Category: Pro-Life

Providentially, I was kindly invited by Paul Borg to the launching of his book “…jiena xi ħadd…” at Verdala Palace on November 24. This powerfully-written book is an attempt by the author to raise public awareness about the reality behind the destruction of embryonic life and abortion. The title and subtitle of the book, freely translated, is ‘I am someone…I count… I matter’.

In the introduction to his book, Borg claims he was deeply shocked and, at the same time, galvanised by a TV programme he had watched. This set him off on a journey of research and consultation on the issue of termination of pregnancy. In his introduction, he makes five piercing and logical questions asking why such a practice is condoned and promoted.

With passion and sensitivity, this book tries to place the reader in the shoes of the embryo and the foetus, faced with an untimely end.

Malta is on the threshold of far-reaching changes that are uprooting the fabric of our society 

The overpowering plea is for the right to life and we are shaken out of our indifference and ignorance to what it means to be so weak, insignificant and vulnerable and at the mercy of a culture that is increasingly so ready to eliminate life at its source.

The book has chapters in Maltese and also in English as well as poetry in both languages. Throughout, the tone is urgent and shocking as it goes into well-researched and graphic detail of what such cruel procedures really entail. He also draws out the agonising situation of women who bear the brunt of bearing the scars of such soul-wrenching decisions.

Borg even reflects on the terrible destiny of children whose lives are cut short by war and by drowning in their attempt to escape to a better life. He draws our attention to the atrocious practice of female genital mutilation, the widespread use of which cripples so many young girls.

Throughout, the book is an attempt to shed light and enlighten us, a heartfelt supplication mainly addressed to those in power and positions of responsibility. He feels that they have a grave duty to educate and legislate in favour of life and to provide frameworks in which life can be nurtured and given the full opportunity to flourish and reach its full potential through love and support.

This book could not have had a more timely inauguration. Malta is on the threshold of far-reaching changes that are uprooting the fabric of our society. These issues were always with us but the cultural changes that have engulfed our country so overwhelmingly are now rapidly coming to fruition.

Some of us have been acutely aware of this unfolding scenario, the slippery slope down which Malta is sliding so precipitously. Sadly, many people do not realise that this is not just an unrelated cascade of uncontrollable events.

Our country is in the grip of a highly-determined and well-placed cadre of committed activists who influence the policies being foisted on our largely indifferent and uninformed population.

Like the rest of the world, we are being swept by what John Paul II prophetically labelled the “new ideology of evil”. The Pope did not hesitate to do the unthinkable and challenge the ideology of communism. Neither did he shirk from standing up to gender ideology, the new evil that he described as more subtle and hidden and which is intent on exploiting human rights themselves against Man and against the family.

This callous ideology denies the very essence of our humanity and promotes contraception and abortion with a vengeance. Man is no longer in awe of creation and aware of transcendent realities that are the bedrock of our culture. This materialistic approach can be seen in the wanton destruction of our environment where everything and anything is reduced to its monetary value. Power and pleasure dominate our lives and the concept of God is slowly but surely being excluded.

The season of Christmas is with us again, with its reminder of the mystery of Christ and the perennial call for renewal. More than ever, in the turbulent times we face, the birth of Christ is an opportunity to uphold the sanctity of life in all its dimensions and all its fullness that invites us to cherish creation. This includes our impact on the animal world and the environment.

We are called to be stewards not manipulators and least of all destroyers.

The Year of Mercy came to a close on November 20 and the first corporal work of mercy is to instruct the uninformed. Borg does this eloquently and with a burning desire to change hearts, an appeal we should all heed, especially at this sacred time of the year.

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

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20161221/opinion/We-should-be-stewards-of-life.634469

 

Dear One of Us friends, followers and partners,
 
We want to thank you for your work for the life defense and protection in your countries and in Europe. 

Life and Human Dignity is the core of our existence and we must demand and spread our message every day. Every life matters and from our local, national and international levels we are working to spread this message in our societies. 
 
