-abbozz klawsola li tintroduċi d-dritt tal-oġġezzjoni tal-kuxjenza.

Il-Ministru Zammit Lewis kien qed jieħdu sehem f’diskussjoni fuq Newsbook.com.mt l-Ħamis wara nofsinnhar. Fid-diskussjoni li tmexxiet mill Fr Joe Borg ħa sehem il-Membru Parlamentari tal-PN Karl Gouder.

Gouder qal li l-PN jaqbel li titneħħa kull diskriminazzjoni u li jkun hemm ugwaljanza veru. Kompla jgħid li iżda trid li titneħħa l-klawsola li tagħti lil din il-liġi supremazija fuq liġijiet oħra. Huwa ddeskriva din il-klawsola bħala perikoluża u bħala klawsola li qed iġġib ħafna reazzjoni negattiva mill-għaqdiet professjonali.

Il-Klawsola tas-supremazjija: problema

Il-Ministru qal li huwa qed jisma’ lil kullħadd u lest li jemenda l-klawsola tas-supremazija waqt li ċaħad bil-qawwa li din il-liġi qed issir biex tħejji t-triq għall-introduzzjoni tal-abort u l-ewtanasna. Huwa qal li mill-banda l-oħra jħoss li f’liġi dwar l-ugwaljanza ma hemmx post għall-klawsola li tagħti dritt għall-oġġezzjoni tal-kuxjenza.

Meta, waqt il-programm il-Ministru kien preżentat bil-kritika li saret minn diversi gruppi professjonali u kritika li saret fuq Newsbook Q&A mill-Prim Imħallef Emeritu Vincent DeGaetano, l-Ministru qal li ma jaqbilx mal-kritika tagħħhom.

Tul il-programm kien hemm intervent minn Fr Jimmy Bartolo SJ li qal li l-abbozzi jħeddu lill-iskejjel tal-Knisja u jġibu fix xejn id-dritt tal-ġenituri li jibgħatu lil uliedhom fl-iskola tal-għażla tagħhom. Fr Bartolo qal li l-iskola tifforma lill-istudenti mhux waqt il-lezzjonijiet tar-reliġjon biss. Huma riedu li jkollhom id-dritt jagħżlu għall-iskejjel amministraturi u għalliema li jkunu jistgħu iġibu ‘l quddiem l-ethos kattoliku tal-iskejjel tal-Knisja u ma jħadħlux amministaturi u għalliema li jmorru kontra dan l-ethos.

Il-MP tal-PN Karl Gouder qal li jaqbel dwar dan.

Zammit Lewis qal li għalkemm se jinsisti li l-liġi tkun approvata huwa lest li jkompli jitkellem mal-iskejjel tal-Knisja biex tinstab soluzzjoni għad-diffikultajiet li qedgħin isemmu.

 

This is a Newsbook Online opinion piece

Ref: https://newsbook.com.mt/il-ministru-lest-jemenda-l-ligi-tal-ugwaljanza/

Miracle baby leaves hospital after being born at 23 weeks

Miracle baby leaves hospital after being born at 23 weeks

Baby Millie Bushell is now at home with her parents following a nearly 15 week stay in hospital after being born at just 23 weeks – 17 weeks prematurely and one week before the legal abortion limit.

Since her premature birth, Millie has been at three different hospitals and had a score of treatments, including a heart operation, treatment for seven infections, and multiple blood transfusions – all during the coronavirus pandemic.

Tiffany said: “It’s still not her due date but she’s home and she’s 15 weeks old [last] Sunday. It’s just crazy.”

Matthew added: “We’re out of the woods but we had to fight out of the woods.”

An ‘absolute miracle’

Tiffany and Matthew Bushell had dreamed of starting a family since they met 12 years ago.

However, they quickly ran into fertility issues once they started trying to conceive.

After four or five years and an IVF treatment, Tiffany became pregnant with their first daughter, Ruby. Just 24 weeks in, however, Tiffany went into labour and Ruby was born weighing just 1lb 5oz.

Tragically, Ruby didn’t survive.

A year later, Tiffany and Matthew were shocked to learn they were pregnant again, this time without fertility treatments.

And, when she went into labour at 23 weeks, she felt history was about to repeat itself after losing Ruby just 18 months earlier.

“The pregnancy was going really well,” Tiffany told The Mirror. “I was obviously being monitored for anything because of what happened last time, and then at 20 weeks I went in for a routine scan and my cervix was open, so I was taken down for surgery to put a stitch in place. Then three weeks later Millie decided she was coming.

“My waters broke at home so we went to Watford, but we had to be transferred to Chertsey in Surrey, as it was safer for her to be delivered in a level three neo-natal unit because she was so premature.”

