Category: Pro-Life

Jum il-Ħajja hija manifestazzjoni annwali favur il-ħajja organizzata mill-Moviment Malta Unborn Child Movement (MUCM).

 

 

Members of Parliament

Members of the Clergy

Distinguished guests

Ladies and Gentlemen

 

I would like to thank Mr. Tony Mifsud for honouring me with his invitation to address this distinguished gathering on behalf of Life Network Malta in this magnificent oratory of such great significance.

 First of all, I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Mifsud whose remarkable energy in working for the common good and for so many years is truly remarkable.

 As we all know, life flourishes in a wholesome and healthy environment.

Society has a grave responsibility to do its utmost to safeguard and protect clean air, safe water supplies, sound and harmonious housing planning etc., etc., etc.

That is why the laws of our land curb pollution, smoking, excessive alcohol consumption and legislate on waste management… just to mention a few examples.

However, and above all, the most critical environment for life is that at its earliest stages… life in the womb.

That is why, Tony Mifsud has focussed with such commitment … one could say with so much passion, on the ecology of the womb where life is at its most vulnerable.

Our own NGO, Life Network Malta… set up recently, endorses his invaluable work and mission to raise public awareness on the vital importance of this issue.

Here I would like to pay tribute to other organizations such as Gift of Life of Paul Vincenti who are working in favour of life.

Sadly, in Malta, due to cultural changes in our values, the security of life in the womb is now under threat as never before.

Besides the negative extraneous factors such as environmental pollution due to chemicals entering the woman’s system, we are now facing dangers we bring about ourselves… self-inflicted …due to behaviour patterns that damage the ecology of the womb.

We know that incipient life suffers when mother smoke, ingest alcohol or take drugs. Worse still, an increasing tendency to promiscuity is leading to the spread of debilitating Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Besides damaging the embryo and the foetus, their negative impact on women have led to pain, infection, sterility and cancer.

It is most distressing to note that we seem to be taking the wrong-headed approach to such a grave issue that has proved so disastrous elsewhere.

We must recognize the impact of sexual behaviour on the integrity of the womb.

The time honoured pillars that uphold Human Dignity and revered chastity and faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman have been abandoned and we are facing the consequences with the sharp rise in teenage pregnancies, the spread of sexually transmitted disease and broken families.

Yet the greatest threat to the womb ecology is the deliberate destruction of life itself.

In Malta we take pride that in our life is protected from conception to natural death and that abortion is illegal.

Unfortunately, we have seen repeated attempts to change this situation. As a foundation in favour of life, we are very concerned at the manner in which the Morning After Pill was introduced in Malta when it is scientifically proven that is often an abortifacient.

Who will bear the political responsibility for this decision?

As a movement we expect an answer to this question.

We regret that the recommendations of Conjoint Parliamentary Committee have been ignored.

We insist that the debate is re-opened again.

We have scientific experts of international standing who are prepared and ready to give evidence on this.

Flushing embryos down the toilet so as to indulge in irresponsible sexual behaviour is surely the most destructive behaviour one can indulge in.

I therefore take advantage of this opportunity to make an impassioned appeal to the people in authority and people of influence to change tack.

Let us fight for what is best for our young people, especially young women, the mothers of tomorrow so as to make them aware of their dignity, of the sacredness of the tabernacle of life that is their womb, and the miracle of conception and pregnancy.

As our President [Marie Louise Coleiro Preca] had said at this occasion held last year: – “While I wish the Malta Unborn Child Movement (MUCM), to continue working to promote the ‘wellbeing’, even of the baby when still in the womb, and I wish them every success in their goals, to continue serve as a voice for the child who has no voice.”

I conclude by warning that the curse of abortion is on the threshold of our country.

The future and authentic well-being of society and future generations depends on you.

Do not reject this opportunity of such grave importance.

May the Holy Spirit touch your hearts and illuminate minds.

Thank you.

Klaus Vella Bardon

Vice Chairman

LIFE NETWORK MALTA

The press conference given by Life Network Foundation Malta’s chairman Dr. Miriam Sciberras, Health Scientist Jean Pierre Fava, and guest speaker Dr. Bruno Mozzanega, on the 19th of January 2017.

