By Jose C. Sison
Monday, September 5, 2011
Is there a sinister motive behind the RH bill?
By Jose C. Sison
By Jose C. Sison
Questionable indeed are the styles used in pushing for the passage of the RH bill. Right now, the glaring ones are the apparent lack of transparency or attempts to conceal or misrepresent its real nature and purpose, and the use of incorrect and outdated statistics.
It is really quite ominous that up to now, there is still a lack of transparency about the bill’s real purpose. Its authors and backers still would not admit categorically that it is designed to impose on our country the population control policy of developed countries, particularly the USA as bared in the declassified National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200, or the 1974 Kissinger Report which is currently implemented by a foreign assistance program dubbed as the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). This is the same policy backed up and funded by private foundations of American billionaires Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ted Turner and Packard as well as private NGOs particularly the International Planned Parenthood Federation of known abortionist Margaret Sanger, through which the USAID and other UN agencies funnel most of their funds.
Actually the RH bill itself uses the terminology “population management” instead of “population control” to dissimulate or feign its abovementioned purpose. Its authors also realize that population control is no longer necessary as the population growth rate has been steadily declining since the ’70s. But unfortunately in a rare moment of truth, one of its sponsors, Congresswoman Kimi Cojuangco of Pangasinan, nevertheless categorically admitted during an interpellation by Congresswoman Mitos Magsaysay, that the bill is indeed a means of population control, much to the chagrin of her co-authors. While she subsequently tried to play on words and claimed that the bill is not for population control but a “population measure”, its real purpose is now out in the open.
Another aspect of the RH bill where there is utter lack of transparency and obvious duplicity is its link to abortion. While the bill itself categorically provides that abortion is illegal, it is making available all sorts of contraceptives which cannot be totally dissociated with abortion. In fact some of the birth control pills have already been shown to directly cause abortion as they prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs or live embryo into the uterus.
Yet in an apparent attempt to justify the use of contraceptives, Senators Cayetano and Santiago, the sponsors of the RH bill in the Senate, have again revived the issue of when life begins. They are once more advancing the theory that life begins at the implantation of the fertilized egg into the uterus and not from the moment of conception or the fertilization of the egg by the sperm. They claim that this notion of life beginning at the moment of conception is one of religious belief only especially by the Catholic Church which is opposing the use of contraceptives.
Sad to say again that in this controversy, the RH bill proponents always end up dragging the Church and accusing it of trying to impose its rights and beliefs in a pluralistic society like ours. This issue however has nothing to do at all with religion. It is purely legal and has long been settled when the framers of the Constitution themselves accepted the scientific findings that life begins at conception, thus incorporating in our Charter a provision mandating the State to protect the life of the unborn child from the moment of conception (Article II Section 12). It is really unfortunate that Senators Cayetano and Santiago conveniently ignored or (deliberately?) veered away from this constitutional provision in their sponsorship of the RH bill promoting contraception.
For the nth time it has to be pointed out that no less than the US Supreme Court has acknowledged the link between contraception and abortion, not only because certain birth control pills and devices directly cause abortion, but also because the use of any kind of contraceptives invariably leads to or ends up in abortion. In fact, the Obama administration has openly admitted through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a US Congressional hearing that the terms “reproductive health, reproductive services and reproductive health rights” which are used in the RH bill, “include abortion or access to abortion”.
Most unfortunate however is the recent move of Malacanang changing the title of the bill to “Responsible Parenthood” Act, apparently to remove the taint of abortion associated with the term “Reproductive Health” and thus make it still look good. The title however is not as important as the contents. If the contents nevertheless provides for the use of contraceptives, then it is still about abortion. “Responsible parenthood” in its real sense does not involve the use of contraceptives.
Likewise dubious is the use of wrong and old statistics in pushing for bill’s passage. Its sponsors and backers repeatedly cite its importance in reducing the maternal mortality rate. They cite statistics showing that an average of 11 mothers die each day while giving birth. These figures however came out last 2004 yet. The latest ones show that only around four to eight women die daily while giving birth. In fact, the WHO statistics even show an average of only 4.6 maternal deaths each day. Moreover, the maternal mortality rate can be reduced by simply improving maternal and child health care which is the function of the DOH. There is no need for an RH bill to achieve this.
These dubious means of pushing for the RH bill’s passage somehow gives validity to the observation that there is some sinister motive behind it. Junking it therefore is the better move on the part of our legislators.