Next year we will continue working for every human being protection, because every human being is ONE OF US.  
 
MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Our Embryo Protection Act establishes an authority to regulate the sector of assisted reproduction and requires it to publish an annual report on the sector’s state of play. This year’s report, actually the first ever, sees the light of day at a time when government hostility is threatening to undo the consensus that was painstakingly built and which gave birth to the Act in 2012.

In Malta, in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), along with other fertility treatments, has been offered since the early 1990s when the ban of the 1970s on the private healthcare sector operators was lifted.

The first Maltese conceived by IVF was in 1991 and 20 years on, the sector was still unregulated. In 2005 as president of Parliament’s Standing Committee on Social Affairs, and following eight months of inquiry and discussion with practitioners, experts and stakeholders I authored a report which included recommendations to legislate on solid foundations, as it eventually did.

I take pride in the fact that I oversaw the first report ever produced by a parliamentary standing committee. It was also a report that cast the net very wide, proving that parliamentarians can set the bar high if they put in the necessary effort and commitment.

We invited experts from a wide range of disciplines but we also heard childless couples whose failure to conceive had had serious consequences including marital breakdown and mental health problems. The encounter convinced me that regulating the sector was urgent but it had to be accompanied by making IVF available for free as part of the public health service.

My heart goes out to those couples and their suffering. And so it is with great joy and satisfaction that I note that last year the IVF/ICSI cycles increased threefold over 2012, the year the legislation was enacted.

The report helped frame the subsequent discussion, both inside and outside Parliament and its content is reflected in the essential elements of the Act.

IVF was kept legal and the regulation it was subject to, included availability of treatment only to couples in a stable relationship, availability of oocyte (unfertilised egg) freezing, the prohibition of surrogacy, gamete donation and embryo freezing except in very particular circumstances where it was unsafe to implant the embryo.

The present legal framework and its ethical underpinnings have proved their worth and any future amendments have to remain true to its spirit 

All of this was in the best interests of the child.

In a nutshell, the law, as the report that preceded it, is unequivocally pro-life and pro-child without being unreasonable. And in the end that is why the vote was unanimous in Parliament and, nationally there was wide-reaching consensus with very few the discordant notes.

The view that the regulation of IVF in Malta has generally been a success is vindicated by statistics reporting that between January 2013 and June 2015 a total of 411 IVF and ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection) cycles were carried out, resulting in 116 pregnancies meaning a 28 per cent success rate. Even if it is to be noted that there were slight decreases in the rates in 2015, which have to be further analysed.

As different countries permit different things and measure success differently it may be difficult to compare like with like. But to put things into perspective our 28 per cent success rate compares favourably with the UK’s, for example, where its Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority (HFEA) has recently reported a success rate of 25 per cent and this for a country whose law allows embryo freezing. No wonder a group of local experts concluded that permitting embryo freezing in Maltese law would bring about little added value.

So the reasons behind the Labour Party radicals belittling the success achieved so far and their call for reform after solely three years of introducing the legislation and the practice of oocyte vitrification is, to say the least, suspicious.

With statistics showing oocyte freezing’s comparable success to embryo freezing one wonders about the true motives behind this insistence. Is there really the need to enter into unnecessary ethical conundrums?

Of course continuous investment in technology, professional training and research into the causes of infertility is essential and no one will object to any updating of the law, which is necessary in a sector where the rate of technological change is breathtaking.

But doing away with the fundamental principles of an Act which places the highest premium on the interests of the unborn child is a totally different issue. This is more a matter of protecting the vulnerable rather than tampering with anyone’s liberty.

The present legal framework and its ethical underpinnings have proved their worth and any future amendments have to remain true to its spirit, that is, protecting human life while bringing joy to our families.

Clyde Puli is Nationalist Party spokesman on social dialogue.