 

The 1st part of the discussion includes an introduction by Dr. Miriam Sciberras, Chairman of Life Network Foundation Malta, a presentation by Dr. Bruno Mozzanega on the mechanism of action of the Morning After Pill, and comments on the judicial protest by lawyer Dr. Tonio Azzopardi.

 

The 2nd part of the discussion includes comments and questions by the public to the panel, on matters relating to the Morning After Pill.

https://vimeo.com/200178952?from=outro-embed

Rapporti maħruġa mill-Aġenzija Ewropea tal-Mediċina fuq il-Morning After Pill ellaOne, jgħidu iswed fuq l-abjad li din il-pillola jista’ jkollha effett abortiv.

Ma’ Newsbook.com.mt, Dr Bruno Mozzanega, Professur tal-Ġinekoloġija fl-Università ta’ Padova, spjega kif l-Ulipristal Acetate, jiġifieri l-ingredjent attiv fl-ellaOne, jaltera l-parti fil-ġuf tal-mara fejn l-embrijun jimpjanta ruħu.

“Jekk il-liġi ta’ Malta tħares il-ħajja sa mill-konċepiment, il-MAP hija disponibbli iżda mhux legali,” kompla l-Professur.

 

In calling attention to the common roots of contraception and abortion (“as fruits of the same tree”) in n. 13 of the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, John Paul II stresses that this “connection” is not only cultural but also technical:

“the close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious. It is being demonstrated in an alarming way by the development of chemical products, intrauterine devices and vaccines which, distributed with the same ease as contraceptives, really act as abortifacients during the very early stages of the development of the life of the new human being”.

How close this “connection” is became apparent during a recent debate on the so-called “morning-after pill”: is it an abortifacient or a contraceptive?

The responses published by the press diverged: “these products are not abortifacient but work against implantation”; “the morning-after pill can be contraceptive or abortifacient”; “the morning-after pill is abortifacient”.. Of course, such a variety of answers can only create confusion: how ever can it be—we might ask—that contradictory opinions could be expressed about a fact that should instead be empirically demonstrable?

The term “morning-after pill” indicates a series of preparations based on oestrogens, oestroprogestogens or progestogens, which are given to a woman after but not more than 72 hours after (hence the name “morning-after) sexual intercourse that is presumed fertile. The oestrogens, oestroprogestogens and progestogens are synthetic hormones administered for the purpose of contraception and/or abortion.

Thus the “morning-after, pill” is one approach to so-called “emergency contraception” or “an interception” which also envisions the administration of danazol or the insertion of a coil as alternatives to the above-mentioned hormones.

The effective action of “emergency contraception”, and hence of the “morning-after pill”, is abortifacient in 80 per cent (oestroprogestogen or progestogen) to 100 per cent (oestrogen, danazol, coil) of the cases the embryo is prevented from being implanted in the endometrium after the alteration of its physiological development, and/or the blocking of the action of the corpus luteum, which produces progesterone, an essential hormone for the continuation of pregnancy.

We can not rule out the fact that, if oestroprogestogen or progestogen is administered before ovulation has taken place, the release of the egg cell can be inhibited with a true contraceptive effect, which occurs in 0 to 20 per cent of the cases.

So how can it be said that the “morning-after pill” or any “emergency contraception” is not abortifacient? Or that it merely prevents implantation? In fact, those who say that the “morning-after pill” is not abortifacient but prevents implantation do not realize that they are affirming its abortifacient nature when they say that it prevents implantation: since this action can only take place after fertilization and works by preventing the continued development of the embryo, it can only be abortifacient.

This is so true that, in order to deny its abortifacient action, those who are proposing its use have also had to redefine pregnancy. By calling into question years and years of scientific certitude on the basis of which the period from fertilization to birth has always been defined as “pregnancy”, some now maintain that pregnancy only begins after the embryo’s implantation in the uterine wall, therefore not before the sixth day at the earliest or before the l4th day at the latest. Thus, a product that prevents implantation could not terminate a pregnancy and could not be abortifacient!

Some, of course, are hesitant about this redefinition of pregnancy and, in order not to press the issue, will merely speak of a similarity between an action that prevents implantation and one that is abortifacient: but it is obvious in any case that this semantic manipulation has a precise purpose. In this way—as The New England Journal of Medicine says—it is possible to manipulate public opinion into accepting “emergency contraception”. Merely redefining contraception to include the prevention of implantation does not alter the fact that the prevention of implantation is problematic for some people (NEJM, 1993, 328/5, pp. 354-355).

