President Marie Louise Coleiro Preca said on Sunday she will be proposing to health minister Chris Fearne that he seeks the advice of the Attorney General on the constitutionality of the IVF Bill.
In a letter to a coalition of pro-life groups, Coleiro Preca said she would be forwarding points raised by the organisations to the Health Minister for hisconsideration.
President Marie Louise Coleiro Preca pointed out that the Constitution did not confer upon her legislative functions except that of assenting to bills when these were already adopted.
She was bound to act on the advice of the Government and in the case of Bills approved by the House to assent to without delay.
“However, in light of the serious content and submission you raise in connection with constitutionality of the said Bill, as guardian of the Constitution I am duty bound to refer the matter to the said minister so that he can, on his part, seek and obtain advice from the Attorney General to be loyal to the oath of office.”
President's letter
A coalition of pro-life groups this morning presented seven proposals to President Marie Louise Coleiro Preca, which the group feels should be considered by members of parliament before the final voteon the Embryo Protection Act this coming Tuesday.
According to a report by Net News, spokesperson for the coalition Miriam Sciberras told media that the meeting was a 'cordial' one.
The pro-life networks yesterday demanded Coleiro Preca's intervention on the eve of a parliamentary vote on the Embryo protection Act, and requested an urgent meeting. The coalition is made up of the Gift of Life Foundation, Life Network Foundation and Unborn Child Movement.
Coleiro Preca accepted to meet members of pro-life networks, and the meeting took place this morning.
In a statement issued this afternioon, the coalition listed its proposals:
Following a very cordial meeting today, as a group of pro-life foundations, who have been at the forefront of the discussions regarding the proposed Amendments to the Embryo Protection Act, we are releasing the following press statement to inform the public of the issues we discussed with Your Excellency :
We are gravely concerned that as amended , the Embryo Protection Act will lead to a breach of our Constitution, as freezing of human embryos by choice is a threat to the very same human life. Safeguarding the right to life of the vulnerable is an absolute right.
Selection of embryos as regards to those who will be given a chance to life in a mother's womb and those who will be frozen has eugenic implications.
For this reason we humbly come before you, Your Excellency, as a last resort and urge you to intervene before the final vote scheduled for Tuesday, with the following questions which should be resolved by Parliament at least before voting.
These are the proposals/questions that need resolution:
1. Why did the initial proposed amendments start with fertilizing 3 eggs (with a chance of 1 embryo frozen) and now we have ended up with a proposal of up to five eggs fertilized on the first cycle with the possibility of having up to 3 remaining embryos frozen? Realistically speaking, how many families would raise 5 children if all the ovas are fertilized and result in 5 embryos? Why risk freezing 3 embryos at first instance?
It is unfair that in the discussions the civil society spoke against the first proposal, and the one adopted is far worse.
We are against the freezing of human embryos in principle.
Freezing of human lives other than the exception to save an embryos life should not be acceptable.
2. An embryo can spend up to 20 years in the freezer before the authority can release the embryo for adoption when mother is aged 48 if she signs papers every 5 years. We presented research which shows that parents find it hard to relinquish their embryos especially once their siblings are born so they will not sign their embryos for donation unless they have to. We suggested an initiative aimed at releasing these embryos.
How about an increasing retention fee to deter them from leaving embryos frozen indefinitely?
3. Stockpiles of frozen embryos: How can you prevent embryo stockpiles if in all the world they are unable to control them?
Damage control : Would you consider a moratorium as a safeguard?
Would you be ready to stop the embryo freezing programme by choice if there is a surplus of say 50 or 100 embryos until all embryos are adopted? At least this would be a safeguard in the law that can lead to an evaluation of the whole process and stop stockpiles.
4. Posthumous conception: It is not social justice to create orphans at birth by posthumous conception.
Proposal: The gametes donated by men and women who die should be destroyed upon their death to avoid post humous conception and orphans at birth.
Donation of gametes: We do not agree with gamete donation in principle because you cannot donate motherhood and fatherhood.
5. The Convention for the Rights of the Child- which Malta signed and ratified states that "Children have a right to as far as possible know and be raised by their biological parents"
This bill will make it legal to do the opposite intentionally.
This bill will make it legal to access information regarding anonymous donor at age 18. Isn't it strange that these individuals will be able to vote at 16 but know their parents identity at age 18?
Studies show that children have serious issues such as identity issues, confusion and other problems especially in their formative years. They need to know their roots, their biological mother and their father and siblings.
Proposal - Open donation with the right to know biological fathers or mothers from birth.
6.Consanguineous relationships may ensue if the proposed amendments are adopted.
You cannot stop an anonymous donor from having sexual relationships and other children subsequent to donation. These children may be in school with the other child created by donation and would not know they are siblings Proposal: Open donation with access to records from birth would limit this.
7.Birth certificates will not show true biological identity. They can now be called certificates of deception or certificates of ownership as the parents listed will be the commissioning couple. Proposal- birth certificates should reflect the true identity of the child conceived.
As you can see from these brief highlights - the Embryo Protection Act is now no longer protecting anyone let alone the children born from these techniques if amendments are adopted as voted at Second stage.
We implore you to intervene such that these questions be circulated to all Members of Parliament for reflection and resolution before the final voting.