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20161220/opinion/Unequivocally-pro-life-legislation.634359

A security camera reveals a man attacking an elderly woman, his third victim, hurting her and relieving her of money and jewellery. Making his third appearance in court, the criminal relapser, as is within his rights, declares himself innocent. It is up to the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The criminal relapser is, and rightly so, afforded all the guarantees for a due process of justice in a constitutionally compliant court of law presided by a competent judge.

An employer is accused by an employee of harassment at the place of work and discrimination on the basis of “gender identity”. He is summoned to appear before an empowered “Commissioner for Human Rights and Equality” who has the authority to investigate, prosecute, judge him and confirm his conviction. The permissible punishments this Commissioner can mete out apparently could range from a €5,000 fine to a period of imprisonment, or both. The employer cannot plead innocent but is a priori considered guilty and is held as such until, and unless, he manages to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt. This concept is described as the shifting of the burden of proof and is based on an erroneous and dishonest principle.

Now, according to a proposed Bill, this is the standard of justice to be meted out to employers as set out in the “Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2015”, being proposed for parliamentary approval, by the Minister for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Civil Liberties Helena Dalli. Our courts of criminal and civil jurisdiction do not recognize this concept of “the shifting of the burden of proof”. In Malta it is always up to the prosecution to prove the accused is guilty. A further proposal by this Minister is the “Equality Act 2015”, which will go to create a very enabling legal framework for a Commissioner to arbitrarily take initiatives and strike out against presumed employer offenders. They will be considered guilty as they could be accused by possibly ill meaning employees, or by negative and aggressive NGOs or by the same Commissioner ex officio. 

The shifting of “the Burden of Proof” in the hands of an all-powerful Commissioner/Judge acting in isolation could prove lethal to an accused employer. Furthermore, this Commissioner could turn out to be legally illiterate, since the proposed Bill does not specify the qualifications and experience required for the post.

Besides that of judge, this Commissioner has a pro-active duty to promote specific causes like, for example, the enhancement of migrant, feminist and gay rights. It is therefore very doubtful how far this Commissioner/judge can be objective and impartial when judging an employer accused of presumably offending his specific pet causes.

This proposed Act further expands on an already existing adequate listing of characteristics that an employer could be deemed to infringe. The possible infringements may occur on the basis of “belief, creed or religion”, “gender expression”, “gender identity”, “race, colour or ethnic origin”, “HIV status”, “sex orientation” and “sex characteristics” such as genitalia, hormones, “muscle mass”, “hair distribution”, “stature”, “breasts”, and so on. Furthermore, the infringements against these characteristics may occur through direct, indirect or intersectional discrimination. So much for complicating the life of employers with far-fetched unclear definitions open to abusive, diverse and strange interpretations, which will extend a wide and insidious catchment net. Considering the way these Bills are worded, employers will be rendered extremely vulnerable to possible unscrupulous employees and negative officials of particular NGOs.

To add further to the peril of being made to submit to possibly a totally inadequate person wielding dangerously unrestrained judicial power, the proposal of the Minister, unless she has had a rethink, incredibly includes a provision whereby this Commissioner may, at his discretion, delegate any of his powers, including judicial authority, to any person holding any office under him!

The Minister must stop this madness and desist from promoting these unnecessary ill-conceived and ill-drafted Bills, and allow employees, employers and Unions to continue abiding by the current laws on equality and discrimination at the place of work. Current laws are EU compliant, satisfy all EU requirements, and guarantee a safe legal framework for both parties – employees and employers. The framework includes a Commissioner and a Director of Employment and Industrial Relations with no judicial powers but very effective persuasive powers, and when needed reporting to the Police leading to recourse to an Industrial Tribunal or another court that ensures final redress of injustices. 

On issues of equality and discrimination, it is presumptuous and not wise of the Minister to force Malta to foolishly attempt to go beyond EU standards and practices. Malta is erroneously being made to walk into dangerous uncharted territory with amateurish thought-out concepts. These concepts are being enshrined in legislation that seems to have been written according to standards prevalent in legal undergraduate papers. Very dangerous consequences will result from these ill-conceived anti-employer Bills. 

