Category: Pro-Life

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

Almost seven years ago, in September 2009, the Times of Malta reported that Joseph Muscat, the current Prime Minister, said he disagreed with the morning-after pill even in cases of rape. He added that he could not accept any method, including the morning-after pill, that stopped life.

Such a stand did not seem to ruffle the feathers of the public, not even highly educated women, Alternattiva Demokratika, the Humanist Association or any of the feminists who so vociferously cry out for women’s rights. None made their voice heard.

Yet, today the climate has changed, although the facts have not. The morning-after pill is a contraceptive but, if fertilisation has occurred, it has an abortifacient effect. In a culture where abortion is accepted and legalised, such a reality does not bother the public conscience.

As Ivan Padovani put it so eloquently (July 3 “If you don’t have a problem with abortion as a form of birth control, then you won’t have a problem with the morning-after pill either.”)

So far, Malta is different. It does not accept abortion. Should we be ashamed?

I can understand that some men are perfectly happy that women bear the responsibility of getting pregnant and are totally indifferent to whatever method they use. However, I am dismayed that so many women are willing to swallow hormonal drugs and implant devices in their wombs and even resort to abortion, all in the name of women’s so-called emancipation.

Some men are perfectly happy that women bear the responsibility of getting pregnant and are totally indifferent to whatever method they use

In an article of the Guardian (November 2014), Holly Grigg-Spall is decidedly against contraceptives. She writes: “When we take the pill our sex hormones are suppressed and replaced with synthetic versions, released in a steady stream. Gone are the fluctuations we experience monthly.

“This means every system related to our hormones is disrupted – our metabolic and endocrine systems and our immune system. This is what leads to the insidious, slow-build side-effects that women can experience. That’s the science behind the headlines.”

She adds: “A lack of feminism more widely might explain why research that connects the pill to increased risk of breast cancer, cervical cancer and pulmonary embolism leading to stroke or even death is more likely to get swept aside as anomalous or negligible.”

She concludes that women shouldn’t be expected, let alone encouraged, to sacrifice their health and well-being.

If anything, in the light of such facts, I would expect women to clamour for a male pill and place the onus of all the physiological and psychological disruption in the male camp. That would really be revolutionary and… equally stupid.

Even so, would women trust men who claim they are ‘on the pill’? The only pills men may be keen to take are those like Viagra that enhance their sexual potency.

Again, in 2009, Carl Djerassi, one of the key researchers who developed synthetic progesterone that led to the ‘pill’, outlined the “horror scenario” that occurred because of the population imbalance, for which his invention was partly to blame. He said that, in most of Europe, there was now “no connection at all between sexuality and reproduction”.

The fall in the birth rate in his country, Austria, he said, was an “epidemic” far worse but given less attention than obesity.

Scientists also point out that many so-called contraceptives have an abortifacient effect by preventing implantation of the embryo. Spanish doctor José Maria Simon Castellvi refers to the “devastating ecological effects” of the tons of hormones discarded into the environment each year, adding that sufficient data exists to show that one of the causes of male infertility in the West is the environmental contamination caused by the products of the ‘pill’.

Finally, contraceptive methods violate at least five important rights: the right to life, the right to health, the right to education, the right to information (its dissemination occurs to the detriment of information about natural methods) and the right of equality between the sexes (responsibility for contraceptive use almost always falls to the woman).

If such facts are branded hysterical and if criticism of contra­ceptives and abortifacients are criticised as shameful, then so be it. I hope that people who think rationally will conclude otherwise.

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

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160718/opinion/Case-of-shameful-hysteria.619194

The issue of emergency contraception has been around for decades but up until now our laws did not allow doctors to prescribe such pills as they are not available in a single pill form wrongly called ‘morning-after pill’. I am writing this piece in my capacity as a family doctor. As GPs we are the first doctors to encounter requests for such measures as emergency contraception.

First of all I must say that contraceptive pills have been on the local market for decades and some doctors use them as a form of emergency contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies after a couple would have performed sex a number of hours before. This is done by giving more than one and up to six contraceptive tablets in one dose depending on the brand, followed by a second loading dose 12 hours later. These can be given up to 120 hours after intercourse. So we must not illude ourselves that emergency contraception is not practised in Malta.