Millie was born at St Peter’s Hospital, Cherstey at 2.06pm on 26 April.

Initially, she did not require a ventilator, however, after two days she began to have difficulty breathing and was immediately put on one.

According to her parents, “that was when everything started to happen.”

During her nearly 15 week stay, Millie had a score of treatments, including a heart operation, treatment for seven infections, and multiple blood transfusions – all during the coronavirus pandemic.

In addition, she was transferred to different hospitals twice — once for heart surgery at St Thomas’s in London and a second time to move closer to her parents home at Watford General Hospital.

“She had chest infections from being ventilated, she had the hole in the heart which every baby is born with but they close within the first few hours, but Millie was so premature it didn’t close,” explained Tiffany.

Despite multiple infections, she has continued to grow and feed well and weighed 5lb 4oz when she was allowed to go home with her parents in August. 

Millie still has a long journey ahead of her, according to her father: “She’s on oxygen 24 hours a day but a nurse comes every week, so we’re hoping it’s going to be reduced to 23 hours soon.

“As she grows up we’re always going to tell her how strong and special she is. We must have taken 2,000 photos to show her when she is older. We’ll also tell her about Ruby.

“She’s had a tough start but what doesn’t break you makes you stronger. And we are so happy and very proud to be her parents.”

New guidance

The survival rate for extremely premature babies has doubled over the past decade, prompting the creation of new guidance allowing doctors to try to save babies born as early as 22 weeks into a pregnancy.

In 2008 only two out of ten babies born alive at 23 weeks went on to survive. Today it is four out of ten, according to the British Association of Perinatal Medicine.

Once a baby passes 22 weeks, the chances of survival increase week-by-week due to technical advances, better healthcare planning and the increased use of steroids.

The increased survival rates have prompted calls to review the current law in order to help lower abortion numbers and save the lives of babies.

Time for change

A spokesperson for Right to Life UK Catherine Robinson said: “This is something that Parliament should urgently revisit. It has been over a decade since time limits were last debated fully in Parliament, in 2008.

“There is a real contradiction in British law. In one room of a hospital, doctors could be working to save a baby born alive before 24 weeks whilst in another room a doctor could perform an abortion which would end the life of a baby at the same age. Surely this contradiction needs to end.

“Independent polling from Savanta ComRes shows that 70% of women in the UK want to see the time limit for abortion reduced to 20 weeks or below. Our current abortion time limit is way out of line with the rest of Europe where the most common abortion time limit is 12 weeks.

“This change in guidance adds further evidence to the need for Parliament to urgently review our current abortion time limit. We support any change in law that would help lower abortion numbers and save the lives of babies in the womb.

“It’s time that our laws were brought into line with public opinion, modern science and the rest of Europe.”

This is a righttolife.org.uk opinion piece posted on September 14, 2020

https://righttolife.org.uk/news/miracle-baby-leaves-hospital-after-being-born-at-23-weeks/

Persecuted by Equality – Miriam Sciberras

Persecuted by Equality – Miriam Sciberras

A number of medical associations, the Episcopal Conference, lay Catholic groups, Catholic Voices Malta, representatives of Church schools, the Independent School Association, the Malta Employers’ Association, Life Network Foundation and Christian groups have all sounded warnings and presented their objections in the discussions on the new equality bills, but to no avail.

The red light is on. It is an appeal to our authorities to take note and intervene in the best interest of our country, in the name of freedom.

It has been said ad nauseam that “the equality bills will not make anything that is illegal in Malta legal, so there is no need to worry”. This is at best naïve and concrete amendments need to take place in order for us to be reassured.

The two bills numbered 96 and 97 contain a supremacy clause that prevails over any other ordinary law that runs counter to them. Resistance to the removal of the supremacy clause logically leads one to think that there may be existing laws or others in the future that may be stealthily amended through such a clause.

In our legal system there are two ordinary laws, the European Convention Act (ch. 319) and the European Union Act, which are considered as supreme vis-à-vis any other ordinary law. The equality bill legislation as proposed will have supremacy over them, as well as over the Embryo Protection Act and the Criminal Code. This is another cause for legitimate worry.

It was stated that: “This government will not compromise on the principle of equality for all. It is the backbone of our belief system and the equality bill will further strengthen the legal framework in this regard.” Commendable words indeed, had this not really been a case of doublespeak at its best.

Catholics will have their religious freedom in the public square taken away

The bills will clamp down on anyone who as much as touches upon the ‘protected characteristics’ in a way deemed offensive by anyone, be it in journalism, media and or day to day living. This, in practice, will mean that Christians and Catholics will have their religious freedom in the public square taken away, the right of Church school administration in choosing employees representing their ethos in the senior management teams is no longer guaranteed, the fundamental right of parents to educate their children in their philosophical belief is threatened and the right to conscientious objection is excluded. This is not strengthening of our backbone but reducing the country to a cripple.

