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

Friday, March 4, 2011

A lawyer responds to Fr. Joaquin Bernas regarding the RH Bill

The following is a response to Fr. Joaquin Bernas' article of February 14, 2011 entitled, Burn the RH-Bill house to roast a pig?

Dear Fr. Bernas,

I was your student in constitutional law many moons ago. To this day, I continue to regard myself as one and accord with deep academic reverence your opinions on constitutional matters. At the risk of revealing my "intellectual bankruptcy" to an eminent profes:sor, please allow me to share my thoughts on the RH Bill which is now designated as HB 4244.

For the sake of simplicity and clarity, I will confine myself to the current version of the bill and not venture into the dark unknown by second-guessing what our legislators may decide to do in the future.

Your fearless forecast that RH bill will become a law through the exercise of police power has made me shudder in disbelief.

Police power is that attribute of sovereignty that enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society. It has the most comprehensive embrace among the inherent powers of the State extending as it does to whatever it is that fosters the "common good." To be valid, its exercise must have a valid public purpose and the means employed to accomplish such purpose must be reasonable, not oppressive nor arbitrary.

Does that mean that the State, through its agencies, can justifiably interfere with the exercise of the basic human rights to life and liberty and the constitutional rights to free speech and religious freedom under the guise of "general welfare?" Instantly, a glaring discord is obvious here. For how can one claim to champion the common good when the rights so firmly enshrined in the Bill of Rights are trampled upon and sacrificed? As jurisprudence puts it, has the existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent been clearly established to warrant the infringement of these rights?

But before I get accused of putting the cart before the horse, let me attempt to engage in a 'herculean task' of pointing out some major points.

While the Declaration of Policy of the bill may be replete with defensible objectives, it is simply that -- a statement of objectives that are expectedly noble and laudable. But this behooves us to examine the meat of the bill and determine if the provisions are faithful to the avowed policies.

The Constitution imposes upon the State the duty to "equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception." The life of the unborn (equally with that of the mother) is entitled to protection at and from conception. And conception here refers to fertilization since these terms were used interchangeably during the deliberations of the 1980 Constitutional Commission. And this protection to be meaningful should be from any form and degree of harm or injury and death ---not only actual but also any risk or threat thereof. For under our law, a conceived child is endowed with the dignity and worth of a human being from his conception and thus is recognized to have the right not only to be born, but to be born well. This necessarily includes the right of the unborn to develop to its full term and not to be expelled prematurely from the mother's womb.

An issue has been raised with regard to certain contraceptives that interfere with uterine implantation of the developing embryo and precipitate its destruction and expulsion from the uterus which in medical parlance are known as abortifacients. Scientific data and findings have been proffered in this regard. This issue has been dismissed by some medical doctors who claim that this action is possible only when there is fertilization which does not occur precisely because of the contraceptives. In the same breadth, however, they admit that breakthrough ovulation docs occur in women taking contraceptives and such incidents have in fact been documented; however, they add that these are very rare.

This denial-admission cannot be recklessly ignored or blithely dismissed because this puts the life of the unborn child on the line and strikes at the very core of the issues heaped against the bill. The adverse effects of contraceptives on the mother's health which have been supported by data and personal testimonies of victims and their. families are serious enough to be summarily dismissed. While the bill vows to protect the health of the mother and the child, it shows no respect for life and t:he fundamental right to life. With the aggressive promotion and widespread dissemination of contraceptives, the bill, in effect, allows and promotes abortion.

Family planning is a matter that concerns and affects the spouses and their families. They have the constitutional right to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them. Part of this right is for them to receive correct, complete and clear information not only about the "availability" of family planning methods and reproductive health services but more importantly, about their nature arid effects. There has to be full, honest, and transparent disclosure and disseminationof information and thorough and widespread discussion about tlnese methods and services. As a result of this exercise, and not privately, the "safe, effective and legal methods" of family planning should be judiciously and prudentlydetermined and identified. This constitutes the essence of free and informed choice. And considering the far-reaching consequences, this exercise should be undertaken before the passage of the bill, not after.

The issue of disregard of religious freedom is no less important. A healthcare service provider who refuses to provide information or perform health care services on account of religion will nonetheless have to refer the person seeking such care to another provider who is willing to provide the same service or information. Employers are 1ike:wisemandated to provide reproductive health services to their employees, without mention of religious or ethical considerations.