The problem arose when a single pill wrongly called ‘morning-after pill’ of whatever brand was proposed to be made legal. These emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) can be taken up to 120 hours after intercourse and can still be effective, so it is not just the morning after. On the international market there are three types of such pills.

Scientifically we know that life begins with fertilisation but the pro-ECPs lobbyists say instead pregnancy begins with implantation

There are, the combined containing both, oestrogen and progestin, progestin-only and others containing an anti-progestin. The latter are out of the question for many women, as they are used as abortion pills and currently only available in Armenia, China, Russia and Vietnam. So the first thing which should be cleared is which of these will be available.
They have different mechanisms of action, effectiveness and side effects. What is most important in my opinion is their mode of action. It is known that combined pills can inhibit or delay ovulation provided you take them before ovulation.
Now the time of ovulation is difficult to calculate and there is no easy and practical way of knowing. So these are very effective if taken during the first half of the menstrual cycle, before ovulation has occurred. In this case they are purely preventing ovulation and there is no question of being abortive.

But if taken later on they act by impairing endometrial receptivity to subsequent implantation of a fertilised egg. So we are speaking of a life which has already begun even though a bunch of cells. Scientifically we know that life begins with fertilisation but the pro-ECPs lobbyists say instead pregnancy begins with implantation, which is totally different.

At this stage human life has already started, so these pills have an abortive effect. Also, these combined pills are as effective as it is claimed because they must have a mechanism of action other than delaying or preventing ovulation.

Regarding the other type of pills, the levonorgestrel-only pills, their method of action is dual. If taken before ovulation the primary mechanism of action is blockade and/or of ovulation. So in such cases only, they are purely contraceptive and they have no abortive effect. But the reduced efficacy of these pills with a delay in treatment suggests that interference with implantation is likely.

These are the objective facts.

My point is that, no matter what is their mode of action in general and how this is stated on the package insert, every pill when taken acts on a unique way on a particular patient.

Nobody knows what really happens, whether a prevention of ovulation or prevention of implantation has occurred. Both things can happen.

In the latter case it is abortion.

Dr. Mario Saliba is a specialist in family medicine.

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160707/opinion/Emergency-contraception-pills.618002

The presence of a human life

Mark Anthony Falzon (June 19) makes a creditable argument in support of the introduction of the so-called ‘Morning-After Pill’ (MAP) in Malta.

I agree with his view on accreditation. I would go further, in fact, and lament the haste with which people seem to deliver themselves of their uninformed, often severely prejudiced, opinions, only adding fuel to the confusion of already-complex subjects, to the detriment of all involved.

The main problem with Mr Falzon’s perspective is that he makes the same error that hordes of others are making in the course of this discussion. This error centres on the acceptance of a tacit presumption that merely editing the definition of when a pregnancy officially begins has any bearing on the presence or otherwise of a human life. This detail is so exclusively crucial to the entire issue of the properties of the MAP that it must be looked at a lot more closely.

Years ago, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists chose to re-define the origin of pregnancy as the point at which the fertilised egg, following passage through the Fallopian tubes, is successfully implanted in the uterus.

This newly minted definition chimed so well with the emergence of the MAP that it remains anybody’s guess as to whether it was purely coincidental or not, but the fact of the matter is that it meant that this pill, from being something that could end a pregnancy, was transformed overnight into something that only ever prevented it from occurring.

The trouble began once the work of re-defining the initialisation of pregnancy had been completed. Little further thought seems to have been given to the status of the human embryo from the moment of its conception, through its lonely journey down the Fallopian Way, up to the point of implantation.

Consequently, it was left to a universal audience to subconsciously infer that this entity had ceased to be of significance. In fact, the entire construct of the pill’s modus operandi is predicated on an insidious suggestion that the state of pregnancy and the existence of a human life are co-dependent and interchangeable terms. This is, quite simply, untrue.

At the beginning of fertilisation, a new human being begins to exist

So-called ‘test tube’ babies are living proof of the presence of a newly created human life independent of any pregnancy.

The point is that the definition of the commencement of pregnancy may be tinkered with from time to time but the moment of creation of a human life is scientifically beyond dispute.

The ‘Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development’ are often referred to as “the Bureau of Standards” of human embryology. They are verified and documented by the international Terminologia Embryologica committee, which consists of more than 20 experts, academically credentialed specifically in human embryology, from around the world. After reviewing the latest research studies in human embryology, their deliberations are published in the international Nomina Embryologica, part of the larger Nomina Anatomica.

