Woman conceived by rape tells authorities to ‘punish rapists, not babies’

Rebacca Kiessling, a woman conceived by rape, has called on the authorities to punish rapists not babies. Speaking at a conference organised by the Life Network Foundation, the 46-year-old from Michigan gave a heartfelt plea for Maltese authorities not to consider the introduction of abortion, not even in cases of rape.

“Abortion will simply add more violence to an already violent issue,” she insisted while addressing members of the media.

Accompanied by Miriam Sciberras, the mother of five has come all the way from the United States as she fears “Malta could be at risk, like many other countries, to introduce abortion.” Dr Kiessling, who is a lawyer, has founded an organisation to help rape victims and people who, like her, were conceived by rape. “The battle for this cause is all over the globe, and I intend to fight it.”

Dr Kiessling intends to meet with local legislators and policy makers.

She explained how her mother was raped by a serial rapist and considered committing abortion twice. “I was not lucky, I was protected,” she says. “My life was spared and I want to provide a voice to the voice less.”

“It is very barbaric to punish an innocent unborn child for a crime committed by someone else. We speak about protecting rapists from the death penalty but when it comes to abortion, we are willing to sacrifice the life of a baby.”

Asked to comment on the morning after pill, Dr Kiesling said that the people need to understand how it works. “They tell them that it will not terminate pregnancy when in fact it can.”

“The military never drops a drone strike if there is the slightest doubt that there is someone in the building. So why don’t we also err in the side of caution when it comes to save a baby still in the womb?”

Rebecca Kiessling will be attending a walk organised by the Life Network Foundation which will be held on Saturday.

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2016-11-28/local-news/Woman-conceived-by-rape-tells-authorities-to-punish-rapists-not-babies-6736167202

Child of rape victim says Morning After Pill is a shot in the dark

15195953_1238756769500843_4584481684741767918_o

The morning after pill offers no guarantee that it will not prevent a fertilised egg from implanting in a woman’s womb, pro-life campaigner Rebecca Kiessling insisted today.

The 46-year-old American advocate, daughter of a rape victim, is in Malta as the guest of the Pro-Life Network.

“Would you reverse the car at the mere thought of having a child standing at the rear? No, because you would want to err on the side of caution. The same holds true for the morning after pill, which may prevent a fertilised egg from implantation,” she said.

The ethical debate over the MAP centres around whether the pill can prevent an already fertilised egg from implantation with pro-lifers insisting this would be abortive.

Dr Kiessling said the literature accompanying the morning after pill is based on the redefinition in the US of when a pregnancy starts. She noted that in the wake of the Roe vs Wade case, a US Supreme Court ruling that legalised abortion in the 1970s, the American medical authorities redefined pregnancy as starting on implantation.

“But women are being intentionally misinformed about the possibility that the morning after pill could stop a fertilised egg from implanting [and so terminating human life],” Dr Kiessling said.

However, she said the availability of MAP could also instigate a lack of compassion for rape victims and their children since they would be pressured by society to take the pill.

Speaking of her own experience as the child of a rape victim, Dr Kiessling refuted pro-abortion arguments in the case of rape.

“If you care about rape victims you should punish the rapists and not the babies… it is absolute barbaric to punish a child for somebody else’s crime,” she said, adding abortion would constitute a second violation of the rape victim’s dignity.

“I have heard pro-abortionists argue against the death penalty for rapists basing their argument on promoting civil rights but they would be ready to agree on the death penalty for the conceived child without as much as a trial,” she said.

Dr Kiessling is on an awareness tour and will on Saturday participate in a candle-lit vigil in Valletta in favour of protecting life from conception to natural death.

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20161128/local/child-of-rape-victim-says-morning-after-pill-is-a-shot-in-the-dark.632331

Malta is now on the brink

It would not be an exaggeration to say that Malta stands on the brink of losing protection of human life from conception to natural death. As never before, Malta’s time-honoured traditions are under assault.

These past years, we have seen attempts to change the Embryo Protection Act in an attempt to introduce embryo freezing, egg and sperm donation as well as surrogacy.

The latest affront to life is the manner in which the proposed introduction of so-called emergency ‘contraceptives’ was handled. Touting international bodies, all of which are pro-abortion, their alleged experts twist facts to suit their agenda by arbitrarily declaring that drugs which harm the embryo before completion of implantation are not abortifacient, thus denying the undisputed scientific reality that new life begins at fertilisation.