There is also imposition on the freedom of speech for a healthcare provider who knowingly withholds information or restricts dissemination thereof, for any reason.

By making reproductive health and sexuality education mandatory for all public and private schools from grade five to fourth year high school, with a common curriculum formulated by designated agencies, the natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character is supplanted by the government which is supposed to assume only a suppoirting role.

In light of all this, there is no public purpose that justifies the appropriation of public funds for the implementation of the law. Surely, the government should find better use of my hard-earned money.

Will the Bill undergo an upheaval to pursue a true and genuine public purpose and adopt means that are reasonably necessary to accomplish that purpose, neither coercive nor authoritarian? I wish I knew, but I will be bold enough to state that only if and when ou:r legislators come to regard life as the greatest and most precious gift of their Creator to humanity can they sincerely claim to serve the common good.

I am proud of and grateful for my eight years of Ateneo education. I am particularly edified by its exhortation for Ateneans to be "men for others." With Life at the very core of the issues involved in RH bill, the advocacy to defend and protect it, I believe, is a singular opportunity to respond meaningfully to that call. For indeed, LIFE is more than just a pig!

Respectfully yours,
Maria Concepcion S. Noche


  1. I hope this reaches him. I am saddened by the fact that Father Bernas, being a Jesuit Catholic Priest, is ambiguous in his stand on the RH. Another thing, the student council of ateneo are proudly saying they are for the RH bill. From these things, I can't sense, in any away, how Ateneo is "Jesuit, Catholic, Filipino".

  2. bernas,genilo and the 14 ateneo faculty members are simply devil's advocate. their ideas are affront to the teachings of the church.

  3. Genesis 1:28 - And God blessed them. And God said to them,(S) "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and SUBDUE IT x x x." SUBDUE means "to hold within limits and control". A devil's advocate, without an iota of doubt, is against the same words of God as written on the very first pages of the Holy Bible. Are they or ARE YOU? Who must be obeyed? God, whose teachings, as stated, we read on the Bible, or the RCC, whose stand, clearly, counters that which is written? Let us not be blind followers and be a devil's advocate.

  4. To the last anonymous:

    Your comment is one of the strangest I've ever encountered. "Subdue it" OBVIOUSLY refers to the EARTH, which the same Bible verse that you quote commands us to "mutiply and fill". In short, it is precisely by mutiplying and filling the earth that we are to subdue it! The Catholic Church obviously gets it right.

    Only someone who doesn't know English grammar would think that the "subdue" in the sentence refers to "subduing" our being fruitful!

  5. here's a food for thought for you guys to nibble on:

    Can you, yourself, personally walk towards families living in desolated places in Manila, suffering from severe poverty, and unable to feed their so many children, because they are not properly educated on family planning, and tell them: "It's okay to breed and produce many children. It's what the Bible says."?

    Can you offer your own money to help them feed every additional children that will be born from their already numerous family members?

    Depending on your answer, you can either be considered a hypocrite, or a well-played saint.

    1. Even a loving hand extended to the poorest member of any community is not going to make any opinion, position, or argument right.

  6. "Can you, yourself, personally walk towards families living in desolated places in Manila, suffering from severe poverty, and unable to feed their so many children, because they are not properly educated on family planning, and tell them: "It's okay to breed and produce many children. It's what the Bible says."?"

    Oh, but I work with the poor, as do so many priests and nuns who do their work quietly, away from media fanfare and from the smugness of know-it-all anticlericals who know nothing about poverty and yet spout on and on as if they're God's gift to the poor. And, for part of my youth, I lived in a hovel. So, yes, I know what poverty is and I can approach the poor with a straight face.

    Yes, too many of them are not adequately educated in family planning. What makes you think that dumping condoms and pills on them will suddenly make them any wiser and more educated? The Church would like them to become wiser by the hard and narrow path of natural family planning and marriage counselling -- the hard path is the only sure path.

    I actually know a priest, a man whose heroic work for Tondo has been recognized worldwide, who used to advocate contraceptives for the poor in defiance of Church teaching. In his old age he came to realize that not only did contraceptives solve nothing, these also fed into the undisciplined, take-the-easy-path mentality that made so many Filipinos poor. And so now he advocates NFP, which teaches discipline.

    The fact that you think that the Church approves of poor families having an endless number of children, only goes to show that you know nothing about what the Church teaches. The Church believes in responsible parenthood and endorses the proper spacing of children, but the Church believes that this should be done using NFP, which respects the procreative and unitive aspects of the marital act. THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS, in case you've forgotten.