Excluding the Constitution, Clause 27(4), of the proposed “Equality Act” towards the end declares that in any conflict which other laws may have with this Act, it is this “Equality Act” that will prevail. This pre-eminent feature indicates an arrogant determination to impose one’s will on all reasonable checks and balances.

Therefore, it will have to be the Constitution that should save us from what appears to be the shoddiest legislative proposals ever presented to Parliament for approval. It is surprising that lawyers are not reacting to this threat to employers and citizens. Is it possible that they do not perceive a legislative proposal that will elevate a Commission and a Commissioner to a status identical to that of a court of law presided by a judge? An improvised court of law without fair rules, expertise and impartiality to guarantee an equitable trial and judgement to a person who a priori will be assumed guilty!

The final appeal of the MEA is a request to the government to completely drop these two Bills. Employees, employers and unions are more than well served with the current legal structures. As they seem to prevail, it is time to stop invasive influences and power that extreme fringes of immigrant, feminist and gay lobbies appear to exercise in the Ministry of Social Dialogue and Industrial Relations. As it appears to have gone berserk, this pressure is resulting in the likes of these pieces of legislation which are being imposed on the whole community through the pretence of tackling falsely alleged rampant discrimination. It is important to emphasise that these Bills go beyond regulating the specific world of work. They are intended to, and will, regulate so many other areas. They will control and condition the behaviour of citizens as they go about their daily life. It is therefore very worrying that the Bills as proposed will infringe on the basic human rights of citizens in practice. The Minister for Civil Liberties is there to serve not just minority groups but also a majority citizen group which includes employers. We hope we are not witnessing the proverbial blackmail and leveraging of voting power, with politicians succumbing to, and indulging in, an exercise of vote harvesting.

Finally, it is most unfair and incorrect to give advantage to, and enhance the rights of, a particular group in society at the expense of another. The MEA is prepared for the eventual need to challenge partisan, arbitrary and erroneous diktats at constitutional level. 

Mr Muscat is the president of Malta Employers’ Association

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2016-12-18/newspaper-opinions/From-persecuted-to-persecutors-6736168041

Once again, the far-left lobby groups demonstrate utter contempt towards a free, meritocratic society, now in the tremendously serious form of prospective legislation. The misleadingly named Equality Act as well as the Human Rights and Equality Commission Act (2015) are being promoted as solutions to legal deficiencies in equality and discrimination in the workplace and employment in general – it’s safe to say that they are anything but.

If this sounds alarming, it’s because it is. This is nothing short of authoritarian legislation being shamelessly, and possibly even insidiously portrayed as a force for good, when it is in fact the exact opposite. This is very urgent business and I urge you to not take this lightly if you value your basic liberties.

Simply browsing through the initial pages makes it patently obvious that this is a real-life manifestation of George Orwell’s 1984. First of all, the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty is turned on its head, making the burden of proof fall upon the accused. Secondly, the vague nature of this document is an open invitation for rampant lying, corruption and abuse. But you needn’t worry, the dear leader (chairman) has absolute power to dismiss you, if he so chooses (hopefully you’ll find him in a good mood).

Upon closer inspection of the ambiguous and ineptly written definition of terms, it is not at all unlikely for one to retract in dismay and disbelief. For example, ‘harassment’ – “shall be deemed to occur where an unwanted conduct related to one or more of the protected characteristics laid down under this Act, has the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”.

Well one thing is definitely clear – anything you do can be deemed as harassment, and you (the accused) have to prove it’s not. And these documents are riddled with unclear, nebulous nonsense that is broadly open to interpretation and therefore extremely welcoming of abusers, liars and hypocrites.