What has been said by those who maintain that preventing implantation is not abortifacient is denied moreover by E. Beaulieu, who, as the inventor of RU 486, otherwise known as the “abortion pill”, surely cannot be accused of religiously-motivated opinions: “interruption of pregnancy after fertilization can be regarded in the same way as abortion” (“Il punto sull’RU486”, JAMA—Italian ed., 2 [1990], p. 12). A product which prevents implantation is therefore abortifacient.

Then there are those who, while recognizing that the “morning-after pill” is abortifacient, call attention to the fact that in up to 20 per cent of the cases it might also act as a contraceptive: this would only occur if it were taken before the release of the egg cell from the ovary. But is it likely that a woman who for various reasons takes a “morning-after pill” would know what precise point in her cycle she has reached, in order to determine whether the result will be abortifacient or contraceptive? Perhaps she should have an ultrasound to monitor the development of the ovarian follicule and a dose of hormones to predict the moment of ovulation; but this is neither the intention nor a realistic possibility for those who turn eagerly to the “morning-after pill”.

Furthermore, even if it is true that the woman who takes the “morning-after pill” may not be pregnant or that the abortifacient effect will not occur, the woman who requests the pill and the doctor who prescribes or administers it willingly accept the risk of causing an abortion. Indeed, had there been a pregnancy they would have opted precisely for abortion. In other words: we are dealing with a life (or—but we cannot foresee it—the possibility of life), which in any case is not accepted so that there is a readiness to resort to the risk of killing in 80-100 per cent of the cases.

In the recent debate on the “morning-after pill” in particular and on “emergency contraception” in general attention was drawn to only one situation which so many desperate persons are facing these days: violence to women in wartime. But watch out: campaigns for the “morning-after pill” do not only concern war zones and they do not only target women who have been raped.

If we look at what has happened in recent years, we can see certain events which are perhaps little known because they did not deeply. touch the “heartstrings” of human emotion as in the case of sexual aggression, and, one could say, have become part of the everyday life to which we are now accustomed.

Just think that, along with the many calls for all “emergency contraception” to be sold over the counter at pharmacies, that is, without a medical prescription, and to be readily available at all health-care centres for women and particularly for adolescent girls, there are also aid plans which envisage constant, programmed shipments of “emergency contraceptives” to developing countries and refugee camps.

It is in fact a routine practice of family planning organizations to send reproductive emergency kits, not only after a war—which suggests a concern for the woman who has just been raped, although no concern for the baby—but to those places where violent behaviour has not been curbed and so there is a desire to solve the situation in this way. See, for example, what was planned in 1996 for the Great Lakes region in Central Africa: at least $500,000 was allocated to promote reproductive health. The aid package included: family planning; the prevention of so-called unsafe abortions; “emergency contraception” for women who were victims of sexual violence or who had “unprotected” or unplanned sexual relations.

By forcing or tricking women into thinking they are choosing freely, but in fact by violating their personal freedom of choice, some people are working against human life, against women’s dignity and against the rights of the person.

Is a woman really respected when she is led to believe that by taking a “morning-after pill” she will not be killing her child? Is she not instead being reduced to another form of slavery, linked to the ignorance not of those who might not have the opportunity or ability to know, but of those who have been deliberately kept from knowing the truth? Is respect shown for an adolescent’s right to be educated, to know herself and to acquire the ability to earn respect when all assistance is reduced to prescribing and administering the “morning-after pill”?

The right to be educated: yes, because in this case, too, education is the only form of prevention. And to forestall the distribution of “emergency contraception”, women—and men—must be helped to realize the value of every new life called into being, to discover the true meaning and value of sexuality, to understand the meaning of responsible parenthood. This is the only way to go—certainly not that of advertising or dispensing contraceptives.

Abortion cannot be combated with contraception. This is because those who try to prevent pregnancy with barrier methods or hormonal contraceptives—moreover, the latter’s abortifacient action cannot be ruled out—will seek an abortion if contraception fails.

As we have said, the campaign to promote the “morning-after pill” also targets women who have been victims of sexual aggression.