Throughout, the strategy has been marked by the crass abuse of dialogue and lack of genuine consultation. Presentations at the conjoined parliamentary com­mittee were a waste of time as the agenda had already been set. Machiavellian underhand manoeuvring, abetted by powerful minority lobbies, has been the repeated pattern of action.

This relentless assault on the most fundamental value, the right to life, from conception to natural death, is not a casual happening but a deliberate and calculated political plan aimed to curry favour with a so- called ‘liberal’ section of the people who place their egoistic self-interests above everything else. Those of us who are aware of what is going on know where this is leading to.

It is for this reason that our NGO is doing its utmost to alert public opinion to what is at stake. It is now blindingly obvious that the vociferous so-called feminists, ‘humanists’ and anti-Christian lobbies are already clamouring for ‘pro-choice’ that deny that a person, in the earliest stages of life, as a fertilised ovum, has any rights.

As never before, Malta’s time-honoured traditions are under assault

What was inconceivable only a few short years ago is with us now. Abortion is on the cards.

Unfortunately, the public is largely uninformed and unaware of these far-reaching changes. The next attempt to introduce abortion will probably be based on the case of children conceived by rape. It has already been proposed that abortifacient drugs will be made available in hospital to women who are victims of rape.

An outstanding lawyer, Rebecca Kiessling, who will address a pro-life rally on Saturday, will, through her personal testimony, discredit the shameful argument that children conceived by rape lose the most sacred right: the right to live.

The inviolability of man ought to be an unassailable pillar of a civil society. Removing this most fundamental safeguard will open the floodgates that will justify the elimination of the most vulner­able, be they the aged, the terminally ill, the handicapped or the unwanted child.

Too many of us are resigned and defeatist, dismissing our responsibility in taking a stand against these uncalled for and imposed developments that do not even have a democratic mandate.

Public opinion counts. Such negative trends are not inevitable. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to make our voice heard. It is of crucial importance that we make ourselves conscious of the sinister agenda that is unfolding. This has already happened elsewhere when, by stealth and deceit, laws with sweeping consequences have been imposed.

A case in point is the scandalous manner in which abortion was legalised elsewhere. At long last, the USA is now challenging legalised abortion that has resulted in the elimination of countless millions. It is now realising the negative impact it had on the social fabric of society.

Malta is still in time to stop this corrosive trend before matters get much worse. It is for this reason that Life Network Foundation Malta, with the support of other pro-life groups, will be holding a candlelight march on Saturday (December 3) in Valletta.

It is an invitation for all of us to take a stand for life and show that we uphold this most vital value: the right to life.

Klaus Vella Bardon is deputy chairman of Life Network Foundation Malta.

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20161128/opinion/malta-is-now-on-the-brink.632280

Malta STAND UP for Life! Candlelight March 2016

Join us on the 3rd December at 17:30 in front of Castille to light a Candle for Life! We have a responsibility to protect all life from the moment of conception until natural death and to STAND UP for life! We need your support. See you there!

[KGVID]http://staging-lifenetwork.stagingcloud.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Malta-STAND-UP-for-Life-2016.mp4[/KGVID]

Unfair, unnecessary Bills

The Ministry of Social Dialogue and Industrial Relations is presenting, for parliamentary approval, two Bills, The Human Rights & Equality Commission Act 2015 and the Equality Act 2015. These Bills are being promoted as instruments that will bring Malta in line with requirements of EU directives.  They are also being sold as solutions to Maltese legal shortcomings in equality and discrimination in employment and work in general.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

In matters of employment, equality and discrimination Malta is 100 per cent compliant with EU directives and in addition current legislation is more than adequately serving employees, unions and employers.

The Equality for Men and Women Act, Chapter 456 and the Employment and Industrial Relations Act, which includes Part II – Protection against discrimination related to employment, Part IV – Enforcement and non-compliance related to employment and Part II – The Industrial Tribunal, successfully regulate all matters relating to work.

This legal framework is supported by a structure that includes a Commissioner and a Director of Labour who exercise a persuasive authority when work problems occur. The director is backed by a department that includes an advisory service to employees and inspectors to guarantee adherence to laws and rules. There is also a functioning Industrial Tribunal with all the guarantees for an impartial judicial process for all grievances, whether coming from an employee, a union or an employer.  This valid set-up must not be disturbed and messed with.

Through the proposed Bills, employers will be subjected to a justice regime different from that applicable to normal citizens.  This amended legislation will attribute to the commissioner, in competition and in parallel with the Industrial Tribunal, a wide and arbitrary authority to investigate, prosecute, judge and finally condemn an accused employer if he does not manage to prove his innocence to the satisfaction of the same commissioner.