It is clearly acknowledged that at the beginning of fertilisation, when the sperm penetrates the oocyte, a new, living, genetically unique, single-cell human being begins to exist. This has been known scientifically for almost 130 years, (e.g., in the work of Wilhelm His.)

These are the long-known and long-acknowledged objective scientific

facts of when sexually reproduced human beings begin to exist. They have been and remain the international standards used today.

The notion that the very existence of a human life is dependent on the current definition of a pregnancy, and that the absence of one necessarily defines the absence of the other, is the core fallacy of the MAP campaign.

Broadly speaking, there are three mechanisms of action attributable to the MAP. Two are exclusively contraceptive in nature. The third, however, is abortive and it is this that is the focus of all objections.

Essentially, if it happens that fertilisation has already taken place, i.e., an embryo exists, the MAP prevents it from implanting – and death follows.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, professional opinions on this, the third mechanism of operation, are not unanimous. There seems to be evidence that it may not operate as claimed. But there is a whole lot more that indicates it does.

In conclusion, if you don’t have a problem with abortion as a form of birth control, then you won’t have a problem with the morning-after pill either. But if you do, then it’s a matter of very serious concern.

What does emerge clearly, however, is that if the principle of informed consent still has any meaning, then the least that the MAP’s manufacturers and proponents owe to society is a realistic confirmation of its full potential.

When all is done and dusted, it may well turn out that Gift of Life were nearer the mark than many were led to believe.

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

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160703/opinion/The-presence-of-a-human-life.617526

It is rather disconcerting and depressing to witness the manner in which the so-called liberal agenda is being forced through in Malta. The latest attempt to undermine the value of the fullness of life is the judicial protest by a group of women clamouring for the ‘right’ to have the ‘morning after pill’ available in Malta.

Labour whip Dr Godfrey Farrugia dismissed their arguments that the ‘morning-after pill’ is a reproductive right, adding that: “Freedom of thought, opinion, liberty and to assemble are human rights, but interfering with the very origins of life do not fulfil those rights.”

Malta always seems to be in a hurry to adopt lifestyles and cultures that have proved so damaging to the social framework elsewhere. The facts speak for themselves.

Pope Paul VI cautioned about the consequences of the contraception culture that was ushered in with the widespread use of the ‘pill’ in the 1960s. He prophetically warned that contraception would lead to promiscuity, loss of respect for life, marriage and the family, and breakdown of essential social structures.

Statistics clearly show the close link between divorce rates and abortion with the use of contraceptives. Besides undermining the family, their use has resulted in a demographic catastrophe in Western countries where the birth rate is so low that there are not enough young people to run the economy and sustain an increasingly ageing population.

Yet the powerful financial interests of the pharmaceutical giants downplay the side-effects of contraceptives, some of which are very serious indeed, such as the higher predisposition to breast, cervical and uterine cancer and vascular disorders.

The West has succumbed to forces lined up against human life, marriage, the family and religion.

Yet those who challenge the contraceptive culture are branded as suppressing liberty of women. Nothing could be further from the truth. Behind the fine talk of ‘the woman’s body’ and ‘woman’s choice’ lie the egoistic interests of men who are only too ready to leave reproductive responsibility in the lap of women. Women are saddled with taking powerful hormonal drugs, with inserting devices in their womb and then being scolded if they get pregnant – as if this was an unforeseeable result of sexual intercourse. They are then often faced between choosing abortion or being abandoned.

It is therefore essential that we educate young people to treasure life in its fullness and realise the importance of appreciating their human dignity. Young women in particular should cherish their bodies as they carry the sanctuary where life begins, is nurtured and grows.

Young people have to realise that their happiness depends on the loyalty and security that only love in all its totality can bring. People are being sold the false idea that respect, responsibility and sacrifice diminish the joy of life.

Women sell themselves cheaply when they willingly reduce themselves to commodities readily available with no strings attached to any transient romance that comes their way.

The callous disregard of some people at the possibility of destroying life with contraceptive drugs is a sad reflection of the sorry state of our society and the depths to which we have allowed ourselves to sink.

Contrary to what many think, such negative trends are not inevitable. Countries like the US are increasingly aware of the negative consequences of a contraceptive culture and the tide is turning as the younger generations become more aware of the consequences of irresponsible life choices that result in broken relationships and abortion.