Some have written that, in this case, conception was the result of a violent act, the most cruel, wicked and detestable (would that adjectives could fully express the brutality and inhumanity of this act) that a woman can suffer: refusal to accept the elimination of this life—it is said—would be a sin of insensitivity!

Given that the very idea of eliminating a life, even one that has just been conceived, is in itself an expression of great insensitivity, we would like to reflect on two questions.

The first: do those whose only concern for people who need everything (shelter, food, water, clothes, comfort, identity) is sending them reproductive emergency kits (from the “morning-after pill” to injectable progestogens, etc., etc.) believe they are being sensitive to the human tragedy of war and violence? And how many think that they are resolving the trauma of rape suffered by women by eliminating the “trace” of this violence? The second: does the nature of human life vary according to the circumstances in which it was conceived?

It is a fact that the after-effects of rape will never be erased from a woman’s memory, just as she will never be able to forget that someone treated her as an object, someone attacked her with a brutality unworthy even of animals. But not even abortion will erase this memory: those who suggest it, those who impose it, those who request it, answer violence with violence, not only towards the woman but especially towards the child, whose life should be respected like any other life conceived.

With abortion, wrote John Paul II in Evangelium vitae, n. 58, “the one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor! He or she is weak, defenceless, even to the point of lacking that minimal form of defence consisting in the poignant power of a newborn baby’s cries and tears. The unborn child is totally entrusted to the protection and care of the woman carrying him or her in the womb”. Even to think of eliminating this life is thus another act of violence.

For the woman to accept this child growing in her womb, the child of someone who did not love her, can be extremely difficult: she must be given help and support, she and her child must be cared for. She needs affection, not a box of pills!

When the baby is born, the woman will decide whether to keep it or to give it up to others for care. With the one great certainty however: she has not added to that madness of destruction and death which tried in an instant to erase her dignity as a woman, her world, her aspirations, her hopes. In these cases, real understanding for the woman means practical help for her and for the life of her child.

Maria Luisa Di Pietro
Institute of Bioethics,
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome

Taken from: L’Osservatore Romano Weekly Edition in English 28 July 1999, page 6

Leading Italian gynaecologist, Dr. Bruno Mozzanega, of the University of Padova, will be in Malta next week at the invitation of Life Network Foundation Malta. During this visit, Dr Mozzanega, will share his research and experiences at a public debate called ‘Morning After Pill. Abortion through the back door?’ to be held at the Excelsior Hotel, on Thursday 19th January at 7.30pm.

Dr. Bruno Mozzanega is author/co-author of over 180 scientific papers, including oral presentations in Congresses and abstracts. Moreover, he wrote a textbook (Da Vita a Vita), concerning reproductive biology, directed to adolescents, couples and families. Ninety four papers are present in the website of the Ministero dell’ Istruzione dell’Universita`e della Ricerca (MIUR).

He always put a great interest to the ethical aspects of Reproductive Medicine and is involved in activities aiming at forming high-school teachers in the fields of Reproductive Biology and Fertility Control. In recent years he published review papers on the mechanism of action (MOA) of emergency contraceptives, evidencing that their main MOA is post conceptional and not anti conceptional. His textbook “Da Vita a Vita – viaggio alla scoperta della riproduzione umana”, first edited in 1992, was successively edited by Gregoriana Libreria Editrice, Padova, 2002. The third Edition (2010) is by Società Editrice Universo – SEU – Roma, and has been widened and updated in 2013.

He is the Chairman of the Società Italiana per la Procreazione Responsabile, S.I.P.Re. http://www.sipre.eu/

It is interesting for the Archbishop to remark that the current state prospective law on discrimination goes beyond what an EU directive states on discrimination and imply that this could be an effort by the current government to impose a secularist agenda on Catholic schools (and hospitals – had they still existed).

Any perceived discrimination by a Church school against people whose value system went against the very values the Catholic school programme proposed could mean that that particular school could be held accountable at law. Catholic schools should remain just that – and please take your hands off them! Schools that provide an education inculcating Catholic values in their students should keep this as their priority, and any interference by the state in that respect is most uncalled for and unappreciated.

Can you imagine a law where Super One News or TV was found to be discriminating against people because they refused to employ a Nationalist Party supporter, or vice versa, because they wished a person to transmit the same political values on their station as the political party which they promote? Would that not also be discrimination? Why is it only the Church that cannot do this?