Extreme fringes of feminist and gay lobbies are being allowed to impose their ideologies on everybody

Since the Bills of the ministry entrench the unjust ‘burden of proof’ concept, this process will occur with the accused employer deemed ‘a priori’ guilty.  So the universal principle of innocence until guilt is proven is being discarded in respect of employers.

Furthermore this proposed omnipotent commissioner is also being granted the unheard of authority to delegate any of his powers to any person holding office under him/her.  Such a measure is completely out of place in a democracy that is supposed to guarantee safeguards to ensure a competent and impartial justice process.  The MEA is hoping that legal practitioners, as promoters of equitable justice procedures, will wake up to the threat posed by these proposed two Bills.

It is worrying that extreme fringes of the gay and feminist movements seem to have the power to successfully promote unnecessary legislation which seriously threatens the rights of employers.  These Bills will definitely hinder employers’ ability to exercise their responsibilities free from frivolous and vexatious harassment. Most worryingly these Bills will create a commissioner with an obligation and power to pursue a proactive task of promoting what appear to be the radical agendas of the various gay and feminist lobby groups.

Some passages of the Bills, in particular where the empowered proactive role of the commissioner is explained (eg. surveillance of University syllabuses, etc) actually read like 1984 Orwellian texts.  The Bills are embellished with a cascade of nebulous and improbable definitions of offences and protected characteristics that will make it impossible for a targeted employer to escape an orchestrated persecution.

With no need for a complaint from anyone and with no alleged victim a commissioner may, at his discretion, initiate a procedure against any presumed employer offender.  For example, a commissioner may decide to investigate a company that has no gender balance at board level.  Being an investigator, a prosecutor, a judge and executor a commissioner will confirm the presumed guilt of such a company and demand a board gender balance rectification.

Who cares about the right of a shareholder to freely select the director to represent his shareholding interests?

Such a development results plausible after a careful reading of the text of the: “Human Rights and Equality Commissioner Act 2015”, Functions of the Commission (I) (IV), “Equality Act 2015”, Articles 6 (1) (2) (3) (b).

The MEA supports, and is in favour of encouraging gender balance and more female representation in business, which should reflect the increasing female participation in the labour force.  However, to achieve this balance the MEA does not favour or approve mandatory “positive discrimination” and the setting of quotas in favour of women.

Enshrined in law these concepts will be a statutory denial of human and other rights pertaining to employees and employers.  Positive discrimination and quotas deny unhindered access to an equal opportunity for advancement in work; they are a negation of meritocracy and will result in discrimination and mediocrity.

These two Bills are riddled with vague and unclear definitions of offences, real offences as well as offences subjectively ‘perceived’ by alleged victims.  There are also references to a transgression consisting of “an intention to offend”.

Facing a commissioner, and a priori considered guilty, an employer will certainly struggle to prove her/his innocence of the crime of harbouring an ‘intention’ to transgress.

It is inevitable that were these Bills to be adopted there will be a proliferation of frivolous as well as deliberately orchestrated litigation with employers. This litigation will be indulged in by well-known NGOs and notorious lobby groups.

Unnecessary and unjustified litigation is distracting, time-consuming and expensive to confront.  Frivolous litigation is bound to seriously obstruct the business operations of small and medium-sized enterprises.  In instances it may even result in a small business closing down.

At EU level, a supplementary and unnecessary draft directive, “Implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation”, has not been approved by more than eight member states and so has been stalled for six years and will soon be discarded.  This draft directive has been described, by the European Employers’ Association (Business Europe) as anti-business, inadequate, disruptive and problematic to apply.  Now it results that the two proposed Maltese Bills in their provisions go beyond this discredited and stalled EU directive.

There is a feeling that employers might be facing lobbies that have been allowed to box above their weight.  We are witnessing a leveraging of emotional pressure on a public conditioned to political correctness.  Extreme fringes of feminist and gay lobbies are being allowed to impose their ideologies on everybody.

Much as their proposals are frequently stretched to absurd limits there is a fear to resist them.  Whoever speaks up risks being viciously ostracised.   It seems employers are also facing an ineffectual political class which prevalently seeks to ensure and harvest the votes of distinct segments of the electorate.