    "Can you offer your own money to help them feed every additional children that will be born from their already numerous family members?"

    The Church has something even better: countless livelihood programs for OSY's all over the Philippines. I myself am working on a massive project for entrepreneurship training for poor women, that I hope can be launche later this year. The Church doesn't believe in a lifetime of dole-outs, whether this takes the form of food or condoms.

    "Depending on your answer, you can either be considered a hypocrite, or a well-played saint."

    Your final sentence speaks volumes about your bigotry against the Church. Yes, there are hypocrites, but there is real sanctity in this world as well, even if the worldly wise and the embittered think that it's all for show.

  7. To sir Carlos Antonio Palad, I said:

    With all due respect to a deemed english grammar professor, kindly enlighten me please - HOW, on Earth, will the EARTH be SUBDUED, if that's what God commands and as your "english grammar" understood it?

    What is written is for man to "Be FRUITFUL and MULTIPLY and FILL the earth..." After doing so, what must be done? SUBDUE it. What will be subdued? the EARTH or the FILLING of the EARTH with man's being fruitful and multiplication?

    In your own and respected explanation is for man then to remain fruitful, multiply and keep on filling the earth and thereafter, hold within limits and control Earth. How can Earth be held within limits and control? My son asks, does Earth grow in size?

    You might be best in your ENGLISH GRAMMAR but I suggest - review your LOGIC. I say, those on the anti-RH Bill stand are just best on twisting words and facts rather than meeting them head-on, obviously. :(

  8. Last Anonymous:

    I'm posting your response without comment. The sheer lunacy of your reasoning is the best refutation of your own stance.

  9. To the last anonymous: Regarding your defense, I say you're scraping bottom. Your frustration from being outwitted seem to have twisted your own logic, and has blown your own grammar to smithereens.

    Janette Lee Johns
    USC Girls HS
    Cebu City

  10. I am insulted. The RH bill implies that we must use contraceptives because we are no better than animals in heat copulating freely and irresponsibly with no thought whatsoever to the consequences. To those who support the bill this might be true, but there are some of us who are not as weak. We take pride in being able to control ourselves, after all this is what separates us from animals....and the weak.

    The sense of sin is lost. The murder of an unborn child is being justified as a solution to poverty. Perfectly acceptable to the mentally shallow and morally corrupt who will not think twice about trading his soul for food.

  11. To the insulted one, I say:

    How can there be an unborn child when contraception is meant to bar the creation of one? There being no meeting of the semen and the egg cell, which contraception is, there shall be no alleged "murder" of an unborn child.

    Why can't you just accept the "fact" that "contraception", in spelling alone, is very far different from "abortion", the meaning of which you attack in your post.

    Now, who may I ask is mentally shallow and morally corrupt? Is it the one who defines contraception as abortion or the one who defines contraception as illustrated above?

    You must accept that it us, the poor, who are deemed mentally shallow and morally corrupt, needs the RH Bill.

    Should I think twice for that? NEVER.

  12. To Janette Lee Johns - THANK YOU. :)
    To Carlos Antonio Palad - SORRY. :(

  13. To Anonymous May 20, 2011 11:59 PM

    The culture wars of our time are, to a great extent, a war over the engineering of language in order to form or deform public opinion. "Contraception" is an excellent example. Do not allow a mere word to fool you and lead you astray, but investigate the real meaning behind it.

    Leaving aside the question of the immorality of the prevention of conception by the use of artificial means, it is also UNTRUE that all contraceptives merely prevent the sperm and the egg from meeting. Federico Pascual recently summarized the reason why many contraceptives are abortifacient:


    "ABORTIFACIENT: Many readers, some of them doctors, most of them women (some of whom admitted having used some of the contraceptives being promoted), said:

    • Most, if not all, oral and injectable contraceptives are abortifacient (inducing abortion) or have abortifacient properties. During the times when they do not prevent ovulation, their abortifacient properties take effect.

    • Oral and injectable contraceptives thin out the inner lining of the uterus. This makes the uterus unable to support a fertilized egg — who is already a human being enjoying protection under the Constitution.

    The fertilized egg is prevented from implanting on the interior lining of the uterus, and is therefore killed through lack of nutrition. This is abortion, which is a crime.

