Starting September 8, 2012, anonymous comments -- whether for or against the RH bill -- will no longer be permitted on this blog.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

On the real objective of the RH Bill

Real and ultimate objective
By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)
Updated November 26, 2010 12:00 AM

Once more Congress is deliberating on the RH Bill. In the Lower House it is entitled “Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2010” (HB 96) while in the Senate it is SB 2378 entitled an “Act Providing for a National Policy for Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development”.

Obviously the versions of the bill in both Houses contain substantially similar provisions. The bill’s proponents and supporters have been repeatedly endorsing its passage allegedly because its primary objective is to allow Filipino women to fully exercise their right to make an “informed choice” between the use of artificial contraceptives and natural family planning methods. But is this really the principal objective of the bill?

This has been answered before but certain background facts and circumstances as to the origin and source of the bill have to be stressed, clarified and/or disclosed so that the public will be better informed and so that our legislators can properly evaluate the bill with the hope that they realize why it should not, as presently crafted, be enacted into law. Even P-Noy should consider these points because it has far reaching implications beyond mere granting to married women the right to an “informed choice” on the methods to be used in planning the size of their family, which is his main reason for supporting the bill.

Former Senate Majority Leader, Francisco S. Tatad, in his Article “The RH Bill Revisited” gives us a much better answer to this question as it is clearer, direct to the point and based on facts that have been previously overlooked or glossed over. He said that the bill’s principal objective is not what the proponents say it is because:

“Filipino women and men in great numbers are already freely contracepting and getting sterilized. No law prohibits them from doing so. The Department of Health and the Population Commission have been big suppliers of contraceptives and sterilization agents and the General Appropriations Act has been carrying regular appropriations for that purpose since the 70s. DOH and Popcorn personnel as well as public and private hospital staff openly ask men and women to get sterilized, especially during the birth of a new child. Many Local Government Units have since joined their ranks. The country’s contraceptive prevalence rating now stands at 50 percent. It is therefore completely misleading and deceptive to say that the RH Bill in both Houses of Congress is intended to help women make an “informed choice” on the use of contraceptives and sterilization agents.

The real objective and purpose of the bill as written is to make the State the principal, if not lone, provider of contraceptives and sterilization agents to the general public. These will be distributed as “essential” frontline medicines to cure human fertility, which is not yet a disease.

The unwritten, ultimate objective of the bill is population control. The term is meticulously avoided by the population controllers and their propagandists for political correctness, but the truth is nothing else. The original objective was to reduce the size of the family around the world to two children per family by the year 2000. The latest brainstorm seems to celebrate “the only child”, which has already created a demographic disaster in China, with a projected preponderance of 30 million males without females by 2020, or the totally childless “family”, which is guaranteed by “same sex marriage”. The RH Bill seeks to accomplish its objective through universal contraception and sterilization by the State, and mandatory sex education for school children, from Grade V up to high school, without parental consent.

The bill is clearly inspired by the global population control agenda, which also provides its strongest support. This agenda was first spelled out in U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY STUDY MEMORANDUM 200 otherwise known as the 1974 Kissinger Report. It considered the overall effects of continued population growth in developing countries, not on the poverty and social conditions of those countries, but rather upon the economic and security interest of the United States. Thereafter the US launched its global program to curb population growth in developing countries. The program was quickly adopted by the other rich countries, the United Nations and its various agencies, the World Bank, the IMF, the Asian Development Bank and various international funding institutions.

In the US, population control was promoted with great vigor by the Clinton administration, but its strongest support yet has to come from President Barack Obama whose first major official edict was to authorize the use of US funds, disallowed by his predecessor George W. Bush, to support abortion activities in the developing countries. Abortion became legal in the US in 1973 by virtue of the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, Each year, abortion takes a toll of at least 46 million unborn children around the world. China accounts for 13 million, and India 11 million of the total count.”…..

“Population control unleashed radical changes in social mores and lifestyle and systematic attack on human life, family and marriage. As these attacks intensified, Pope John Paul II warned against the conflict between the culture of life and the culture of death. Among many Filipinos DEATH came to be known as the lethal acronym for Divorce, Euthanasia, Abortion, Total fertility control, Homo sexual practices (same sex marriage etc)”.

The foregoing are only portions of ex-Senator Tatad’s exposition. So far they have not been adequately refuted or proven incorrect, apparently because they are true. These vital information can certainly help a lot in the deliberations on the RH bill.

No comments:

Post a Comment