In January 2020, Prime Minister Robert Abela, when meeting the Archbishop at the Dar tal-Kleru, stated in a televised interview that he did not see a need for a change to Article II of the Malta Constitution, regarding religion, more so because Malta is a tolerant nation. The prime minister is right – we are a tolerant people. Love your enemy is at the heart of the gospel!

Equality as a principle based on human dignity and the intrinsic value of every person from conception to natural death is a principle easily understood by all people. Tolerance is a virtue we all need to learn and to live in a pluralistic society. We are obliged to accept, love and tolerate each other to live in peace.

However, the equality bills go too far when they include endorsement and promotion within the law. One cannot be forced to endorse and promote lifestyles that run contrary to one’s faith. Freedom of expression, religious freedom in day to day life and conscientious objection are seriously threatened.

Parliament approved the bill decriminalising porn and repealing religious vilification in 2016 in a bid to remove censorship. In 2020, we want to introduce a new censorship, this time a gag order on anyone who will not endorse or promote gender ideology. How can this even start to make sense? 

As we pitch gender ideology versus religious freedom, we will see indoctrination attempts rammed down our throats. The targets will be innocent children (who in the name of a false equality will be bombarded by WHO-endorsed early sexualisation programmes in school curricula), ordinary families and individuals. People who just want to go on living their faith as they have always lived it in the last century will be labelled homophobic and ridiculed.

The stage is being set for the persecution of believers.

Miriam Sciberras, Chairman, Life Network Foundation Malta

 This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/persecuted-by-equality-miriam-sciberras.822289

Amy Coney Barrett Open to Overturning Roe v. Wade  Because Precedent Isn’t Forever

Amy Coney Barrett Open to Overturning Roe v. Wade  Because Precedent Isn’t Forever

At the forefront of so many Americans’ minds is the question of how Amy Coney Barrett would rule on abortion if confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Barrett, President Donald Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee, would replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a heroine of abortion activists who consistently ruled in favor of abortion during her nearly three decades on the court.

A new analysis on the Law and Crime blog suggested Barrett may indeed believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and rule against it, if the opportunity arises.

U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri strengthened pro-lifers’ hopes Tuesday when he said Barrett meets his expectations. Among other things, the pro-life senator said he “wanted to see evidence that the nominee understood that Roe was wrongly decided, that Roe was an act of judicial imperialism.”

According to Law and Crime, Barrett’s statements and writings about Supreme Court abortion cases as well as stare decisis, which means sticking to past legal precedents, suggest that she may rule to restore protections for unborn babies.

SIGN THE PETITION: Vote to Confirm Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett

Evidence of this comes from a 2013 lecture that Barrett gave at the University of Notre Dame, where she is a law professor. In “Roe at 40: The Supreme Court, Abortion and the Culture War that Followed,” Barrett questioned the way in which the high court ruled on Roe v. Wade.

“It brings up an issue of judicial review: Does the Court have the capacity to decide that women have the right to obtain an abortion or should it be a matter for state legislatures? Would it be better to have this battle in the state legislatures and Congress rather than the Supreme Court?” she asked, according to a student newspaper report.

“Roe was a dramatic shift. The framework of Roe essentially permitted abortion on demand, and Roe recognizes no state interest in the life of a fetus,” Amy Coney Barrett continued.

While Barrett also said it was “very unlikely” that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe and subsequent abortion ruling Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the blog noted that, at the time she said it, the Supreme Court had a liberal majority.

Notably, Barrett was a member of the Notre Dame University Faculty for Life Group from 2010 to 2016, and she received an award from the Thomas More Society, a pro-life Catholic legal group, in 2018.

Her writings also suggest that she does not believe the Supreme Court should uphold Roe just for the sake of precedent, or stare decisis.

In a law review article “Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement” mentioned in her Senate questionnaire, Barrett wrote that “stare decisis is a soft rule” and “one of policy rather than as an inexorable command.”

A “more relaxed form of constitutional stare decisis” is “both inevitable and probably desirable, at least in those cases in which methodologies clash,” she continued, focusing on issues of precedent that justices disagree with personally.

In the article, she also mentioned Casey, an abortion ruling that came after Roe and decided that states may not pass laws that impose an “undue burden” on women’s so-called right to abortion.