It is the great hypocrisy of secularism to criticise religion for forcing its beliefs on others when, in fact, many laws of the secular state and its secular religion can do just that against Christians in society and their Church. New laws are constantly being proposed that override Christian values and their respect for life in favour of pagan secular values, including the disposability of the most vulnerable lives in society. Accepting a personal relationship with God would mean making a commitment, or changing one’s behaviour, so some people would rather focus on the Church’s failures so that they have an excuse to dismiss the idea that they should belong. They conveniently forget that God never sanctioned this abuse and it is both self-serving and self-defeating to reject God because of the failures of some of God’s people.

When detractors criticise the Church, they can only do so on the basis of standards of behaviour that the Church itself gave the world. We know that those things are wrong only because of the influence of the Church. Before the Church came along, all these terrible sins – such as religious oppression, abuse of power, greed and sexual exploitation – were business as usual in the Greco-Roman world. Now again, atheism assumes a place of legitimacy, demanding the rights of a religion, at the same time that the historic religions are dismissed as unworthy of our modern age. It is the collaboration of the non-religious minority and the non-practicing Christians that now drives the factors that influence our culture, while the majority of practicing Christians have let the minority define what is culturally acceptable.

What can we all do to change this trend? First, we should reject isolationism and individualism and not be afraid to socialise with people outside our own group and comfort zone and involve ourselves in our parish or any lay religious group. God’s will is for us to be inclusive. Therefore, we should resist simplistic and naive forms of patriotism that closely associate Christianity singularly with our present culture and make it difficult for hardworking, law-abiding refugees to share in the benefits of citizenship.

Secondly, we should respect the value of every human life, including life in the mother’s womb or even in a glass test-tube. Every person is created in the image of God and that image is present from the moment of conception until natural death. Christians believe that those who are weaker should be protected. Anything that makes the human body a commodity is a form of slavery and a human sacrifice to the gods of commercialism, and Christians should resist this. Being pro-life does not only involve pushing an anti-abortion agenda but also means opposing the exploitation of women and children, brutal blood sports, euthanasia, assisted suicide, capital punishment and closed borders. We should reaffirm further the option of adoption, protest where necessary and elect those politicians who promote this ethic so that there will be someone to criticise our society when it falls short of respect for rights and freedom. To that end, Christians should involve themselves in politics and work for the greater good.

We should reject the culture of human humiliation – such as the pornography industry – as a form of entertainment and hold out for a life based on virtue. Although we should be tolerant of people’s problems and create different forms of support in society, marriage should be promoted singularly as being possible between a man and a woman, both real man and woman. The marriage between a man and a woman should be considered as the regular ideal in which to nurture children. People should consider everything they have as a gift from God and share it through almsgiving with those less fortunate without judging the life situation of any other person, giving everybody the benefit of the doubt where any may exist.

We should reject the creation of a secular religion of the state. Christianity has given the world freedom of religion and human rights and governments cannot provide this without religious faith. In fact, the Church has outlived every empire that has tried to suppress it. We should support the right of every religious organisation to define themselves and their mission and elect their leaders and be free from having to support things they consider morally wrong. We should make the care of creation and the environment an essential priority and vote out of office any politicians who use their position to serve themselves and the interests of their peers at the expense of the greater good. We should reject a defeatist attitude and speak up to defend justice and the Church in society. We should respect our neighbours and keep in mind that where differences exist, the real enemy is bad philosophy not bad people. This is the great paradox that we all face. In defending what we believe in, we should avoid hateful words or harsh speech and reaffirm that the religion of every faithful person is worthy of respect, as long as that religion promotes love of neighbour.

Christians have changed the world before, under the Greeks and Romans, by living their faith. Christianity can change the world again but only if Christians continue to live their faith. The Church has changed the world and can do it again. Only remember that we are the Church. In Malta, there is much that needs to be done and we should be bold enough to do it. In the New Year here it is illegal to smoke in a car carrying children or to drive a horse-sulky during the rush hour, but it is now fine and legal to vilify God and religion. Politicians responsible for the latter law should be ashamed of themselves as they take us back in time to pagan eras.

