In breach of the Maltese Constitution by Dr. Michael Asciak

 

In sections of the Maltese press, the head of the Medicines Authority in Malta, Professor Anthony Serracino Inglott states that there is no scientific reason why emergency contraception products should not be authorised for sale in Malta. He says scientific studies show that emergency contraception cannot interrupt an established pregnancy or harm a developing embryo. It seems he is speaking about the effects of Levonorgestrel on the uterus. There are other preparations (ulipristal, mifepristone) available for use as an emergency contraceptive device, some work in a similar fashion to Levonorgestrel (affects higher progesterone levels), and some work differently.

There is an implicit pun, play on words or trick in the utterances of the Medicine Authority’s chief. He states quite clearly that this pill cannot interrupt an established pregnancy or harm a developing embryo. In other sections of the press, he has already stated that for him, pregnancy starts at nidation or implantation of the embryo in the uterus. However, everyone knows that human life starts at conception or fertilisation which occurs seven days before that event in the fallopian tube, before the embryo travels down the tube where implantation normally occurs (or not) in the uterine body. In fact, sometimes the embryo implants in the fallopian tube and there is then an ectopic pregnancy! It is quite possible that Levonorgestrel may not disturb an already implanted embryo, and even on this there is academic doubt, but there is no doubt that there is the ever present possibility of prevention of nidation or implantation of the human embryo with Levonorgestrel and other drugs. That, Professor Serracino Inglott does not say, quite conveniently!

The Medicines Authority in Malta is a pharmaceutical expert and authority on the action of medicines on human beings. It is not an expert in Bioethics or one which determines when human life begins. All experts in Embryology as attested by the Terminologia Embryologica define human life as starting at complete fertilisation of the ovum by the sperm (stage E2.0.1.2.0.0.9 – Zygotum; Embryo Syngamicum, stage 1c Gradus Carnegiensis – Carnegie Stages of human development). Besides this, such deliberations should not be the remit of the Medicines Authority but of a Bioethics Committee which has never been appropriately set up and remains without a head after its chairperson Deborah Schembri became Parliamentary Secretary. I have already written at length that issues of Bioethics should not be academically handled by politicians or by public debate first, but by a properly constituted National Bioethics Committee (as in other EU countries) properly established by law (not ad hoc) with multidisciplinary representation from the appropriate disciplines including the sciences and the humanities especially philosophy. The National Bioethics Committee in Italy works beautifully and is an example to behold.

However, there are other issues of a legal nature here. Maltese law already defines what an embryo is. In the Embryo Protection Act which all PL and PN deputies voted in favour of in 2012, including Minister Helena Dalli who seems to want to rely on the Medicines Authority exclusively to satisfy her own purported civil rights purposes (not the right to life of a human being it seems!), the Embryo is defined in article 2 as:

“‘Embryo’” means the human organism that result from the fertilisation of a human egg cell by a human sperm cell which is capable of developing and shall further include each totipotent cell removed from an embryo or otherwise produced that is assumed to be able to divide and to develop as a human being under the appropriate conditions.”

Nowhere here is the definition of pregnancy mentioned or defined as the implantation of the embryo into the uterus! Human life starts at but is not limited to fertilisation (conception) as totipotent cells can be formed by other means which same law also protects the human embryo. Modern epigenetics and genetics today prove more than ever that human life starts at fertilisation. Article 8 (1) of the same law states: “Whosoever, other than for the purpose of implantation in a woman as may be authorised by the provisions of this Act disposes of, hands over or acquires a human embryo produced outside the body, or removes such embryo from a woman before the completion of implantation in the womb, shall be guilty of an offence and, on conviction, shall be liable to the punishment of a fine (multa) of not less than five thousand euro (5,000) and not exceeding fifteen thousand euro (15,000) or to imprisonment not exceeding three years or to both such fine and imprisonment.”

Maybe Minister Dalli has a short memory and seems to have forgotten that she too voted for this law and that she too is liable under the law, or maybe she needs to ask the opinion of the Embryo Protection Authority which is established by the same law and which has certain powers and obligations with regard to the same law’s application.

In the Maltese Constitution, Article 33 (1), it is written as: “No person shall intentionally be deprived of his life save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence under the law of Malta of which he has been convicted.”

The Maltese language version of the Constitution which is superior to the British translation goes even further and uses the word “Hadd” meaning no one or nobody and therefore specifically refers to a human being, which human being is proved by science to start at conception.