She wrote:

Stare decisis is a self-imposed constraint upon the Court’s ability to overrule precedent. The force of so-called superprecedents [“cases that no justice would overrule, even if she disagrees with”], however, does not derive from any decision by the Court about the degree of deference they warrant. Indeed, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey shows that the Court is quite incapable of transforming precedent into superprecedent by ipse dixit [editor’s note: that’s Latin for just because the court says so]. The force of these cases derives from the people, who have taken their validity off the Court’s agenda. Litigants do not challenge them [superprecedents]. If they did, no inferior federal court or state court would take them seriously, at least in the absence of any indicia that the broad consensus supporting a precedent was crumbling.

These statements and others suggest Barrett may be a strong pro-life justice who recognizes that human rights are for all human beings, born and unborn.

If confirmed by the Senate, she would solidify a strong 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Pro-life leaders have praised her as an excellent choice for the court.

Barrett is a former clerk of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Like Scalia, she has been described as an “originalist” judge. Though her judicial rulings on abortion are few, she did rule in support of two Indiana pro-life laws during her time on the Seventh Circuit.

She also has made several statements about the value of babies in the womb. According to the Law and Crime blog, Barrett signed a public letter in 2015 that emphasized “the value of human life from conception to natural death.” She also said she believes that life begins at conception.

A hearing on her confirmation is scheduled for Oct. 12 in the Senate.

This is a Life News opinion piece

MICAIAH BILGER   SEP 30, 2020   |   5:46PM    WASHINGTON, DC

Ref: https://www.lifenews.com/2020/09/30/amy-coney-barrett-open-to-overturning-roe-v-wade-because-precedent-isnt-forever/

 

President Trump Issues Executive Order to Protect Babies Who Survive Abortions

President Trump Issues Executive Order to Protect Babies Who Survive Abortions

Late Friday night, President Donald Trump issued an executive order doing something Democrats in Congress refused more than 80 times to do: provide medical care for babies who survive abortions.

The president had indicated earlier in the week that he would issue the order and, on Friday night, he made it official.

“Every infant born alive, no matter the circumstances of his or her birth, has the same dignity and the same rights as every other individual and is entitled to the same protections under federal law,” the order reads.

With Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats rejecting the Born Alive bill over 80 times, allowing abortionists to essentially get away with infanticide, President Trump announced an executive order today that would require medical care be given to infants who are born alive after failed abortion attempts.

Law are already in place to protect babies who survive abortions are born prematurely but the laws are not being followed and not being aggressively enforced. The order would provide additional information and educate hospitals about the laws so they are followed properly.

“Despite these laws,” the order says, “some hospitals refuse the required medical screening examination and stabilizing treatment or otherwise do not provide potentially life-saving medical treatment to extremely premature or disabled infants, even when parents plead for such treatment.”

The Executive Order responds to concerns that hospitals have refused to provide medical screening and stabilizing treatment to vulnerable newborns, including those who are premature, born with disabilities, or born in medical distress.  The Executive Order explains that hospitals may issue these refusals “because they believe these infants may not survive, may have to live with long-term disabilities, or may have a quality-of-life deemed to be inadequate.”

“HHS’s mission is to protect the health and well-being of all Americans, and that means all Americans—including infants born prematurely and infants with disabilities,” said HHS Secretary Alex Azar. “The President’s Executive Order is another step by the most pro-life President in American history and ensures that we provide the same protections for innocent infants who are born premature or with disabilities that we provide for every other American.”

For instance, in May 2020, HHS determined that an Ohio hospital had failed in 2017 to ensure medical screening examinations required by EMTALA were performed for twins born prematurely (at 22 weeks gestation) who were not sent to the hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit and died within several hours after delivery

The Executive Order clarifies that all individuals, including these vulnerable babies, are protected under the law.  Examples of federal protections include:

The Executive Order places a number of requirements on the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS):

  • The Secretary must ensure that all federal funding recipients understand their obligations under federal law.  In particular:
    • They have an “obligation to provide an appropriate medical screening examination and stabilizing treatment or transfer, when extremely premature infants are born alive or infants are born with disabilities.”
    • They “may not unlawfully discourage parents from seeking medical treatment for their infant child solely because of their infant child’s disability.”
    • They must “allow the infant patients to be transferred to a more suitable facility if appropriate treatment is not possible at the initial location.”
  • The Secretary shall investigate complaints of violations of federal laws that occurred respecting infants in need of stabilizing treatment whose parents sought medical care for them.  The Secretary shall take appropriate enforcement action against violations of federal law.
  • The Secretary shall “clarify, in an easily understandable format, the process by which parents and hospital staff may submit such complaints for investigation under applicable Federal laws.”
  • The Secretary shall prioritize grant funding to:
    • “Research to develop treatments that may improve survival — especially survival without impairment — of infants …who have an emergency medical condition in need of stabilizing treatment.”
    • “Programs and activities …that provide training to medical personnel regarding the provision of life-saving medical treatment” for these infants.