    Even “Depo Provera” or other similar substances, which are injected every three months, have the same abortifacient properties.

    • There are also many pills, such as mifepristone (also known as RU 486), which are outright abortifacient. They do not even try to prevent conception. They can kill even a two-month-old child in the womb."

    "You must accept that it is us, the poor, who are deemed mentally shallow and morally corrupt..."

    It not for others (the non-poor?) to deem "the poor" as "shallow" and "corrupt".

    MANY among the poor are mentally shallow and morally corrupt -- but not ALL, and the worst examples of mental shallowness and moral corruption that I am aware of can be found among the very rich. There are also MANY poor people who cannot be fooled by glitter and who know what is good and what is true, even if perhaps they don't have the worldly education to articulate it.

  14. To sir Carlos Antonio Palad:

    "The culture wars of our time are, to a great extent, a war over the engineering of language in order to form or deform public opinion. "Contraception" is an excellent example. Do not allow a mere word to fool you and lead you astray, but investigate the real meaning behind it."

    In law, the real meaning of the word is not only that matters but, above all meanings attached to it, the purpose for which it was used in the RH Bill by the Legislative. The Constitutional Commission itself held that "conception" is synonymous to "fertilization". "Contraception" then is before "conception" or "fertilization"; hence, anti-abortion.

    That being so, the quoted argument is, indubitably, out of context. Obviously, it is the same line of thinking, the same shallow and overly educated argument, that we, the PROs, try to elucidate on this worthy blog.

    I am certain that the RH Bill is anti-ABORTION and should it be or any of its provisions supports abortion - then I, like you and the very few, will walk on the streets and shout against the RH Bill.

    The title alone of the law - REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL - is very positive and highly beneficial. Should any of its provisions be against it, then let that particular paragraph be deleted therefrom. If not, then we shall be one, and I mean it with my life, in the fight against it.

    The long and heated debate on the RH Bill, if I may say, is just a run around the bush, headed by the anti-RH Bill stand. Why? When the speaker states "contraception", the listener hears "abortion."

    Why can't all just start to where there can be an agreement and together, continue against where there is disagreement. When will there be understanding when both sides keep on yelling at one another?

    Sad though, and for which there can never be any understanding, for the anti-RH Bill group, headed by the RCC, is against contraception itself. Why? Simple, it will diminish the paid and swift baptism of still unlearned babies that will be hurting the funding schemes of the RCC. This had always been the case during the Spanish era and it will for always be the main reason, the hidden agenda, of the RCC; making conception a source of funding for the church and more of which from the mentally shallow and misguided poor. Should one be rich, or very rich, will they care about the RH Bill? I think not.

  15. hypocrites! who among u here didn't even bother to try contraceptives, unless of course you're a celibate or maybe a virgin! even some priests do! look at the mirror and say "i am clean!" then you now are GOD!

    many of u said the bill is only a replication of so many laws already in place, so there is it, there's no need to vehemently oppose such proposal for anyways the provisions have already been made legal by previous laws... have you even tried asking the "true" poor on their stand about this one? i think u haven't because if you do, you'll surely get embarrassed upon knowing that it is a necessity for them, a help that neither the catholic church nor the anti-RH society could offer 'em! get real pipol!

  16. to carlos antonio palad:

    you worked with the poor sir? where? you really talked to mothers about family planning? LIAR! nobody in the church talks to the faithful about natural family planning method, for them it's a just another kind of joke. i have been living my whole life in several parishes along with some priests who're my relatives, but i havent witness any of the clerics speak of fam.planning..

    and, does the church really helps the poor? hahaha you're joking, most of our parishes are there only to castrate the pipol their hard-earned money. rather, there's always the fund-raising campaigns by the catholic church for the "so-so charity projects" but where really does the money go? hahaha... go check you bishops, your priests, they are among the richest in the neighborhood. tsktsk.

    i am catholic a faithful but the masks most of our bishops are wearing can't fool me! i am a witness for 23 years!

  17. To the last anonymous:

    Anyone, even an atheist pro-RH propagandist, can say the things you've said behind the veil of anonymity. It's as if we in the pro-life movement aren't aware of the other side's tactics!

    Your statement is the best proof that you are lying and that you don't know what you're talking about, because if you really live with priests and with the Church, you'd know that family planning isn't even supposed to be taught by clerics, but by trained laypersons.