I already stated in a previous article that especially in cases where there is violence in the sexual act there is a moral case for the use of certain formulations of the morning after pill before ovulation has occurred and there is a simple urine test for this to be ascertained. Before ovulation has occurred the pill does work by preventing fertilisation and by preventing ovulation, that is, no egg is released from the ovary and if such egg is realised no fertilisation is able to take place, sperm and ovum are not able to unite. These details and circumstances have to be left to the doctor and the patient to administer together. In the light of this, the state would be right in approving Levonorgestrel for the specific indication for use before ovulation has occurred, as it is today indeed legally approved in a lower dose as a method of ordinary contraception and as a five year slow-release intra-uterine formulation. On or after ovulation, approval or prescription of the high dose drug would lead to breaking Maltese law and the Maltese Constitution. Administrative decisions to that effect would also be in breach of the law and the Maltese Constitution.

I have always held that women have a right to decide issues regarding their own fertility but these rights have to give way to the right to life of any other human being which prima facie is way above all other human rights and claims. It is a first degree right so to speak, that the right of innocent human to life is absolute. The golden rule of wishing for others what one would have wished for oneself holds water here!

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2016-08-21/newspaper-opinions/In-breach-of-the-Maltese-Constitution-6736162652

Guidelines on MAP by Arthur Galea Salomone

The debate in respect of the licensing of the morning-after pill has many facets and should be guided by scientific findings, ethical considerations and full respect for human rights.

The issue has sometimes been presented as a tussle between science and ethics, a clash between women’s civil rights on the one hand and the rights of the unborn on the other hand. In an attempt to reconcile apparently conflicting considerations, it is sometimes necessary to outline basic principles.

It is not uncommon for competing rights to conflict with one another. It is for this reason that in developed legal systems there exists a hierarchy of rights.

Within this hierarchy, the first guiding principle is that fundamental human rights trump civil rights and not vice versa. Besides, the right to life tops the hierarchy of rights which exists in our legal system.

Accordingly, any debate in respect of women’s civil and reproductive rights, including a debate in respect of the morning-after pill, cannot be carried out in isolation. It should be placed in the context of an established hierarchy of rights and the right to life tops that hierarchy.

The second principle to bear in mind is that life starts from the moment of conception and accordingly should be protected and treated with dignity from that moment.

Maltese law is replete with provisions which recognise the principle that life starts at conception and that accordingly legal protection is provided to the conceived though as yet unborn.

A technical committee to report on the scientific findings of the effects of morning-after pills is understandable and advisable

Thus for example, the Embryo Protection Act defines an embryo as a “human organism” that results from fertilisation. Politicians should therefore be unequivocal about the start of life and the deliberations in respect of the morning-after pill should be placed in this context.

The corollary to the above principle is that a morning-after pill which prevents ovulation and/or fertilisation is a contraceptive and not an abortifacient. On the other hand, a morning-after pill which interrupts life after conception by preventing implantation is an abortifacient and not a contraceptive, regardless of how it is labelled.

Contraceptive and abortifacient effects are not invariably mutually exclusive, as there may be instances where an intended contraceptive is also potentially abortifacient. In this case responsible decision makers or prescribing doctors are called upon to decide whether to err on the side of life or on the side of death.

The precautionary principle and the dictates of prudence would suggest that when in doubt life should be safeguarded and not endangered.

An unbiased understanding of the effects of the morning-after pill is therefore critical for legislators and authorities to take an informed decision. The pharmacological effects of morning-after pills differ from one pill to another.

From a legal perspective, it is therefore not possible to generalise and categorise all forms of pills uniformly as either contraceptive or abortifacient. Besides, academic research is not entirely consistent in its findings.

In this context the suggestion coming from various quarters, including the Medical

Association of Malta, for a technical committee to report on the scientific findings of the effects of morning-after pills is understandable and advisable.

To ignore this suggestion would be rash and indicative of a parliamentary committee which is prejudiced, in the sense that it has prejudged the matter without giving due consideration to conflicting views and legitimate concerns.

The constitution of a technical committee should not however be the pretext for our politicians to pass on the buck of their responsibility.

The competence and responsibility of technical specialists should be to highlight prevalent scientific findings and to convince decision makers that various forms of morning-after pills are not abortifacient in the sense that they do not interrupt life by preventing implantation.

The onus and responsibility of politicians and local authorities is then to take their onerous decision in respect of the legalisation and licensing of the morning-after pill in the light of scientific findings, bearing in mind the hierarchy of rights, the value of life, as well as the existing position at law, in terms of which, life starts at conception and should therefore be safeguarded from the moment of conception.

 Arthur Galea Salomone is president of the Cana Movement.

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160816/opinion/Guidelines-on-MAP.622153

We are no barbarians by Tony Mifsud

As coordinator of the Malta Unborn Child Movement (MUCM) I was invited to speak at the parliamentary hearings on the morning-after pill by the chairman of the Family Committee of Parliament.

At the hearing, I started reading a prepared short paper which was not supposed to take more than five minutes, according to the chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee Etienne Grech.

After only two minutes I was abruptly stopped by the chairman, and asked to state in a few words my position on the morning-after pill. My reply was that MUCM’s position was made public in the press from the beginning and after two hearings in which a number of medical experts and experts on ethics expressed their doubts whether the pill is abortifacient or not, we should adopt the precautionary principle and not act in any direction for the moment.