And who is to be the arbitrator of what is offensive? After all, being offended is fundamentally subjective and next to impossible to provide evidence for. So how on earth can one adequately legislate for it? Let’s entertain the principles of this fundamentally immoral Bill in a more general understanding.

I find this Bill deeply offensive. Truly, it goes to the core of what I believe, attacking the very essence of my being. Now, while I have every right to be offended, I do not claim or expect to be given the right to legally prosecute people for offending me.

To think that a 22-year-old whippersnapper has to explain such a basic principle is not only unheard of, but extremely worrying. What level of incompetence (at best) or I dare say wickedness must one have to manage to dream up this kind of nonsense? Are these the sort of legislations we can expect from our esteemed activists?

I can carve a better document out of a banana than what these so-called equal rights groups can ever dream of 

And you need not worry as these ‘equality’ Bills come with their fully-fledged tribunals too, and you better believe they’re impartial because that’s what they say – when has that ever gone wrong?

Let’s just be clear, the appointed dear leader has widespread, unhinged authority to investigate, prosecute, judge and finally condemn an accused employer if he does not prove his innocence in front of his benevolent, no-doubt impartial judgement – a sort of divine North Korea, if you will.

In addition to our supreme leader, one of the main roles of this layered, dictatorial drivel is to “ensure that there is a balanced representation of men and women, and, as far as possible, a wide and pluralist representation of civil society”.

This is Marxism incarnate, and if you’re not worried, you should be. You see, whereas most people understand equality as being equal opportunity, the far left understands equality through equality of outcome, which is to say no equality whatsoever, as this cannot be achieved and has categorically resulted in socialist misery everywhere it has been enforced.

Also, it’s one thing saying that you should have an arbitrary 50-50 quota for men and women, but having a representation of society? What kind of lunacy is this? The very premise of these arbitrary quotas is entirely untenable, as why should a person’s genitalia have anything to do with their ability to fulfil their prospective job, don’t we have certificates for that? And how are 12 members supposed to represent all of society?

To give you one point of contact, I invite you to consider the new and approved feminist, science-free definition of gender, which has now seen more than 50 new “non-binary” genders introduced. This doesn’t seem very equal, now does it? Is this not discriminatory? Perhaps I identify as a fabulous “androgyne” – who represents me? My offence meter is rising.

This legislation is just an overt confession of Marxist, totalitarian, far-left, propaganda-made law, and the worst part is, these groups might not even think it is. The useful idiots of society march along in their echo chamber of groupthink to that which inevitably leads to totalitarianism, and they may not even know it.

These documents are so vague as to enshrine in law any perceived offences by alleged victims and even “an intention to offend”, which is the very definition of a thought crime – if you think it, you’re just as guilty as if you had done it. George Orwell must be rolling over is his grave as we speak.

If you’re feeling a sense of ease knowing that this is directed at employers, you shouldn’t because every employee is directly affected by this – as employers will have to abide by anti-meritocratic legislation, lest they be prosecuted for not reaching their arbitrary quotas (among many other things). Indeed, I can carve a better document out of a banana than what these so-called equal rights groups can ever dream of. What an absolute farce, one that would see us all slaves to its insidious rule.

We stand on the precipice of fundamental changes to our way of life. Should this Bill pass, who is to say that this does not spill over into all Maltese law? The whole premise this legislation is built upon is wholly antithetical to the open marketplace, and we should be very worried about it.

Every utopia is approached through a sea of blood and is ultimately never realised. Make no mistake, this is very urgent business – so I implore you to resist it while you still can, before the right to complain is also taken away from you.

Christopher Attard is a staunch advocate for free and open inquiry.

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20161217/opinion/Slipping-into-dictatorship.634066

Full text of speech delivered by Dr. Miriam Sciberras, Chairperson of Life Network Foundation Malta, during the Christmas on Campus 2016 event.

 

Your Excellency President of Malta, Rector, Chaplain, distinguished guests, academics, students

The countdown to Christmas is a special time. It is a time of new beginnings. It is a time of hope and love. And aren’t we all in need of new beginnings, new hope, love?