The employers of the private sector, as they provide essential goods and services and maintain over 160,000 people in invariably decent and gainful employment, deserve much better treatment and consideration from government and politicians.  They deserve better than these two ill-advised Bills that will seriously threaten their basic rights and their ability and willingness to fulfil their important role.  There is therefore a serious need to stop these unnecessary destabilising Bills from being enacted and applied to the world of work

Arthur Muscat is president of the Malta Employers’ Association

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20161114/opinion/Unfair-unnecessary-Bills.630981

Plan B against pregnancy

We feel that there is still much left to be said on the morning-after pill controversy.

The Parliamentary Committee has made it clear that there are two different types of morning-after pill. First, EllaOne, which can prevent a living embryo from implanting itself in the uterus or even kill an embryo after implantation. It is efficient even 120 hours after it is taken. (Committee report, pg 7)

The second one is Plan B. Plan B, if taken at a certain time before ovulation, can act as an anovulatory, which means that it prevents the ovary from releasing an egg, and therefore is not abortifacient. Plan B, after appropriate testing, such as a urine test on the woman to check whether she has ovulated or not, has been used in hospitals abroad that acknow­ledge that life starts from fertilisation.

Chris Fearne has said that both Plan B and EllaOne will be made available at Mater Dei and government clinics in rape cases. This does not seem to be lawful when the Parliamentary Committee highlighted the fact that “Maltese laws determine that life starts with the fertilisation of the ovum. Thus, any product which terminates a pregnancy after fertilisation can be abortive.” (Committee report, pg 8)

We are hopeful that the appropriate protocols will be used to make sure that the new life conceived through sexual assault, an innocent bystander, does not become a ‘second victim’ of rape through chemical abortion.

Getting it right the morning after for us means that women who end up victims of rape are to be protected as much as possible from the attacker’s sperm by having morning-after pills that will only prevent ovulation, thereby preventing conception. If it is determined that the woman is ovulating, the morning-after pill will not be able to block the egg’s release from her ovary.

We are thus strongly suggesting that EllaOne should not be licensed

Under these circumstances, the morning-after pill can function to prevent the implantation of any newly conceived embryo/s, which would be the equivalent to a chemical abortion. Under these conditions, therefore, the morning-after pill should not be administered. All embryos, whether one day or one month old, are worthy and precious and should be protected in accordance to Malta’s own laws.

We are thus strongly suggesting that EllaOne should not be licensed. It is only Plan B that should be allowed in Malta, and the appropriate testing – whether in a pharmacy, clinic or hospital – ought to be done on the woman to confirm that she has not yet ovulated before administering this pill. This will ensure that the embryo’s life is safeguarded from the very beginning.

It is imperative that the embryo’s life in the first five days between fertilisation and implantation remains protected, especially now that other laws such as the Equality Act (which considers opening IVF to all people, including singles) are in the pipeline.

In these delicate moments, when a woman is considering the morning-after pill, women should always be fully in­formed of all the risks, side effects, cautions and contraindications of these pills. The Medical Council has clearly highlighted that these pills can interact with other medicines and conditions, affecting the patient’s well-being.

Besides pills, women also ought to be offered options of concrete support, in­cluding emotional support, in case the pregnancy still goes through. This work is currently only being done with limited resources by HOPE pregnancy centre (a branch of Gift of Life) in Malta and Dar Ġużeppa Debono in Gozo.

The authors are women and mothers who work in social, educational and youth fields.

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20161120/opinion/Plan-B-against-pregnancy.631500

Rebecca Kiessling is coming to Malta!

The world’s most high-profile anti-abortion campaigner is coming to Malta for the first time and will be here from the 27th November till the 6th of December. Rebecca Kiessling will also be our guest speaker at the Malta STAND UP for Life! Candlelight March being held on 3rd December in Valletta.

Rebecca Kiessling has been an international pro-life speaker and adoption speaker since 1995, speaking for various pro-life organizations, including right to life groups, crisis pregnancy center fundraisers, 40 Days for Life events, rallies, churches, high schools, universities, Students for Life, women’s conferences, attorney conferences, adoption events, etc., throughout North America and Europe, speaking about 75 times/year.

Politically influential, she changed the heart of Gov. Rick Perry during his presidential campaign, as well as Newt Gingrich, and many legislators across the U.S., Canada and Europe. She’s helped pregnant rape victims all around the world to choose life for their children.

She’s also an attorney, wife, and mother of 5 (two oldest are adopted,) lost 2 additional babies to miscarriage, and her 33 day old adopted daughter Cassie, who was born with special needs.