When I stated my and the MUCM’s position, the chairman ordered me to retire. At that moment Civil Liberties Minister Helena Dalli was sitting very close to the chairman.

The precautionary stance was recently adopted, very wisely, by Environment Minister Jose Herrera on the use of the weed killer glyphosate “which is considered a probable human carcinogen”.

Before retiring, as ordered, I drew the chairman’s and Dalli’s attention to the fact that what I had said, and was going to say, was based on facts and I, and MUCM, were being discriminated against and denied the right to freedom of expression, and of speech on the morning-after pill.

Besides it was an extreme lack of ordinary courtesy, if not much worse, to treat in such a bizarre and unorthodox way a person, and an organisation, invited by the same Joint Committee, to give its views on the matter.

This was supposed to help Parliament come to an informed decision on the very delicate matter of whether the morning-after pill is abortifacient or not, which is the crux of the whole matter.

I added that I was being prevented from delivering my complete presentation when all other speakers before me had done so.

Practically all of them took much more than five minutes, including, especially, the chairman of the Medicines Authority who took almost 75 minutes when he was supposed to finish after 10 minutes. I attended the three hearings.

They don’t mind breaking this or that law about unborn children as long as they have it their way

The incident was brought to the attention of the Speaker of the House.

During the two minutes of my very short and interrupted speech I had made some very constructive criticism of the long paper of the chairman of the Medicines Authority.

In spite of the three parliamentary hearings, and in spite of the fact that Dalli was present for the three hearings, she has reiterated many times that she is going to base her decisions on the licensing, importation and distribution of the morning-after pill on the recommendations of the Medicines Authority. Many understood, exclusively.

If this is going to be the case, why were the three parliamentary hearings held? Why were all those people, and organisations, called to advise the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the morning-after pill?

Why did the chairman of the third hearing say many times that the joint committee of the social, family and health committees of Parliament was going to study and analyse all the documents submitted by individuals and organisations? A very pertinent fact is that the chairman of the Family Committee, Godfrey Farrugia, a family doctor and former minister of health, has already declared his position that the morning after pill “may be is abortifacient”.

My very short paper, on behalf of so many unborn children, challenged, firstly, certain alleged ‘facts’ in the presentation of the chairman of the Medicines Authority, and secondly certain bizarre behaviour by the same chairman in my regard immediately after the first hearing in Parliament.

Unfortunately, all the women organisations, with the exception of the National Council of Women, who made presentations at the parliamentary joint hearings, spoke only about the rights of women over their bodies.

Nothing was said about the rights of unborn children from conception onwards; and this even though we have eight laws which protect the well-being and rights of unborn children from conception.

They don’t mind breaking this or that law about unborn children as long as they have it their way.

Even though we have it from Farrugia that demand for morning-after pill comes mostly from “single women” who don’t mind going for “unprotected and casual sex”.

That’s not really from the assorted groups of women as claimed by the Women’s Rights Foundation in their judicial letter to the Maltese courts and in the parliamentary hearing.

This is happening at a time when Maltese society has even introduced laws for the well-being and legal protection of animals. Amazing.

In defence of all unborn children at whatever stage of their gestation, MUCM strongly appeals to all Maltese parliamentarians to take note also of what was said lately by Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. Commenting on the big number of abortions carried out in the US, he warned the American people: “Future generations will call us barbarians.”

Tony Mifsud is coordinator, Malta Unborn Child Movement.

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160812/opinion/We-are-no-barbarians.621744

Dead or alive by Dr. Ivan Padovani

I am truly surprised that Etienne Grech (August 5) should still be touting the old abortionist’s red herring that “there can be no life before the brain has started to form”.

He argues that “death occurs when brain function ceases, hence, life must begin when brain function commences”. This line of reasoning may resonate due to its beguiling simplicity but I would have expected better from a medical practitioner.

He cites Goldenring but omits to mention that the Goldenring/Brady view violated every mainstream textbook of embryology in the known world and was clearly driven by motivations not primarily scientific in nature. It was laid to rest by Beckwith in 1991 and has been given little attention since.

The Goldenring argument puts the cart before the horse. Beckwith explained it more elegantly but the essential fact is that the older human being must have a functioning brain to coordinate and control everything whereas the youngest, that is, the embryo, does not yet need one to progress smoothly to the older stage where it does.

There are two starkly clear, reductive arguments that may help put the matter into better focus. One, an embryo is clearly a genetically whole organism. If, at any stage, it is not a living human being, on which of these two qualifications does it fail?

If not living, then the embryo must be either dead (so it must have been alive) or non-living (and, like a pebble, it will never become living). If not human, does it therefore belong to some other species, morphing by some magical process into our own at some randomly-assigned point in its life ?