As we go about in the business of our daily lives we often lose track of reality. Day after day we struggle to juggle time, to fill our time, and yet oftentimes we hardly have time to think.

We are so busy that we are too busy to find a moment for ourselves. Too busy to find peace!

We have access to so much – wardrobes overflowing, new mobiles, new this and that and yet we do not feel new or refreshed at all but instead we crave for more. And more…

We are so drowned in constant noise that having a quiet moment scares us.

We want to live lives to the full yet our lives are so full that we feel lost and confused.

We believe in freedom yet the only truth that can free us all is when we are able to look at each other as sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, created with equal dignity and worth, and created in the image of God. This vision of hope for the world where love and inclusion embrace all of us, believers or not is the message of life brought to us by the Christ child.

Yet all around us we see violations of the message of life.

Look at recent history: the unprecedented torture and genocide of Christians, the on-going growing refugee crisis, the genocide of preborn children (at least 1 million preborn children lose their lives to abortions in the US alone per year in the name of choice), and now the latest news from liberal France which recently censored the public expression of happiness of people with Down syndrome based on a concocted fear of upsetting post abortive mothers!

What’s next? Will kids with Down syndrome be banned from schools in France? Will they be segregated from society and placed in institutions like in the old days, because their presence upsets post-abortive parents?

In Malta too cracks in protection of life from conception to natural death are starting to appear. We have truly lost our way. The message of life has never been so urgent, so needed- maybe more so and in this special time in the run up to Christmas day,

Confronted by the bleak picture that I have just painted, what is our response going to be? How do we rediscover our humanity? How do we satisfy our search for meaning? How can we have hope that raises us up beyond the petty and transient concerns of the day?

“I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” John 10:10

It is really easy, as one pastor said, as easy as ABC– Admit, Believe, and Confess

First we have to admit – Admit that we all fall short, that we are not perfect and we all need forgiveness.

We then have to Believe – that Jesus Christ; the Son of God loved us so much that he died on the cross for our sins. That each one of us is so precious in His eyes. That He believes in us, maybe more than we believe in ourselves, that we are all worth saving.

And we need to confess that Jesus Christ is our Lord.

“If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” Romans 10:9-10

Last week as you probably followed, we had Rebecca Kiessling from the USA. She is a pro- life speaker born from rape – and in sharing her testimony she would often repeat –“We are all in need of heroes in our lives!” And isn’t this true?

WE ARE ALL IN NEED OF HEROES!! And our hero is Christ!

Not this paper or plastic baby image! This is just a symbol! We can make a mockery of God if this is the image that we have of Him in our hearts.

The hero is the God who fashioned himself in human form, who cares about each and every one of us here, who left us the spirit of son ship that we may all call out Abba Father .We do not need to go on any desperate quest to find out who we are . A truly liberal education sets us free in confidence – enabling us to face the future together in peace – free- from conception to our natural earthly death, as cherished sons and daughters of God.

This is my message of hope and life – Living life to the full here on earth but ultimately aimed towards heaven, that with a joyful heart we can all sing together “Gloria in excelsis”.

I would like to end with a short prayer:

Father, I bless you for sending your only begotten Son into our world, for taking on our humanity – to save us from ourselves.

 

Ironic as it may seem, it has become duly commendable to cordon off a public beach in the height of summer to protect the eggs laid by a turtle at Golden Sands, while it is increasingly becoming out of fashion to provide the human embryo with the same level of protection.

Running roughshod over opinions, concerns and sensitivities has been Labour’s signature style of governing in the last four years and it seems that the latest sector in sight is assisted reproduction: a sector that is characterised by widely divergent opinions, legitimate concerns and principled sensitivities is at risk of being shaken up for no other reason than some political back-room deal.