The Secretary is directed to issue regulations or guidance, as necessary, to implement this order.

Earlier in the week, President Trump signaled he would hand down the pro-life order.

“Today I am announcing that I will be signing the Born-Alive Executive Order to ensure that all precious babies born alive, no matter their circumstances, receive the medical care that they deserve. This is our sacrosanct moral duty,” the president said today at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.

Leading pro-life groups told LifeNews.com they were delighted by the news.

The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) celebrated President Trump’s announcement of a new Executive Order, saying “Prematurely-born infants are some of our most vulnerable patients. As a professional medical association dedicated to caring for both patients in question during a pregnancy — the woman and her unborn child — AAPLOG applauds this commonsense order.”

Dr. Donna Harrison, MD, AAPLOG’s Executive Director, said: “AAPLOG has advocated for our most vulnerable patients since we were founded decades ago. We released a Committee Opinion on Fetal Viability during the previous Administration, and we are pleased with this morning’s announcement by the President to ensure at-risk patients receive a consistent standard of care. This is a major victory for patients and providers.”

And Jeanne Mancini, President of March for Life, told LifeNews that this order adds to the long list of pro-life accomplishments during the Trump administration.

“President Trump once again has stepped up for life. His actions today provide necessary legal protections for some of the most vulnerable in society: survivors of failed abortions. These steps had to be taken because some Democrats in the Senate promised to block legislation that mandates basic medical care for children who survive an abortion – an extremist view shared by Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris. While any abortion is one too many, the reality is that Americans overwhelmingly want to see greater protections for the most vulnerable. These protections are a strong step in the right direction and the Senate should move quickly to codify the President’s Executive Order and pass Senator Ben Sasse’s (R-Neb.) Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” she said.

“President Trump’s executive order protects the youngest of patients and ensures that their right to life is defended to the greatest extent of the law,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life.

“We thank President Trump for his dedication to the right to life and for working to protect all innocent human life,” said Tobias. “He is a champion for the most vulnerable among us and committed to guarding the right to life of all babies—born and unborn.”

The new order comes as national polling shows Americans — including people who are “pro-choice” on abortion — oppose abortion up to birth and infanticideAnd doctors indicate abortions are never needed to protect a woman’s health and women admit having abortions on healthy babies.

And a new poll finds a massive 17 percent shift in the pro-life direction after Democrats have pushed abortions up to birth and infanticide nationally.

H.R. 962, the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, introduced by Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO), ensures that a baby born alive after a failed or attempted abortion receives the same medical care as any other newborn. It would also penalize doctors who allow such infants to die or who intentionally kill a newborn following a failed abortion.

Joe Biden has never denounced the rejection of the anti-infanticide bill and his running mate Kamala Harris voted to block it in the Senate.

 

This is a Life News opinion piece

STEVEN ERTELT   SEP 26, 2020   |   10:20AM    WASHINGTON, DC

Ref: https://www.lifenews.com/2020/09/26/president-trump-issues-executive-order-to-protect-babies-who-survive-abortions/

Pro-Life Groups Support Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett: She’s an “Absolute All-Star”

Pro-Life Groups Support Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett: She’s an “Absolute All-Star”

President Donald Trump today nominated federal appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be the next Supreme Court justice and that nomination has the strong support of pro-life groups.

“President Trump has chosen an absolute all-star in Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve as our nation’s newest Supreme Court justice,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “Amy Coney Barrett is a brilliant jurist in the mold of the late Justice Scalia, and President Trump could not have made a stronger selection to fill this Supreme Court vacancy. We have full confidence that the pro-life Senate majority will move swiftly to confirm her before the election.”

“An accomplished woman of bold conviction, Amy Barrett withstood outrageous personal attacks on her Catholic faith from pro-abortion senators with grace and integrity during her 2017 confirmation hearing. Judge Barrett has shown courage, wisdom, and brilliance during her tenure on the 7th Circuit. Her experience and expertise make her extremely qualified to serve on the nation’s highest court,” Dannenfelser continued.

During her acceptance speech, Judge Barret talked about the correct approach a judge must take: “A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policy makers and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.”

SIGN THE PETITION: Vote to Confirm Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett

That resonated with pro-life advocates like Carol Tobias, the president of National Right to Life.

“We commend President Trump for his nomination of an impressively well-qualified judge to the Supreme Court,” said Tobias. “Judge Barrett has demonstrated a commitment to defending the text and history of the Constitution and the principles of judicial restraint.”

She told LifeNews.com that President Trump’s nominee stands in stark contrast with the judicial-legislative activists who would be nominated by Joe Biden. Joe Biden has promised to impose a litmus test of his nominees.

Tobias said she expected a fierce confirmation battle over abortion during Barrett’s confirmation hearing.