Two, is it not obvious that the only conceivable starting point for an organism consisting of a huge number of coordinated cells is, and can only ever be, one?

Dr. Ivan Padovani is a member of Life Network Foundation Malta

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160813/letters/Dead-or-alive.621826

Press Release

Press Release

 

Life Network Foundation Malta, referring to the current debate on the Morning After Pill (MAP)/Emergency contraceptives (EC’s), as discussed lately at parliamentary committee level hearings, notes that a number of studies have been submitted which show differing and conflicting views on the abortifacient effect, or otherwise, of the said MAP.

Purportedly authoritative papers, tabled and presented as evidence of the MAP’s non-abortive effects, such as the papers of Gemzell-Danielson et. al.  and Cecilia Berger et. al., were shown to have dubious validity by further scientific papers subsequently presented by other speakers during the parliamentary committee. For instance, certain papers did not represent real life scenarios (in vivo) while others were not actual studies at all but merely pilot studies. Indeed, most of the studies presented turned out to have been based on artificial human tissues/organs inadequately representative of the full complement of tissues that could properly be said to constitute the human female body. (This was also admitted to by the researchers who carried out the actual studies.)

Life Network Foundation Malta, in consultation with the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, presented papers which showed that the MAP does indeed cause post-fertilization changes and consequent abortifacient effects. In view of the seriousness of this issue and considering the status of protection, under Maltese law, of the preborn child from the point of fertilization, we urge all our Members of Parliament to shoulder their collective responsibility by assessing and subsequently expressing their individual views on the MAP.

Life Network Foundation Malta is making both the presentation and the documents presented to the Committee publicly available on their website (www.staging-lifenetwork.stagingcloud.co).  Additional scientific papers presented by third parties will also be included. The Foundation urges all interested parties to thoroughly review all the documents tabled in order to make an informed decision on the subject. The level of bias and prejudice that is emerging in the course of this discussion cannot but lead one to question the existence of unstated ulterior motives or hidden interests throughout the entire process

It is pertinent to note that different EC drugs with different modes of action have been considered without differentiation between them. Levonogestrel and Ulipristal acetate (Ella One) have different mechanisms of action. The studies presented by other scientific third parties show that certain clinical studies (in vivo) show very similar effects (anti-progesterone and negative endometrial effects) between emergency contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs (e.g.  Ulipristal acetate and Mifepristone). Ulipristal acetate has anti-progesterone effects, which in turn inhibit implantation of the embryo, i.e. an abortive effect.

Abortion remains illegal in Malta and protection of life, until now, extends to all of life from fertilisation until natural death. A clear decision is therefore required of our legislators and civil authorities as to whether the MAP is abortifacient or not. This grave responsibility is rendered all the more so, coming, as it does, in the wake of several further issues that also impinge on the right to life and the dignity associated with it.

Life Network Foundation Malta would like to emphasise that this debate on emergency contraception is not simply about contraception but also about aborting a life that has already begun.

Legalisation of the Morning after Pill will signify the first breach of the dam that has, thus far, prevented the introduction of abortion in Malta.

Stqarrija ghall-Istampa

 

Life Network Foundation Malta, taghmel riferenza ghad-dibattitu prezenti rigward il-morning after pill (MAP)/emergency contraceptives (EC’s), liema diskussjoni saret ricentement fil-livell ta’ kumitat parlamentari, u tinnota li l-Kumitat gie ppreżentat b’numru ta’ studji li juru perspettivi  konfliggenti fuq l-effett abortiv tal-MAP.

Studji awtorevoli, li kienu pprezentati bhala evidenza li l-MAP mhix abortiva, bhall-istudji ta’ Gemzell-Danielson et. al u Cecilia Berger et. al, ġew meqjusa li għandhom validita’ dubbjuza minn studji ohra xjentifici li ġew ipprezentati sussegwentement minn kelliema ohra li ndirizzaw il-Kumitat Parlamentari.    Per eżempju, ċerta studji li kienu ppreżentati ma jirrappreżentawx dak li jigri fil-hajja reali (in vivo), filwaqt li studji oħrajn ma kienux studji attwali imma biss pilot studies.   Fil-fatt, ħafna mill-istudji ppreżentati rrizultaw li kienu bbazati fuq tissues umani/organi artifiċjali u li allura ma humiex rappreżentattivi tat-tissues kollha li jikkostitwixxu l-ġisem ta’ mara. (Dan kien ukoll ammess mill-istess riċerkaturi li għamlu dawn l-istudji).

Life Network Foundation Malta, b’konsultazzjoni ma’ l-American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, ippreżentat studji li juru li l-MAP verament tikkawża effetti wara l-fertilizzazjoni u konsegwentement fiha effetti abortivi.