  18. "hypocrites! who among u here didn't even bother to try contraceptives, unless of course you're a celibate or maybe a virgin! even some priests do! look at the mirror and say "i am clean!" then you now are GOD!"

    Unlike you, I believe -- and I've seen -- genuine goodness and holiness in my life. God be praised. And I don't look upon people as sex-driven animals. Have you heard of "projection"? Your statement says more about you than about the Church.

  19. accept the truth mr. palad. don't be blinded by your stand.. priests are among the richest in your society... some have even fathered their own children, and you cant hide them... stop speaking for the poor for you don't belong... everytime you encouter people who disclose every scandal of the church, you easily tagged them as atheist, or at the very least dirty-tactic anti-rh propagandists.. hahaha. loser!

    why do pipol hide in anonymity everytime they say something bad about the church? it's because the priests have the power to level extraordinary sanctions to anyone who does not believe in their evil whims clothed in so-called "causes/crusades".. what do they do to Pnoy because of his stand on the issue? of course, threaten him!

  20. He who knows he knows is wise. Follow him. Follow Carlos Antonio Palad because he speaks the truth.

  21. you must not be selective in pointing out the truth... you must not only see the bright side for its sheer light can always blind you.. take a look also of the dim for maybe you'll find the real truth hiding in one dark corner.

  22. Second-to-the-last anonymous, you said:
    "why do pipol hide in anonymity everytime they say something bad about the church? it's because the priests have the power to level extraordinary sanctions to anyone who does not believe in their evil"

    Interesting response. Given that so many Pinoys have been attacking the Church on social networking sites and other websites, radio, TV and the papers openly and with impunity -- and doing so without the veil of anonymity -- this assertion is rather exaggerated, to put it mildly. Where is the "powerful Church"? It can't even shut the INC down.

    "accept the truth mr. palad. don't be blinded by your stand.."

    On the basis of writing style alone, I think that my more intelligent readers can discern who between the two of us is blind.

    "priests are among the richest in your society... some have even fathered their own children, and you cant hide them..."

    No one's hiding them. If the Church hid them, then how come society knows about them?

    "stop speaking for the poor for you don't belong..."

    I don't speak for the poor. I just help them.

    "everytime you encouter people who disclose every scandal of the church, you easily tagged them as atheist, or at the very least dirty-tactic anti-rh propagandists.. hahaha. loser!"

    EVERY scandal of the Church? Easy there, I don't think you even know my record. People of faith and good will who courageously expose wrongdoing in the Church for the sake of the Church have a friend in me, but not those who make generalizing judgments and sweeping rhetoric to cover up for the poverty of their reasoning. People like you.

  23. Mr Palad,

    You glorify the Lord with the work you do. Reading this thread, I am encouraged that a good seed has at least been planted in the minds of your detractors. I pray that the Holy Spirit will complete the work you are a part of. To all Pro-RH Anonymouses, review the thread of this discussion and pray for humility. Name-calling and throwing insults when you are unable to argue well betrays your intentions. And they are at best misguided.

  24. Louis Limjoco MDMay 29, 2011 at 10:14 PM

    Yes,the use of mere words such as "contraceptives" and "Reproductive Health Bill" to prove the point that these pills ONLY prevent conception and that the bill ONLY promotes reproductive health and ignoring all the facts and scientific data? Its so obvious where logical reasoning lies. There is also a difference between debating and rationalizing.

  25. I failed to read the entire article of Fr. Bernas but I was able to read all the threads in this particular blog item. I find the analysis of Atty. Noche particularly interesting given my direct involvement in the implementation of NFP-RPM program at the local level during the Arroyo administration. (I agree with your (CAP) assessment that Mrs. Arroyo supports NFP program over and above the other "alternative" and I further agree with you that laypersons-mostly marriage couples-"teach" or communicate NFP among those wishing to receive the sacrament of matrimony in the parishes.) Now that the present administration is bullish in implementing its Aquino Health Agenda (AHA) and the shifting of its orientation from NFP-RPM to RP-FP is becoming manifest, I find myself in a predicament of going back to my people to communicate to them the "good news" about "DIDO" (short for FP methods which are categorized into Drugs, Injectable, Devices and Operations).

    Communicating NFP to the poor is a hard thing to do. It's a tedious process that demands the full cooperation of marriage couples. Even then it has both contraceptive and non-contraceptive benefits that are lacking in the DIDO shortcut:
    1. It can be used to avoid or achieve pregnancy;
    2. It has no method-related health risk;
    3. No systemic side-effects;
    4. Inexpensive
    5. It can improve knowledge on reproductive system;
    6. It can develop closer relationship among couples; and
    7. It can increase male involvement in family planning.