She appeared in the following documentary films: The Citizens United film, “The Gift of Life with Gov. Mike Huckabee,” the “40” film, “Conceived in Rape: From Worthless to Priceless,” “Except in Cases of Rape? 12 Stories of Survival,” and “Conceived in Rape and Other Exceptions.” Rebecca has appeared on Fox’s Huckabee (which has the clip of Gov. Rick Perry), CNN’s Piers Morgan debating Gloria Allred, CBN’s 700 Club, Catholic TV’s “This is the Day,” ABC’s Good Morning America, EWTN’s Life on the Rock and Defending Life with Fr. Frank Pavone, “Facing Life Head On,” as well as the nationally-syndicated tv program “Extra.” Her story has been featured in Glamour Magazine and Marie Claire Magazine.

Rebecca is the National Spokeswoman for Personhood USA and for National Personhood Alliance.

She’s also the poster child for Feminists for Life’s ad, “Did I Deserve the Death Penalty,” author of the Heritage House ’76 pamphlet “Conceived in Rape: A Story of Hope,” and the writer of, and subject of, numerous articles and blogs on LifeNews and Lifesitenews.

Founder and President of Save The 1, and co-founder and Board Member of Hope After Rape Conception.

Euthanasia risks encouraging culture of death, oncologist tells MPs

Although euthanasia might at times be in the patient’s best interest, it could end up encouraging a “culture of death” within society, a consultant oncologist told parliament.

During a joint meeting of the House Social Affairs, Health, and Family Affairs Committees held on Wednesday, Dr Brincat said that, in cases where patients were not capable of making their own decisions, some relatives even refused to bring people requiring treatment to hospital. When patients incapable of exercising medical autonomy were being cared for by doctors, the latter might face situations where relatives requested euthanasia or the withdrawal of treatment for ulterior motives.

Health Minister Chris Fearne said that, for this reason, it was important to clarify legislation relating to the responsibilities of healthcare professionals and the medical autonomy of patients.

Some relatives even refused to bring people requiring treatment to hospital

Experts took great pains to differentiate between euthanasia and the withdrawal of treatment. While the latter may involve a living will, instructions preventing resuscitation, or the token extension of life, the former involved an active attempt to end the patient’s life. Ultimately, although it was the medical professional’s duty to attempt to treat the patient to their best interest, it was up to the patients themselves to decide whether they wanted to accept treatment or not, with doctors obliged to respect their decision.

Consultant Dr Doreen Pace said that palliative care sought to respect the lives of patients as holistically as possible, considering death to be a natural process. She said patients with terminal illnesses who had corresponded with her said they “want[ed] to have the choice to die,” and “[they don’t] want to be a burden on anyone.”

She noted that the responsibility to care, whether for the very young or very old, was increasingly being shifted from the family to the State, and that a natural consequence of ageing was being conceived of as a burden. Natural dependency need not lead to loss of dignity, she said.

Oncologist Dr Nick Refalo said that he didn’t know whether he would be ready to perform euthanasia if a patient asked it of him. Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to assist a patient to end his life was extremely subjective, as were all medical decisions, but he thought he would draw the line there.

While a shortened life as the result of palliative measures or the withdrawal of treatment was not necessarily a bad thing in palliative care, in the case of an active hastening of a patient’s death it was hard to evaluate whether that patient truly wanted to die.

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20161111/local/euthanasia-risks-encouraging-culture-of-death-oncologist-tells-mps.630622

Equality Bill goes beyond EU directives and encroaches on religious freedom, Church says

The Equality Bill set to be debated in Parliament goes beyond EU directives and encroaches on religious freedoms, the Church said today.

Archbishop Charles Scicluna told minister Helena Dalli in a meeting that the Church is against every form of discrimination and for this reason supports the EU directives which promote equality and prohibit discrimination. But the Bill as presented by the government goes beyond the EU directives and encroaches upon the religious freedom of the Church, religious organisations and practicing Catholics.

He said that changes should be made to the Bill so that the right to religious expression would be fully respected.

Changes should be made to the Bill so that the right to religious expression would be fully respected

The minister told the Archbishop that she would address these concerns before the presentation of the Bill in Parliament, the Curia said.

The Archbishop handed the minister a position paper prepared by a group of experts in law, human rights, theology, ethics and education. Its drafting was coordinated by the Faculty of Theology at the University of Malta.

The position paper (see pdf below) focuses on those provisions in the Bill such as employment education and advertising that would compromise the Church and religious institutions in trying to maintain their particular ethos.

READ: Equality Bill is too vague for comfort, argues Christian NGO lawyer

In their position paper the experts state that like freedom of expression, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion constitute the foundations of a pluralistic society.