“Make no mistake—this confirmation battle will be over abortion because the Democratic Party and pro-abortion Democratic senators will oppose any nominee, no matter how qualified, if the nominee has not pledged in advance to uphold and maintain abortion on demand,” she explained.

“Democrats are prepared to engage in a scorched earth campaign in an effort to block an eminently qualified nominee,” said Tobias. “Shame on them. Shame on Democratic leaders in the Senate for their negative propaganda and for dragging candidates through the mud just so they can curry favor with pro-abortion groups.”

Barrett, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, believes life begins at conception and has noted how both pro-life and pro-abortion legal experts have criticized Roe v. Wade as a bad decision. Barrett criticized the ruling for “ignit[ing] a national controversy” through judicial fiat.

Though her judicial rulings on abortion are few, she did rule in support of two Indiana pro-life laws during her time on the Seventh Circuit. She also has made several statements about the value of babies in the womb. According to the Law and Crime blog, Barrett signed a public letter in 2015 that emphasized “the value of human life from conception to natural death.”

Barrett, a mother of seven, was a former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia. Like Scalia, Barrett describes herself as an “originalist” judge.

When it comes to abortion cases, Barrett has been on the pro-life side. She voted in 2016 to allow a hearing on a pro-life law from the state of Indiana that requires abortion centers to offer a proper burial or cremation for babies they kill in abortions. And in 2019, she voted to allow a hearing on another Indiana pro-life law allowing parents to be notified when their teenage daughter is considering an abortion so they can help her make a better decision for her and her baby.

Barrett has served on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since 2017 after being confirmed by a vote of 55-43. A summa cum laude graduate of Notre Dame Law School, she joined the school’s faculty after serving as a law clerk to Judge Laurence Silberman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Barrett and her husband Jesse have seven children, including two adopted from Haiti and a young son with Down syndrome. The Barretts live in South Bend, Indiana.

 

This is a Life News opinion piece

STEVEN ERTELT   SEP 26, 2020   |   6:02PM    WASHINGTON, DC

Ref: https://www.lifenews.com/2020/09/26/pro-life-groups-support-scotus-nominee-amy-coney-barrett-shes-an-absolute-all-star/

This equality bill that will destroy diversity – Alan Deidun

This equality bill that will destroy diversity – Alan Deidun

There are those who will resort to every trick in the book to silence the Church

The term ‘diversity’ is normally a byword for abundance, choice, alternatives and a plethora of other positive connotations. The positive timbre of the term extends to different contexts and domains, from the biological sciences (the safeguard of ‘biodiversity’ has become a global conservation priority) to philosophy (having a ‘diversity of views’ in society is seen as the best antidote to an authoritarian view) as well as to human rights (which advocate against discriminating towards the diverse minorities within society on the basis of sexual orientation, religion or creed, race, etc).

It is against this backdrop that the current equality bill 96/97 is being peddled by Parliamentary Secretary for Equality Rosianne Cutajar, with such a bill being bandied about as the champion of diversity, when in actual fact it’s anything but.

In fact, some of the clauses within the bill have an inherently homogenising effect, by promoting the watering down of any differences in ethos between Church and non-Church schools on these islands, thus effectively doing away with the supposedly cherished diversity in schooling, reeking of a communist, one-size-fits-all philosophy.

Perhaps two of the most maligned provisions of the equality bill concern the recruitment of educators and the relegation of their Catholic ethos to the religion class only, in Church schools.

Concerning the first issue, I heard a very fitting anecdote from a friend of mine within a similar mindset on the proposed bill. According to him, removing the discretion of Church schools to screen applicants for a post at their premises on the basis of their ethical/moral constitution is tantamount to a casino running the risk of recruiting applicants who are vehemently against gambling or to a wildlife sanctuary management organisation running the risk of recruiting a convicted arsonist.

Swinging the pendulum back from such extreme scenarios, Church schools have not shied away from employing individuals who might not be viewed as complying with the tenets of Catholic ethos, embracing diversity in views and lifestyles in a practical way. Thus, the trepidation within the movement behind the proposed equality bill is hard to fathom, especially when considering the inclusive human resources recruitment track record of Church schools. The relegation of any moral/ethical teaching to the prescribed religion class can be couched within the decades-long debate in this country concerning the role in society that the Church should take.

While the secular nature of our republic and the distinct separation between Church and state matters are cast in stone and recognised by all and sundry, the attempt at rendering the Church ever more redundant in today’s society by relegating its teachings to religious buildings and activities only betrays a lack of understanding of the Church’s mission as a key societal stakeholder, that of promoting its ethos and lifestyle model in everyday life.