Incidentally, Dr Bruno Mozzanega and Dr Salvatore Gizzo will be visiting Malta in the second week of January at the invitation of the Life Network Foundation. Both are gynaecologists with extensive research and publications including on the effects of the morning-after pill. Just because MAPs have been licensed across the board by the government and the Medicines Authority and made available without a prescription, it does not make them right because they can still work as an abortifacient by destroying human life if used haphazardly and without care.

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2017-01-08/newspaper-opinions/A-counter-cultural-Church-again-6736168732

Under my leadership the PN is not open to the legislation of abortion or euthanasia

Reference is being made to Gift of Life’s press release today.

I reiterate that under my leadership, the Nationalist Party will not be open to the legislation of abortion or euthanasia.

Whilst having people in the party with different views is a strength that I welcome, the Party’s position on abortion and euthanasia will not change under my leadership.

The same cannot be said on Joseph Muscat who is clearly flirting with the idea of introducing one or both should he win the next election.

Simon Busuttil
Leader of the Nationalist Party

09.01.17

Every new year fills most of us with a sense of renewal. It is an opportunity for fresh resolutions. It is a time of stock-taking and a chance to make some serious soul-searching.

For Christians, it is an invitation to ask questions that are largely conspicuous by their absence. Do we give much thought to the existence of God; why we were created and what are our ultimate ends?

Are such questions relevant to the problems we face at every level? We live in an age of sound bites and a staccato of easy answers to complicated and complex issues. In his masterpiece Orthodoxy, G. K. Chesterton reminds us how obsessed we have become in energy-saving technology. As a nation, we are surely hooked, if excessive car use is an indicator of our inclination.

With his typical incisiveness, Chesterton remarked: “The chief mark of our epoch is a profound laziness and fatigue; and the real laziness is the cause of the apparent bustle.” Our world would be more silent if it were more strenuous, if we walked or cycled instead of sitting in our cars.

Needless to say, Chesterton was linking physical laziness with mental laziness. We are too lazy to indulge in serious connected thought and the endless background noise and endless TV news make sure that we evade the deeper analysis of life and its purpose as we muddle through from day to day.

Yet, the dawn of a new year is always a providential opportunity to stimulate us out of the lethargy of the everyday cares and routine. Deep down, we all yearn for the elusive feeling of joy and peace. In this respect our Faith, if tried, has not been found wanting by those who really make space to pray with a humble disposition and seek the truth.

The media, influential politicians and businessmen are trying to remake society in the absence of the transcendent

I never fail to be impressed by the spiritual odyssey of people who have grappled with life’s fundamental questions. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s personal history is a case in point. From a convinced atheist he returned to Christianity, the faith of his country that had suffered so disproportionately in the last century. His writings and witness made him a prophet that has impacted on the conscience of many people both in his country and abroad.

Other recent examples are equally impressive. I was blessed to have come across the writings of men of the calibre of E. F. Schumacher, Bernard Nathanson, Joseph Pearce and more recently, Benedict Rogers, a human rights activist who was captivated by the witness of Catholics in the hostile environments of Timor, Pakistan, Burma and elsewhere. His book From Burma to Rome is a sweeping testimony to the importance of action and reflection. One feeds the other.

Unfortunately, Europe is losing its Christian credentials due to indifference and a profound ignorance of the amazing contribution the Christian faith has given to every dimension of life, be it economics, agriculture, science, music, art, food or other areas. Even a superficial knowledge should captivate our imagination and make us realise how foolish we are to neglect such a religious heritage.

Unfortunately, the media and the dominant class of influential politicians and businessmen are trying to remake society in the absence of the transcendent. This shows up in the crass indifference to the common good and is so clearly reflected in policies that disregard the environment, promote easy divorce, the LGBT agenda, abortion and euthanasia.

Malta has not been spared from these contagious and highly virulent ideas and is even trying to outdo other countries, trying to portray itself as a beacon of progress and liberalism without any serious examination of what these values really imply. This year will see a stronger onslaught on the core values of human dignity and life with the numbing of the collective conscience on such issues as the rights of the embryo and the seriously ill.

Hopefully, we will rediscover our Christian roots and have the sensitivity to be impressed by the life stories of people like Rebecca Kiessling, whose tragic experiences have been transformed into a radical conversion, leading her to sacrifice her time and energy to inspire others to cherish life in all its stages and value the life-changing power of our Faith.

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