Minhabba s-serjeta’ ta’ din is-sitwazzjoni, u meta wiehed iqis li f’Malta t-tarbija fil-guf hi protetta   sa mill-fertilizzazzjoni, il-Fondazzjoni tappella lill-Membri kollha tal-Parlament sabiex jaghrfu jerfghu r-responsabbilta’ kollettiva taghhom, billi jixtarru u sussegewentement jesprimi ruhhom individwalment fuq il-MAP.

Life Network Foundation Malta qed taghmel il-preżentazzjoni taghha u l-istudji esebiti fil-Parlament aċċessibbli ghall-pubbliku fuq il-website tagħha (www.staging-lifenetwork.stagingcloud.co).   Studji addizzjonali oħra li gew ippreżentati minn terzi persuni ohra ser ikunu wkoll inklużi.  Il-Fondazzjoni  tappella lill-persuni kollha nteressati sabiex jaraw sew id-dokumenti li kienu ppreżentati sabiex jaghmlu deċizjoni informata fuq is-suggett.   Il-livell ta’ bias u preġudizzju li qieghed johrog matul id-diskussjoni jaghti wiehed x’jahseb u jistaqsi jekk wara dan kollu hemmx xi mottivi ulterjuri, jekk mhux ukoll forsi hemmx xi nteressi moħbija.

Hu pertinenti wkoll li wiehed jinnota li hemm  varjeta’ ta’ emergency contraceptives li huma differenti minn xulxin u allura jahdmu b’modi differenti.  Imma dawn tqghedu f’basket wiehed u qed  jiġu kkunsidrati minghajr ma saret l-ebda differenzazzjoni bejniethom.  Per ezempju, il-pilloli Levonogestrel u Ulipristal acetate (Ella One) ghandhom mekkanizmi differenti ta’ kif jahdmu.    L-istudji ppreżentati minn terzi persuni xjentifici juru li ċerta studji klinici (in vivo) juru xebh qawwi (anti-progesterone u effetti negattivi fuq l-utru minn ġewwa) bejn l-emergency contraceptives u pilloli abortivi (bhal per ezempju Ulipristal acetate u Mifepristone).   Ulipristal acetate ghandha anti-progesterone effects, u minhabba f’hekk ma tħallix l-implantazzjoni ta’ l-embrijun, u ghaldaqstant ghandha effett abortiv.

L-abort hu llegali f’Malta, u l-protezzjoni tal-ħajja, għallinqas sa llum, testendi ghall-ħajja kollha mill-fertilizzazzjoni sal-mewt naturali.  Ghalhekk hi mehtieġa deċizjoni ċara mill- legislaturi u mill-awtoritajiet ċivili taghna dwar jekk il-MAP hijiex abortiva jew le.  Hija ferm inkwetanti u ta’ tħassib, din is-sitwazzjoni , u dan speċjalment  in vista ta’ proposti riċenti li jmorru kontra l-valur tal-ħajja.

Life Network Foundation Malta tixtieq tenfasizza li dan id-dibattitu fuq l-emergency contraception m’huwiex biss sempliċiment dwar il-kontraċezzjoni, iżda wkoll fuq l-abort ta’ ħajja li diġa’ bdiet.

Il-legalizzazzjoni tal-Morning After Pill ikun ifisser l-ewwel pass sabiex jiddaħħal l-abort f’pajjizna.

 

The il/legality of MAPs by Dr. Kevin Aquilina

The question which is currently being debated in Malta is whether morning-after pills are legal or illegal. From a legal viewpoint, the answer to this question depends very much on the effects these pills procure: are they purely and simply contraceptive or are they both contraceptive and abortifacient at one and the same time? Depending on how the medical community answers this question, the legal reply follows.

If these pills prevent ovulation or fertilisation, then they are contraceptive: they are not illegal in terms of the Criminal Code, though moral consequences might ensue with regard to their dispensation and use. But if these pills interrupt life after conception by preventing implantation, then they are abortifacient. In the eyes of the Criminal Law, this is a totally different matter from contraception as it is outrightly prohibited.

This is because abortion is illegal in Malta in terms of the Criminal Code. In terms of the Embryo Protection Act, life begins from fertilisation. A thorough study of Maltese law reveals that its raison d’être is to protect life not to annihilate it. This is evidenced, for instance, from laws such as the Criminal Code, the Civil Code, the Domestic Violence Act and the Embryo Protection Act.

All these laws protect not only a human being who is alive and kicking but even a person who has been conceived though yet unborn. A pregnant woman is protected from domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act but even the unborn child she carries is so protected.

In terms of the Civil Code, the Civil Court may appoint a curator ad ventrem in those cases where the husband has died yet his wife is pregnant. The Civil Code protects the unborn child for s/he might be deprived of proprietary rights which might devolve upon him or her on the demise of his or her father.

The Embryo Protection Act is categorical in this respect when it defines an embryo as “the human organism that results from the fertilisation of a human egg cell by a human sperm cell”.

