Category: Pro-Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some relatives even refused to bring people requiring treatment to hospital

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

position-paper

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

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

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

It bears reminding that the Malta Medicines Act stipulates that the role of the Medicines Authority is only to make recommendations. It is the function of the licensing authority, a role taken up by the Superintendent of Public Health, to issue marketing authorisations for medicinal products intended for the Maltese market. Unless the licencing authority formally delegates such responsibility to the Medicines Authority, the function of the second is limited to nothing more than making recommendations to the first.

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

The Superintendent of Public Health, as the representative of the licensing authority (or even of the CEO of the Medicines Authority in the event of such powers being formally delegated to him by the same licensing authority), must assume full responsibility for ensuring that marketing authorisations (licences) for medicinal products intended for the Maltese market comply fully with national legislation.

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

The Life Network Foundation Malta has noted that the recommendations made by Parliament through the joint health, social affairs and family affairs committee regarding the licensing of the pill in Malta have acknowledged not only that different types of pills have different modes of action but that there are those that operate by the prevention of implantation of the embryo, thus achieving their goal by an abortifacient process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Life Network again declares it has no reason to doubt the overwhelming volume of evidence that points towards the abortifacient properties of morning-after pills and reaffirms and upholds its commitment to the defence of life from conception to natural death.

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

Dr. Miriam Sciberras is chairperson of the Life Network Foundation Malta

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

This country never ceases to amaze me! A carefully crafted report by a committee of the highest institution of the land, Parliament, suggests that the morning-after pill (MAP) should be dispensed against a doctor’s prescription. Well, what do you know! The executive branch of government overrules this together with the Medicines Authority! They quote science saying that the MAP is not abortive (sometimes it is and sometimes it is not depending on the cycle) only for one to read in the specific insert to these tablets that it may prevent the attachment of the embryo to the womb, in fact meaning that it may be abortive! Wonders never cease! In its infinite wisdom, the Medicine’s Authority has decided to shift the onus of responsibility from physicians to pharmacists. This does put a greater responsibility on community pharmacists to dispense the MAP in a professional manner. Considering that there are ethical and medical issues why the MAP should not be dispensed, it behoves the pharmaceutical community now to create a system where the MAP can be safely dispensed. This would require a personal interview between the pharmacist and the client, which interview has to be carried out in a private room, where personal medical details and past history are asked for and checked. If it is found that there are medical contraindications to the pill, this should not be dispensed as there are health and indemnity issues involved. It would be very irresponsible if the MAP were to be dispensed without this interview as if it was just a box of throat pastilles! The pharmacist may choose not to dispense the MAP for both medical and also for purely ethical reasons.

I find it disturbing that both professionals and non-professionals choose to criticize the fact that professional care workers may always object to participate in any medical procedure or dispensation, if such procedure or dispensing goes contrary to the person’s ethical disposition. Conscientious objection has been, is and will always remain the right of the professional. We can even refuse to see patients if there are ethical issues involved in the act of seeing them. This right is an enshrined principle of medical ethics.

In ancient Rome, the father, the Pater Familias, had the absolute right to dispose of his family as he thought fit. A new-born baby especially if female, was often placed on the ground right after birth by the midwife and, as the mother watched helplessly, the father decided whether to pick up the new born or not. If the father walked away it meant that the child was rejected and it was either left to die through exposure, or thrown on the city thrash heap to be ravaged by wild animals or picked up by procurers for pimping services provided by the age of thirteen (or less). This power which resided in the father, the Patria Potestas, in Roman family law, was the power that the male head of a family exercised over his children and his more remote descendants in the male line, whatever their age, as well as over those brought into the family by adoption. It was absolute and since male children were preferred over female children, it lead to a gender imbalance in Rome and since the Romans were intent on pursuing the hedonist culture of debauchery and arena spectacles, this soon started to worry Emperor Augustus that the Roman birth rate was plunging with the result that he hurried to enact laws to increase the birth rate, which laws were largely ignored even by himself!

It was only the rise of Christianity in Rome that reversed this cruel and subjective use of human beings by introducing the concept of human dignity and by defining the rights and responsibilities of the core concept of the family as composed of the duties of the mother and the father towards each other and the children. It was Christianity that pushed this idea of individual human dignity, a personal dignity as a result of being human and which eventually broke asunder the concept of the Patria Potestas. St Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians, makes clear the responsibilities of husbands and wives towards each other at a time where the culture did not recognize such mutual respect and self-giving.

Today, society is reverting back to the times of Roman culture as it rejects Christianity and its ideas. Under the guise that the woman is responsible for her own body (she is), she is allowed to dispose of the presence of another human being within her, no questions asked. The Patria Potestas has been replaced with the Mater Potestas! As an assuming lawyer who decided to abrogate science and reason for himself recently told me, many argue that the growing embryo inside them is just a bunch of cells, not realizing that they themselves are also in the final analysis just a bunch of cells, therefore they themselves may be disposed of by society as it so wishes. Others argue that although they themselves are against killing embryos and foetuses, they dare not force their opinion on others who think differently in order to conserve personal freedom! This argument forgets that we are all responsible for the well-being of others and that the least the state can do is to protect the helpless and defenceless against the strong and powerful. By absconding from this responsibility, the state returns us to the pre-Christian period where human life was worth absolutely nothing!

It is up to us to struggle to maintain the concept of human dignity for all human beings from conception till natural death as a foremost priority. It is up to us to remain firm in what reason and science itself both show us, to do well to others as you wish others to do good to you. There will always be those out for a good time who will belittle human dignity and throw away two thousand years of culture which has humanized the world. This is not a lost battle, but it surely is an on-going battle. The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly in Strasbourg recently voted to make surrogacy illegal all over Europe, trumping the efforts of those who wanted to introduce this abominable practice against the dignity of women and children, which individuals also exist in our country. Vigilance against loss of human dignity is constant, and like the Northern Star, it should spur us always to be relentless in our quest. The right to life is recognized as the foremost right with respect to the hierarchy of human rights and the state ought to be careful that it is so preserved. Otherwise as the Roman Empire fell away, so will our society!

Dr Asciak is Senior Lecturer II in the Institute of Applied Science at MCAST

Ref http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2016-10-30/newspaper-opinions/Potestas-Maternalis-6736165856

Documentary about Down’s syndrome and the ethics of pregnancy screening, fronted by Sally Phillips. This film explores the science and thinking around the proposed new screening test for Down’s syndrome and its possible availability on the NHS.
Driven by the experience of raising her son Olly, who has Down’s syndrome, Sally explores some of the ethical implications of our national screening policy. By talking to experts in the Down’s syndrome community, the world’s top scientists and including people with Down’s syndrome in the debate, Sally investigates a thorny subject that begs questions relevant to us all: what sort of world do we want to live in and who do we want in it?

[youtube]5nNkoOiB4V4[/youtube]

A new song and accompanying video has been launched in Ireland with the aim of drawing attention to women who are suffering from regret and sadness after abortion.

“Every Time” was written by Roger Berkeley and produced in association with the abortion recovery group Women Hurt.  The accompanying video tells the story of a young woman who is left to deal with an unplanned pregnancy after her boyfriend tells her he wants nothing to do with the situation.

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/10/21/heartbreaking-new-song-reveals-the-regret-and-sadness-women-face-after-abortion/

Watch Rebecca Kiessling giving her powerful testimony during SPUC’s 50th Anniversary conference. Rebecca Kiessling is an international pro-life speaker and will be in Malta from the 26th November till the 5th of December 2016.