The vague and broad definitions of ‘harassment’ and ‘victim’ found in the Bill and their application to areas outside employment/occupation pose a clear risk of subjective interpretation that can have a negative impact on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

For instance, a display of a notice, billboard or flyer promoting marriage between a man and a woman could be prohibited, because it can be subjectively perceived as harmful to some groups.

“People may feel inhibited from making a statement (including to explain sincerely held doctrinal religious convictions) if they fear a person might claim vaguely defined elements such as the ‘violation of their dignity’ or the creation of an offensive environment,” the Curia said.

The experts said that this situation got more complicated with the reversal of the burden of proof endorsed by the Bill. Whoever is accused of discrimination must prove his or her innocence, whereas the person claiming to be the victim of discrimination would be exonerated from bringing objective evidence.

“The Bill is not in line with standard procedural rights,” the Curia said.

The Church’s position paper draws attention to the fact that the Bill is completely silent on conscientious objection.

“Any legislation on non-discrimination should give due attention to the question of exercising the right to conscientious objection,” it said.

The position paper also points out that the EU directive, while establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, includes a specific provision regarding Churches and other public or private organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief. Ill-advisedly, the Bill leaves out this important provision.

“This is of particular concern to the Church which offers a broad range of educational services particularly through its schools. Catholic schools are bound to nourish and promote a Christian spirit in the mind and conduct of their students

“They can do this especially by creating and maintaining a Christian ethos within their environment. Without this provision the Church, for example, can be forced to employ educators who conduct public campaigns against some aspects of its teaching.”

The position paper recommends that the Bill should include this provision which is part of the Directive of the EU establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. This provision would enable the Church to implement the equality principle within their institutions without distorting and going against (de facto renouncing to) its beliefs and ethical principles.

position-paper

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20161107/local/equality-bill-goes-beyond-eu-directives-and-encroaches-on-religious

A value inherent to us all

The Life Network Foundation Malta is very disappointed and disillusioned at the proposal to introduce the morning-after pill in Malta.

The orchestrated spin and the frequently misleading, as well as biased, information presented in the local media are most worrying. The unfolding developments taking place in our country have totally bypassed Malta’s laws, both on abortion and on the protection of embryos.

It bears reminding that the Malta Medicines Act stipulates that the role of the Medicines Authority is only to make 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 such responsibility to the Medicines Authority, the function of the second is limited to nothing more than making recommendations to the first.

The circumstances of conception are many and varied, but the right to live is a value inherent to us all

The Superintendent of Public Health, as the 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), must assume full responsibility for ensuring that marketing authorisations (licences) for medicinal products intended for the Maltese market comply fully with national legislation.

Therefore, abortion being illegal in Malta, if a licence is issued for a pill in the face of scientific evidence demonstrating its abortifacient properties, the issuing authority – in this case, the Superintendent of Public Health – bears great responsibility and may also become criminally liable and answerable to the law.

The Life Network Foundation Malta has noted that the recommendations made by Parliament through the joint health, social affairs and family affairs committee regarding the licensing of the pill in Malta have acknowledged not only that different types of pills 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.

This clear and objective scientific evidence was presented to the joint parliamentary committee, pointing out that most morning-after pills are abortifacient in their effect.

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

It was really disheartening to note the manner in which NGOs defending life from conception were harassed and interrupted during the hearings in Parliament.

This attitude was in marked contrast to the way exponents of the pill were allowed to promote their views. In particular, Anthony Serracino Inglott, who vigorously promoted the introduction of the pill, was allowed to speak unhindered and well beyond the time allocated to others.

These so-called consultations were roundly condemned as ‘selective and suspicious’ by Martin Balzan, the secretary general of the Medical Association of Malta. He also objected to the fact that the MAM was not even consulted. For us, the so-called public debate and parliamentary hearings were just a charade, and the public was denied a clear awareness of what is at stake.

Worse still, even the major political parties seem to have stifled internal debate and their conclusions betray the superficiality with which they studied and addressed this very important issue, which will have a far-reaching impact on the way we respect life issues.

Besides the scandalous and callous disregard for the abortifacient potential of these drugs, we also deplore the very concept that trivialises sexual behaviour that will lead to the promotion of promiscuity. Is this in the interest of society and the common good?

The Life Network again declares it has no reason to doubt the overwhelming volume of evidence that points towards the abortifacient properties of morning-after pills and reaffirms and upholds 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 is chairperson of the Life Network Foundation Malta

Ref http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20161105/opinion/A-value-inherent-to-us-all.630048