Technology that brings joy to families

In Malta, in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), along with other fertility treatments, has been offered since the early 1990s when the socialist ban of the 1970s on private health-care sector operators was lifted by Fenech Adami’s Nationalist administration. 

Whilst the first baby born as a result of IVF in the UK was Louise Joy Brown in 1977, the first Maltese conceived by IVF had to wait until 1991. Since then, fertility treatments and assisted reproductive technology has gained both legitimacy and popularity.

Fifteen years on, the sector has advanced but remains unregulated. So the situation then required a legal framework whose ethical underpinnings sought to protect human life whilst bringing joy to our families. That was the task the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Social Affairs under my chairmanship set to accomplish in 2005.

The social affairs committee and consensus building

For eight intense months, we heard medical practitioners, experts and stakeholders give their views. Exchanges were lively, respectful and always interesting. I made sure that not only did we hear people with expertise in wide range of disciplines but also couples who had experienced fertility problems. Their stories were tinged with pain which, in some cases, had led to the breakdown of their marriage and/or mental health problems. This convinced me even more that whilst regulation was needed, the treatment was to remain available and – more so – available without charge as part of the public health service. And to this end I relentlessly argued in favour whenever and wherever the opportunity arose.

I take pride not only in the fact that this was the first report ever produced by a Parliamentary Standing Committee but also because it provided the impetus to Parliament to legislate and its recommendations were judged to be sufficiently cogent to make them into law. I wrote a report that brought together the views expressed and also made recommendations so that any eventual legislation would be built on solid foundations.

A pro-life piece of legislation

The report’s contents are reflected in the essential elements of the Embryo Protection Act. IVF was kept legal and the requirements to which it was subject included limiting availability to couples in a stable relationship. The freezing of oocytes was permitted while prohibitions were introduced for surrogacy, gamete donation and embryo freezing (except in very particular cases where it was unsafe to implant the embryo). All this was in the best interests of the child yet to be born.

The law, and the report that preceded it, is unequivocally pro-life and pro-child, without being draconian or unreasonable. Those principles, together with the meticulous consensus-building that took place while the report was in the making and the following years, resulted in a general agreement: the parliamentary vote was unanimous and, nationally, the disagreements were few and far between.

A successful piece of legislation

According to a report recently tabled by the Embryo Protection Authority, between January 2013 and June 2015 a total of 411 IVF and ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection) cycles were carried out, resulting in 116 pregnancies – meaning a 28 per cent success rate.

This 28 per cent compares favourably with the UK’s success rate of 25 per cent – and this for a country whose laws allow embryo freezing. And despite a marginal fall in the rate in 2015, last year the IVF/ICSI cycles increased threefold over 2012, the year in which the legislation was enacted.

Out of step proposals

With the facts being what they are, and the legislation barely four years old, it is odd that the Prime Minister should be kowtowing to a radical fringe within his Party. Investing in technology and training is fundamental, as is reviewing the law regularly to make sure that it is in step with technological developments. But the law’s basic principles – safeguarding the best interests of the unborn child – should stand.

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2016-12-11/newspaper-opinions/Turtle-eggs-and-human-embryos-6736167747

This song was sung by Joe Aquilina during last Saturday’s Malta Stand Up for Life Candlelight March event of 3rd December 2016 and can be heard here…….

 

 

(LiveActionNews) — One decision can change everything. Mitosis, a short film from 18-year-old director Hannah Victoria (Worth Saving), aims to prove that. It may seem that the choices we make for ourselves will affect us and us alone, but it simply isn’t true. There is always a ripple effect, whether small or large.

Mitosis tells the story of a young doctor, who after making a promise to a childhood friend, sets out to find a cure for cancer. The film, from Victoria’s company Expressionistic Studios, was released on YouTube this week and promises to shine a light on the magnitude of damage each and every abortion could have on the world.

Read more at http://www.lifenews.com/2014/11/28/18-year-olds-short-film-on-abortion-will-blow-your-mind/