Maltese law therefore celebrates life not its taking away. It aims to protect the interests of vulnerable persons who cannot defend themselves, be they unborn children or children who are already born even, if need be, to the detriment of parents’ rights and women’s rights.

Because children – whether born or unborn – are vulnerable, innocent and defenceless, and the law places them in a special privileged position. The law considers the interests of born and unborn children to be paramount to such extent that children’s rights supersede and bring to naught those of their parents or guardians.

The same reasoning is adopted when the State, through a care order, takes over the care and custody of a child from the child’s own legal parents to ensure the child’s best interests and well-being by entrusting that child to the responsible minister.

The Criminal Code penalises the administration of any medicine which brings about the miscarriage of any woman with child. Any apothecary who administers the means whereby the miscarriage is procured is in breach of the criminal law. The consequence of this is that if a morning-after pill is abortifacient, then it is in breach of the Criminal Code.

Not only so, but if any such pill, including any pill which is already on the EU register of medicinal products for human use, might already be dispensed in Malta, causes abortion, then Malta is also in breach of European Union law irrespective of whether such a pill has been added to that register by another EU member state not being Malta.

For no other EU member state, not even the European Medicines Agency, may violate without consequences EU law. When allowing an abortifacient morning-after pill to be included in this register – which is perfectly legal to do so in other EU member states which have no qualms with abortion – to be dispensed in Malta, then it is the Maltese Medicines Authority which is in breach both of Maltese criminal law and EU law.

The fact that an abortifacient pill is on the register is no excuse to breach Maltese and EU law with total disregard to the rule of law. The Abortion Protocol to the EU Treaty of Accession, an EU law of higher standing than that regulating the European Medicines Agency and its register, clearly states that Maltese legislation prevails over the totality of EU law, including the register of medicinal products, with regard to the crime of abortion.

Prudence dictates that as a precautionary measure it is life, not death, that should have the upper hand and, unless it is proved scientifically that a morning-after pill is not abortifacient, then it should not be imported or administered in Malta unless Maltese law is progressively modernised to glorify death through the legalisation of abortion. Otherwise the rule of law would be honoured more by its breach than by its observance.

Both the European Commission and the European Medicines Agency are obliged by EU law to ensure that they comply therewith. Where this is not the case, they have to take the necessary action envisaged by the EU treaties to enforce EU law, whether they like it or not, for even European institutions are subject to the rule of law and are not above the law. On the other hand, it is clear that once the Maltese Medicines Authority appears to accept unquestioningly any medicine which happens to be listed on the EU register of medicinal products without going that extra mile to investigate any abortifacient effects it might have as it is mandated to do by Maltese and EU law, its credibility in ruling on the legality of a morning-after pill is seriously dented due to its lack of thoroughness, due diligence and objectivity when evaluating morning-after pills.

On the other hand, being after all more of a bioethical and bio-legal rather than a purely and simply pharmacological issue, the advice of the Bioethics Consultative Committee should be sought as it is this committee – not the Medicines Authority – which enjoys competence in bioethical matters. Unless and until the Bioethics Consultative Committee advises the government that a pill is not abortifacient, and the Attorney General concurs with such advice, no morning-after pill should be dispensed in Malta, even if it is on the EU register of medicinal products.

And this in homage to the general principle of law known as the precautionary principle which requires that no human life be taken unless it is ascertained with precision that this will not be the case.

Being a highly controversial issue and for transparency’s and accountability’s sake, the written advice of both the Bioethics Consultative Committee and the Attorney General should be published for public scrutiny and laid on the table of the House of Representatives.

Should this advice not be adhered to by government, the Minister of Health should publish a written justification why he has intentionally disregarded such advice followed up by a ministerial statement in the House of Representatives.

Kevin Aquilina is the Dean of the Faculty of Laws at the University of Malta.

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160809/opinion/The-il-legality-of-MAPs.621478

Dr. Miriam Sciberras presents evidence showing MAP is Abortifacient

Dr. Miriam Sciberras presents evidence showing MAP is Abortifacient at the Joint Meeting of the Social Affairs Committee, the Health Committee and the Family Affairs Committee on the 27th July 2016.

 

 

 

Prezentazzjoni minn Dr Miriam Sciberras, Chairman Life Network Foundation Malta quddiem il-Kumitat Konġunt tal-Familja/Socjali/Saħħa  tal-Parlament Malti

 

Suggett: Diskussjoni dwar Il-Morning After Pill/Emergency Contraception wara domanda li saret sabiex jigu ntrodotti zewg pilloli, lenonogestrel (LNG) u ullipristal acetate (Ella One).

 

Dwar x’hiex qed nitkellmu?

Zewg tipi ta’ pilloli li jahdmu b’modi divers li l-ghan taghhom hu li ma jkunx hemm tqala meta mhux mistennija jew mixtieqa.