“Parliamentary secretary Rosianne Cutajar would do her portfolio justice if she endeavoured to make the Equality Bill less discriminatory and more inclusive”

Given the Church’s advocacy role in contemporary society, on issues related to environmental degradation, human rights and dignity (being evident in debates on abortion, migration, drug legalisation), there are those who will resort to every trick in the book to silence it as they are uncomfortable with the message it is conveying. Church schools are just the latest battleground in such a struggle.

The merits of the argument are even easier to grasp if we limit ourselves to Church schools only. Presumably, most, if not all, parents of students attending Church schools do so since they specifically wish their offspring to be instilled in a Catholic ethos and not just on academic grounds. It’s a conscious decision and choice, and the parental faculty to decide on their children’s education will be eradicated if the equality bill gets the green light. The same proposals also avoid giving any quarter to an educator’s right to conscientious objection on the premise that this is discriminatory, paving the ground for witch-hunts of staff members deemed as incompliant and despite the fact that such a right is entrenched within the legal books of many countries and institutions.

Proponents of the ‘equality bill’ repeatedly refer to the agreement between the Holy See and the Maltese Republic on Church Schools (1991) which supposedly gave successive Maltese administrations an implicit foothold in the running of Church schools on the premise that teachers employed within such schools are being paid for by the state. In doing so, the same proponents are implicitly or explicitly oblivious to the fact that, within the same agreement, the Maltese state recognises the right of the Church to establish and direct its own schools according to their specific nature and autonomy of the organisation and that the Church was true to its end of the bargain by passing over vast tracts of land to the state.

This agreement obliges Maltese Church schools to follow the National Minimum Curriculum submitted by the education division but not to shy away from promoting the Catholic ethos. From a more mundane perspective, the state’s subvention of Church schools is limited to just the core/regular teaching staff and an additional 10 per cent payment, with parents having to financially support the engagement of assets such as counsellors, lay chaplains and inclusion coordinators among others, besides regular maintenance and upgrading works within Church school buildings.

It is inherently hypocritical to witness those who profess to be firm believers in a diversity of views, sexual orientations, religious creeds and races to concomitantly be so against a diversity in schooling on these islands. It is perhaps more sinister to witness the same paladins of human rights being so openly discriminatory against those (who are definitely not the ‘privileged few’) who consciously opt for an inclusive Catholic education for their children.

Parliamentary secretary Cutajar would do her portfolio justice if she endeavoured to make the equality bill less discriminatory and more inclusive.

Prof. Alan Deidun is Director of the International Ocean Institute – Malta Training Centre and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Biology (London)

This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/this-equality-bill-that-will-destroy-diversity-alan-deidun.819829 

Good, healthy families by Mgr. George Frendo OP

Towards the end of the month of July 2009, the Prime Minister of Albania, Sali Berisha, announced he intended to propose a motion in Parliament to approve ‘same-sex marriage’.

The following day, some journalists decided to gauge the opinion on this topic among the religious groups represented in Albania.

The Catholic Church was the first to be approached, despite the fact that it only represents 15 per cent of the population. It ranks third after Islam and the Orthodox Church, yet, it enjoys high credibility and esteem for various reasons. Due to my position, I was the person who was approached first.

Within a week, the Catholic bishops of Albania made a declaration, which was published in all newspapers, in which we explained the position of the Catholic Church. Very soon after, the Moslems, the Orthodox and the Bektashi Order (a Sufi Moslem sect) also reacted.

So, together we published a joint declaration as the Inter-Religious Council of Albania. There was widespread reaction in the Albanian media, the vast majority sharing our stand against the introduction of the so-called ‘marriage’ between persons of the same sex.

Although Albania is secular, the religious groups are always consulted and listened to whenever a law will impact on religious issues, directly or indirectly such as education in private schools. It bears emphasising that this takes place in a secular, non-confessional country.

Therefore, I had good reason to be very surprised when, recently, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, a friend of mine and a person I know has the good of the family at heart, stated he is in favour of ‘gay marriage’ and that the time is ripe to discuss this possibility.

I was equally surprised when Simon Busuttil, the leader of the Opposition and leader of a party whose banner once carried the words Religio et Patria, also stated that he agrees with legislation to introduce such a ‘marriage’.

Berisha took heed of the position taken by the mainstream religions in this country and he soon withdrew from his previous statement. Was this a sign of weakness or was he a good listener? I feel it is a huge mistake when legislators ignore the religious sentiments of their people.

In an interview I gave to local television regarding ‘marriage’ between homosexuals, the interviewer asked: “Countries that are more emancipated than ours are today approving this type of ‘marriage’; is it possible they are all wrong?”

Surprisingly, there and then, the words of the Desert Fathers came to my mind: a time will come when all people will go crazy and when they see one who is normal, they will laugh at him and say “look at that madman’”.