Let us celebrate life by educating our youth to cherish their sexuality and find the discipline to cultivate relationships that are life-giving in all their dimensions and are underpinned by passionate love that does not wane in spite of the challenges that life inevitably brings.

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160626/religion/Let-s-celebrate-life.616779

Press Release in response to the judicial protest to call for the legalisation of the morning-after pill in Malta.

Human embryonic life starts from conception. The egg released from the woman is fertilised by the sperm and the embryo created continues to grow as the new human life travels down to implant in the mother’s womb.

One of the effects of the morning after pill or emergency contraception is the  alteration of the lining of the womb such that the embryo will not be able to implant and is thus intentionally lost.  This is called the anti nidation (anti nesting) effect and is abortifacient.

The sale or use of abortifacients is prohibited by law.

In Malta, human life has always been protected from conception by successive governments.

Let us continue to keep the unborn protected from conception.

Co Signed by

Dr Miriam Sciberras

Life Network Foundation Malta,

Mr  Paul Vincenti

Gift of Life Foundation

Mr Anthony Mifsud

Malta Unborn Child Movement

Pro-choice group ‘Women on Waves’ has denied that it will be flying drones over Malta which drop abortion medication, as it did recently in Poland, but did not exclude visiting Malta on their infamous boat.

Women on Waves appropriately made waves after they flew ‘abortion drones’ from the border of Germany over Roman Catholic Poland, dropping abortion medication. The group considered it a success after it was found that two Polish woman had ingested the abortion pills.

“Just a few months ago the human rights committee [United Nations] had stated that making abortion illegal is a violation of women’s human rights, so Malta is violating human rights as well. They should start changing their laws to be in line with other European countries and legalise abortion,” said Dr Rebecca Gomperts, founder and director of Women on Waves.

A United Nations Committee on Human Rights ruled that in the case of a Peruvian women who was denied an abortion even though her child was sure to die within days of being born, her human rights were not respected and ordered the hospital in question to compensate her. This was a landmark case which “affirmed” the UN’s position that abortion is a human right, according to The Huffington Post.

The Amsterdam-based group describes itself on its online platform as:

“Women on Waves aims to prevent unsafe abortions and empower women to exercise their human rights to physical and mental autonomy. We trust that women can do a medical abortion themselves and make sure that women have access to medical abortion and information through innovative strategies. But ultimately it is about giving women the tools to resist repressive cultures and laws. Not every woman has the possibility to be a public activist but there are things we can all do ourselves.”

Medical abortions refer to ingesting medication that can induce abortion. This differs to surgical abortion, which tends to be done later at a more developed stage and involves an invasive procedure.

In Malta, if found guilty of having an abortion, women could face a three-year prison sentence, while carrying out abortions can land a person four years in jail, and a doctor could have his licence to practice medicine removed.

Dr Gomperts revealed that Women on Waves receives around 65 e-mails per year from Maltese women asking for assistance on unwanted pregnancies.

An article published in the Christian Post said that Women on Waves will be targeting Ireland and Malta next; however Dr Gomperts has denied this.

Asked why Malta will not see ‘abortion drones’ flying over its airspace, she said that “Malta is far away” and the drones do not have the reach to be sent from Sicily or Italy to Malta. She stressed however that the group does not exclude visiting the island again by sea. She also said that the group will continue to fly their drones.

“Basically Women on Waves always look for innovative ways to get abortion pills to women in need. We use the ship, the WOW online project; the drone is another tactic we are using to bring the medication to women,” she said.

Back in 2007, Dr Gomperts came to Malta and held a press conference at Castille. Her visit was met with opposition by a pro-life group called ‘gift of life,’ together with other conservative sections of society.

Many media reports had emerged at the time stating that Dr Gomperts’ pro-choice group would be visiting Malta by ship to provide women with medical abortions and counselling.

They would have remained in international waters in order to provide this service – however it was anticipated that due to their licensing requirements, which needed a regional hospital agreement, this could be an obstacle.

It was largely believed that no hospital in Malta or Gozo would agree to this; however it was reported that such an agreement with a Sicilian hospital could allow them to provide abortive services in international waters.

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2016-05-23/local-news/Women-on-Waves-denies-plans-to-fly-abortion-drones-over-Malta-could-possibly-visit-by-boat-6736158182