 

Punti mressqa sa issa ghad–diskussjoni

  1. Id-Dritt tal- mara li tippjana u tikkontrolla u tispazja l-ulied fil-famlja taghha.
  2. Access ghal dawn il-pilloli ghax hawn ohrajn li ghandhom effetti simili.
  3. Kontracettivi jew abortivi ? – sa issa hadd sa issa ma rnexxielu jnehhi d-dubju b’mod xjentifiku’ li m’hemmx element abortiv.
  4. L-effett fuq is-socjeta Maltija fit-totalita taghha – dan sa issa hadd ma tkellem dwaru u huwa punt importanti fid-diskussjoni.

 

 

  1. Id-Drittt tal-Mara

 

  • Id-dritt tal-mara li tippjana hajjitha, li tispazja t-twelid tal-ulied etc ikkwotati anke mic-CEDAW.
  • L-argument legali li l-mara ghandha jkollha dritt assolut fuq is-sahha riproduttiva taghha huwa tajjeb sakemmm jibda u jispicca bil-persuna tal-mara biss.
  • Il-prezenza ta’ hajja gdida malli jkun hemm fertilizzazzjoni fit-tubi tal- mara tbiddel dan kollu ghaliex f’daqqa wahda nirrikonoxxu li qeghdin nitkellmu dwar kreatura gdida li jehtieg li trid tkun protetta mill- koncepiment, matul it-tqala, sa ma titwieled u wara.

 

Id-dritt assolut tal-mara fuq gisimha fil-pajjizi ta’ madwarna fisser li dawn ILLEGALIZZAW LABORT bis-slogan li ‘every child must be a wanted child.’    Tafu li dan is-slogan ghadu  jintuza sa llum il-gurnata minn mindu harget bih Margaret Sanger u l-Planned Parenthood.Illum huwa slogan tal UN Population Fund (Ref http://www.unfpa.org/about-us)

 

L-argumenti civili li saru hawnhekk sa llum huma l-istess argumenti li saru f’pajjizi ohra  meta gie ntrodott l-abort.

Ahna l-hemmhekk irridu mmorru?

 

Ma tirrikjedix xi ‘ligi drakonjana’ kif qal il Proff Serracino Inglott, izda ligi ohra li tafferma dak li diga’ ghandna bhala protezzjoni tal-hajja. Tkun sempliciment kontinwazzjoni  tal-istand li dejjem hadet Malta favur il-hajja.

 

Il-fatt li hemm pilloli jew devices li b’ xi mod ghandhom effett sekondarju li jistghu jpoggu lhajja tal-embrijun uman fil-periklu mhux argument sufficjenti u san biex tintroduci pilloli ohra li l-effett primarju taghhom hu li jeliminaw il-possibilta’ ta’ tqala mhux ippjanata u li hemm evidenza xjentifika li huma ukoll primarjament abortivi.

 

Jekk nuzaw dan l-argument  bhala skuza inkunu ftahna t-triq ghal abort.

 

Dan ghaliex l-abortion drug RU 486 hija mill-istess familja ta’ drugs tal-Ella One.

 

Imbaghad wara dan niggustifikaw l-abort ghaliex la bdejna n-nizla sfortunata issa nkompluha.

 

L-argument minn NCPE fis –Seduta ta’ nhar it-Tnejn  25 ta Lulju ,2016 kien ferm dizappuntanti:

  • Diga’ hawn pilloli b’effetti simili izda biex tiehu d-doza ekwivalenti tiswa’ l-flus u allura mhux accessibli ghal min ghandu problemi finanzjarji.

 

  • Tista ggibhom mil-internet jew issiefer, allura mhux sew ghal min m’ghandux din ilfakulta. Din hi xi forma ta’ ngustizzja kontra min hu fqir.

 

  • L–NCPE Chair Rene Laiviera tghid li l-istess organizzazjoni taghha li tiggieled kontra ddiskriminazzjoni ma tinkludix it-tarbija fil-guf jew mhux imwielda!!! Verament ugwaljanza falza!!!

 

Innotaw li qeghdin f’punt li nbiddlu kollox fejn tidhol protezzjoni tal-Hajja!

 

Nitlobkom toqghodu attenti ghaliex bid-decizjoni taghkom bhala rapprezentanti tal-poplu inthom qed iggorru responsabbilta’ kbira f’dan ir-rigward, meta tafu  wkoll li sa llum l-abort hu reat kriminali, inkluz il-komplicita’ fih.

 

 

  1. Access ghal dawn il-pilloli ghax hawn ohrajn li ghandhom effetti simili.

 

X’ pilloli qeghdin insemmu?

Huwa minnu li ghandna pilloli fis-suq li bhalissa jista’ jkollhom l-istess effett  abortivi izda lpunt krucjali hu li dawn mhux importati bl-iskop li jintuzaw hekk, u lanqas  bhala morning after pill. .  Ghalhekk, l-argument taghkom hu fuq l-abbuz ta’ dawn il-pilloli li johloq l-istess effett.