    But it seems that there are other players getting impatient taking the hard way. So they opt for the "straight way."

    The poor can hardly distinguish pet programs by various administrations. They just recognize and remember that at one time, the government gave them pills to take for free without being informed of their side effects then at another occasion engaged them in a seminar on NFP and while still learning the art of it and adjusting to discipline their urge, left them hanging with another priority program to swallow. They were the ones who were told to raise "golden kohol" and "african hito" and who were proffered with the "sweet harvest" of synthetic fertilizers and are now being taught to go organic again.

    They have no choice but to accept what the government proffers. After all they are used to receiving dole outs. Just like the current Conditional Cash Transfer and my neighbors, Antonio and Joy...(in my blog at

    I do not pretend to speak for the poor. I just happen to have interacted with them, not jut once, I can assure you that. I just happen to be neighbor to them.

  26. Why do proRH people tend to focus on personalities and not the issue? Most antiRH people have compelling arguments but sadly most proRH individuals refuse to present a counter-argument but start calling names. They attack the church and Bishops for being narrow-minded, but they fail to realize that the primary duty of our Church leaders is to tell us the TRUTH based on God's teachings, whether we agree to what they say or not, they are not here to please us but to serve God, which we should also do. We cannot be a member of a Church and not fully understand its teachings and what it stands for.

    The RH Bill sends the wrong message and teaches the wrong values. Instead of educating people that sex is a sacred thing and is an expression of love between husband and wife, it indirectly undermines one’s ability to think and to practice self control because no matter how much the RH Bill advocates sugar coat their words this is essentially how I understand the things that they are saying to me:
    “You are an animal so we understand we cannot expect you to control your desire to have sex, to remain faithful to your other half, or to wait until your married to have sex… but you have to understand if you have sex whenever, wherever and to whoever you like you might end up having a child and that is a nuisance especially if you are single or if you are having an affair… so here is what we are offering you. The government will provide you with contraceptives – condom, pills, IUD, name it we will give it to you, so that you can have all the sex that you want, so that you don’t even have to think twice before engaging in sexual activity. After all like we said you are an animal and it is impossible for you to suppress your instinct so we will give you a law that TOLERATES your animalistic tendencies.

    The Church teaches you to wait, but it’s extremely difficult, right? How can they possibly expect you to control your urges? And if you use natural family planning method you cannot have sex whenever you feel like having it, you need to be responsible and mature enough to pull it off... whoa! Again being responsible and mature? That takes a lot of thinking and will power, how can you.. AN ANIMAL be responsible and mature? It cannot be done so we are giving you the best alternative, the law for animals, the law that is pure pleasure and free from responsibilities, what more can you want?”

  27. GOD gave us everything we have, it is such a blessing to have a child and I think it is my right as to how many children I want to have anyway its my own problem as to how will I Educate them and the government can do nothing to help us. I refused to use any contraceptive because some of our family members were using this artificial contraceptive and ends in cemetery. They were not even given a chance to see their kids grow up and walk then in the aisle. We get sick out because of the wrong information that we get from the companies making products so why believe them? Bear in mind, most of these BIG COMPANIES WERE SUPPORTING THE CHURCH OF SATAN, AND SO AS SOME OF OUR LAW MAKERS! So we better watch out, we better act now... Lets pray for enlightenment from GOD that these evil doers be enlightened and change their mind for the common good and FOR OUR SOLE CREATOR JESUS CHRISTS' FATHER...

  28. fight rh bill, my arse

  29. This is how I understood RH bill:
    RH bill uses contraceptives. Pills and condoms. It doesn't legalize abortion. We can say, it may increase the rate of premarital sex, BUT that is not the bill's objective. Clearly, it is not a perfect bill. But in the other hand, did you ever think that the other bills and laws currently implemented in our country are perfect? For example, there's a law that says if you kill a person, you will be sent to jail but then, there are still killers. IN SIMPLE WORDS: It's still people's choice what path they would take. RH bill only gives people advice and OPTIONS in life whether they'll use it properly and they would benefit correctly or they'll abuse the benefits of the bill and would not help our economy.
    If the RH bill will be implemented or not, it's still upto us how we will live our lives through our own belief and faith.