Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Why the RH bill is actually bad for "free choice"
The following letter to the editor was published in PDI on September 19, 2011. It is not "totally anti-RH" but it decries state promotion of contraceptives, which lies at the heart of the RH bill.
There is only one way for one not to see the real score in the “highly controversial,” ever-burning, “difficult” issue of the Reproductive Health bill. And that is to close one’s eyes and insist on something that he deliberately wants to project in darkness or doesn’t want to accept in the light.
The bill’s proponents are emphatic on sidetracking the discussions and debates by singling out only the good and valid points of the proposed law. While those opposing it “to the end” dwell only on its bad points. Thus, the RH bill has become eternally “complicated” and has dragged Juan de la Cruz to boredom or purgatory.
But heaven sees both sides from both perspectives.
Free choice, yes, but let government have nothing to do with the funding and efforts to promote artificial contraception, otherwise there would no free choice; there would only be pushing the country’s populace (including children) to the brink of a “free fall.”
It is one thing to be confronted by a temptation brought about by unexpected circumstances, and it’s always a struggle to be in such strait. But it’s quite different to be helplessly and unwittingly “set up” by someone to confront temptations every which way you turn to every day.
How unfathomable that condoms and the like would someday be everywhere in every community just as the Gideon Bibles are widely being distributed at no cost. And it’s ominous that the “campaign-push” for the politically and internationally well-funded artificial contraceptives would be encroaching and would be incomparably much more aggressive and unstinting, for sure.
The battle must be drawn, but not between the pro and anti-RH bill.
—RENI M. VALENZUELA, firstname.lastname@example.org