Unfortunately, the state that approves of this type of bond, wrongly called ‘marriage’, is today considered an emancipated country.

We later got to know that an ambassador of one of the first countries to introduce ‘marriage’ between homosexuals was applying pressure on the Albanian government to introduce this type of ‘marriage’ to show Europe it is no less backward than other emancipated countries.

In the statement we released as the bishops of Albania, we first mentioned that both the Church and the State have a sacred duty to defend the dignity and integrity of marriage and the family.

Aware of this responsibility, we feel we have to raise our voice against the proposal of the Prime Minister regarding the legislation of ‘same-sex marriage’.

Then, as Christians, we presented the teachings of the Bible regarding marriage as a bond between heterosexuals.

In the first pages of Genesis, we read that God created us in His image as male and female. After creating man, God said: “It is not good for the man to live alone; I will make a suitable companion.” In metaphorical terms the creation of woman was formed from his rib. When the man saw the woman, he exclaimed: “At last, here is one of my own kind – bone from my bone and flesh from my flesh. Woman is her name because she was taken out of man.”

We then have the definition of marriage, with the following statement: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united with his wife and they become one flesh.”

These statements are enough for us to understand what meaning marriage had and still has in God’s plan. Human beings are created in the image of God, male and female. The woman has the same dignity of the man. Both, as two individuals, having the same dignity, join together in marriage and become “one body”.

Therefore, the diversity of sex is willed by God, who intended this for marriage which includes the possibility of procreation of children, something that is obviously excluded in the case of ‘marriage’ between homosexuals.

One has every right, if one does not want to live as a Christian, to reject this but a Christian cannot play around with the Word of God, which is crystal clear.

We continued by stating that, in every era, every culture and religion, marriage was always defined as the full bonding between a man and a woman. No Parliament has the competence to change this definition. For the sake of truth, let us not consider calling ‘marriage’ a bond between two people of the same sex or say that this is a right.

One says this without any lack of respect towards homosexuals. What is stated by the catechism of the Catholic Church must be accepted with respect and every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

Finally, the cells that form society are not individuals but families. Not every change inevitably means progress. We should not fool ourselves into thinking that approving such a law places us in the league of the more emancipated nations. Let us, therefore, defend the ethical values that really guarantee authentic and healthy families.

This statement was very well received by the press and public opinion. Naturally, not everyone agreed with us but no one insulted us saying we were narrow minded or medieval.

 Mgr George Frendo is Auxiliary Bishop of Tiranë-Durrës in Albania.

Press Release – No Right to Same-Sex “Marriage” in the Human Rights Convention

The European Court of Human Rights confirms by unanimity: there is no Right to Same-Sex “Marriage” in the Human Rights Convention

Thursday 9 June 2016

Press release

The organizer’s committee of the ECI “Mum Dad & Kids” hails today’s decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Chapin and Charpentier v. France (Appl. Nr. 40183/07), in which it is clarified that under the European Human Rights Convention the term “marriage” has no other meaning than that of a union between a man and a woman.

The case concerned so-called same-sex “marriages” that were registered by the mayor of a French municipality in 2004 despite the fact that at that time (i.e., prior to the controversial Loi Taubira, which was adopted in 2013) the French legal order provided no legal basis for such “marriages”. As a matter of consequence, the false “marriage” had been declared void by the Tribunal of Bordeaux at the request of the public prosecutor’s office.

By their application to the ECtHR the two applicants claimed that the Tribunal’s decision to declare their “marriage” void violated their right to marry and found a family under Article 12, and their right to respect for their family life under Article 8, of the European Human Rights Convention. But with today’s judgment the ECtHR has confirmed that the term “marriage” in Article 12 has a clear and unambiguous meaning: a union between a man and a woman. This was so when the Convention was adopted in 1950, and it remains so today.

The President of the citizens’ committee “Mum Dad & Kids”, Edit Frivaldszky, said: “It is a great satisfaction to see that the Court confirms and corroborates the position that our ECI is promoting: marriage is something unique and special. One of the purposes of marriage is to provide a place where children can grow up happily, and it is in the child’s best interest to grow up in the love aund unity of his mother and father. The Human Rights Convention provides absolutely no legal base to pressure national legislators to re-define marriage. If in some quarters claims are made that same-sex ‘marriage’ is a human right, these claims are false, without foundation, and contrary to good faith”.

The Secretary General of the committee, Maria Hildingsson, added: “Article 12 of the Convention places the family into a direct context with marriage. It is therefore clear that today’s judgment has implications for the way in which the term ‘family’ is to be understood: it is based on the marriage between a man and a woman, and on descent.”

Please visit www.mumdadandkids.eu and sign for marriage and family!