 

Ghaliex  il-MAPs mhux  fis–suq Malti?

Ghaliex  ghandna l-Kodici Kriminali li jipprotegi l-hajja mill-koncepiment u dawn ghandhom jew jista’ jkollhom effett li hu primarjament abortiv.

Nisraqsu, L-Avukat Generali qieghed jara l-aspett xjentifiku u qieghed jivverifika jekk il-MAP hijiex abortiva u allura li tmur kontra l-ligijiet tal-pajjiz?

 

 

Kien hawn hafna kelliema li lkoll poggew papers  dwar dawn il-pilloli u li tkellmu dwar diversi punti li ahna ukoll irricerkajna.

 

Ahna ukoll ghamilna ir-ricerka taghna, izda mhux biss. Bhala  grupp ta’ professjonisti u nies ohra  li nghozzu l-hajja u d-dritt tal-hajja f’kull stadju taghha, ahna niehdu kull theddid ghal hajja umana bis-serjeta. Filwaqt li rrikorrejna lejn specjalisti lokali li hafna minnhom hassewhom li ma kienux konfidenti jinterpretaw ir-ricerka varja li tezisti, ahna rrikorrejna ghal esperti u ginekologi u ricerkaturi li diga’ ghaddew minn din l-esperjenza f’ pajjizi ohra u li ta’ kuljum jiggieldu dawn il-gliediet f’pajjizhom fejn l-abort huwa diga’ legalizzat.

 

Fl-Istati Uniti hemm l-ACOG ( American College of Gynaecologists) li biddlet id-definizzjoni ta’ pregnancy  fin-1965 u hemm il- AAPLOG – (American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynaecologists). Dawn qatt ma accettaw it-tibdil tad-definizzjoni  ghaliex  jirrifjutaw li jinjoraw l-ewwel gimghatejn tal-hajja umana.

 

Hafna mid-dokumenti li ser inpoggi huma dawk suggeriti minnhom. Huma janalizzaw kull studju li jsir, jaraw il-bias li jkun hemm u jesponuh. Hemm hafna studies impoggija li huma IN VITRO u mhux in VIVO.Dawn huma limitati hafna ghaliex ma jkunu qatt rapprezentattivi ta’ xi jkun qed jigri fil-gisem tal-bniedem fit-totalita’ tieghu.

 

  1. Kontracettivi jew abortivi – hadd sa issa ma rnexxielu jnehhi d-dubju li m’hemmx element abortiv.
  • See power point presentation
  • Scientific papers endorsed by American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

 

Conclusion

 

What is at stake?

At stake is the denial of the first 2 Weeks of embryonic life.

 

This means leaving a window open to the trafficking, disposal, selection, donation and freezing of embryonic human beings at will, and embarking on the road to abortion. This means altering the stand that Malta always had in providing a safe haven for the unborn from conception.

Il-Ktieb tas-sewqan,The Highway Code, jistipola  ‘when in doubt stop’.

Il-Precautionary principle jghidlek li fejn ma hemmx certezza ghandek tuza l prudenza.

Certezza ma hawnx!!! Dubju hawn kemm trid.

Jiena f’ isem il Fondazzjoni Life Network u ohrajn favur il Hajja inkluz il-Gift of Life inhallikom b’zewg kwotazzjonijiet u suggeriment.

 

Il Hippocratic Oath – First do no harm.

 

Nappella ghal prudenza f’din id-decizjoni. Il-pajjizi kollha tal-Ewropa, u anke pajjizi ohra, ghajnejhom fuq Malta ghax ahna biss bqajna sodi niddefendu l-hajja sa mill-bidu nett.

 

Suggeriment

 

Il-Papers depozitati kollha ghandhom ikunu available ghal skrutinju u kummenti ghal zmien stipulat imbaghad ikun hemm diskussjoni bejn min issottometa l-kummenti u x-xjenza relevanti kkwotata.

Trasparenza f’dan il-process ikun ta’ gid ghal partijiet kollha koncernati.

 

Stante n-natura legali tal-kaz, u l-impatt potenzjali tieghu fuq ligijiet ohra, fosthom l-abort, lUfficcju ta’ l-Avukat Generali ghandu jkun involut.

 

 

One life lost is too many. When in doubt choose life.

 

Dr Miriam Sciberras

27.07.2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MPs who stand up for Life – Well Done!

Kburi niddikjara li jien KONTRA l-ewtanasja. L-ebda persuna , inkluz il-politiku, m’ghandu dritt li jintervjeni b’xi mod fil-mixja tal-hajja la qabel it-twelid , la waqt it-twelid u fl-ebda fazi tal-hajja tal-bnedmin. Il-PN huwa ukoll tal-istess hsieb fuq l-Ewtanasja.

Robert Cutajar