NOTE TO ALL READERS

Starting September 8, 2012, anonymous comments -- whether for or against the RH bill -- will no longer be permitted on this blog.
Showing posts with label Philippine Daily Inquirer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philippine Daily Inquirer. Show all posts

Monday, December 12, 2011

(UPDATED) IMPORTANT, HOT OFF THE PRESS! Congressman Pablo Garcia claims existence of massive lobby fund for the RH Bill

(The original post was published on December 5, 2011)

UPDATE AS OF DECEMBER 10, 2011:

Rep. Garcia says he can prove US lobby claims
Cebu Daily News
Friday, December 9th, 2011

AFTER claiming that some United States firms are lobbying for the passage of the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill in Congress, Rep. Pablo Garcia (Cebu 2nd district) said he could prove his claims.
He cited the National Security Study Memorandum-200 as his basis.

Garcia said that under that study, it was the interest- strategic and economic factors that the population growth of certain countries in the world was controlled.

It included the Philippines as one of the 13 countries with which their population growth must be controlled.
Garcia said that this was a top-secret document but was declassified in 1989 and published in 1990.

“Aid or any assistance to these countries are subject to a condition that they will institute some population control measures,” he said.

He also named Nigeria, Brazil, India and Bangladesh included in the 13 countries.

Garcia noted that these 13 countries belonged to the less developed ones.

He named USAID (United States Agency for International Development), World Bank and United Nations Population Fund Activities as some of the firms who have been implementing these measures.

“I have the records. I was waiting for them to ask me questions,” he said.

“I preferred to have their questions because actually there are countries and foreign institutions interested in the population control of other countries,” he added.

Garcia earlier accused his colleagues of being bankrolled by a US lobby and cited the P20-million lobby fund for the passage of the RH bill.

He named Minority Leader Edcel Lagman’s committee on population and development as the main vehicle of the US lobby.

Lagman, however, said that Garcia’s allegation was an old yarn and that it was an allegation with no proof. Correspondent Carmel Loise Matus


**************

From today's Philippine Daily Inquirer:

Philippine Daily Inquirer
Monday, December 5th, 2011

The oldest lawmaker in Congress has accused his colleagues of being bankrolled by a huge United States lobby in pushing for the adoption of a population control measure in Congress.

The privilege speech of Cebu Representative Pablo Garcia, 86, in which he claimed the existence of a P20 million to P50 million lobby fund for the passage of the reproductive health (RH) bill had prompted one of its proponents, Bayan Muna party-list Representative Teodoro Casiño, to ask whether the US government was indeed meddling in Philippine affairs.

“I think Congressman Garcia’s accusations are too serious to be ignored and we should look at this closely,” said Casiño in a phone interview.

Garcia said the US lobby’s main vehicle in Congress was the Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development led by Minority Leader Edcel Lagman.

“This committee is funded and maintained by foreign agencies and institutions in the service of a foreign power. This committee receives P20 million to P50 million a year from its foreign benefactors such as Usaid, Ford Foundation, Packard Foundation, United Nations Fund on Population and other institutions engaged in world population control.

“For several years and until 2009, this committee held office in the Batasan complex, whether in the north wing or south wing. Now it is holding office somewhere else after its presence in the Batasan complex was denounced by a member of the House on the floor,” said Garcia.

Garcia described the panel as the “unelected de facto committee on population.”

Some of the efforts of the US lobby to rush passage of the RH bill, he said, included referring the measure to the House committee on population and family relations instead of the committee on health (Garcia said the bill was not primarily about population); letting Lagman instead of the committee chairman, Biliran Representative Rogelio Espina sponsor the bill, and allowing the sponsors to take first crack at the floor debates on the bill.

Lagman did not return the Inquirer’s calls or text messages.

In his privilege speech last week, Garcia said he wanted to speak out against the “conduct of some of our colleagues that in my judgment raises questions of potential conflict of interest or the possible transgression of the boundaries of appropriate ethical conduct.”

Garcia said the United States was working to “seduce, manipulate or coerce” the state into passing the RH bill, or House Bill No. 4244, so that not even leftist and hyper-nationalist groups know that they had aligned themselves to the interest of a foreign power.

Garcia said the Philippines was only one of 13 countries that the US had targeted for “aggressive and coercive population control” using millions of dollars “ostensibly as benevolent funding assistance but actually in pursuit of its own global population-control strategy.”

Monday, May 30, 2011

"Colorful Rag" versus Pro-RH Rag

And YET ANOTHER response to the "Salve" controversy stirred up by the PDI.

LARGE POOR FAMILIES: ‘STRONG CASE’ FOR RH BILL?
From the "Colorful Rag" blog.

For a news article, the Inquirer’s ‘Salve’s life: A strong case for RH bill’ is sure opinionated. Sa title pa lang. And there’s nothing logical about it too.

If we’re going to be pilosopo about it, how would education on contraception and providing contraceptives help Salve now? As far as I know, the bill contains no provisions involving time travel, that would allow Salve to never conceive some of her eight kids. Nor does the bill provide a ‘Salve’s choice’ where she is burdened with deciding which of her spawn to have obliterated (RH bill advocates are implicitly saying that poor kids are of little value and better off never being born).

CONTINUE READING THIS ARTICLE.

Not even the poor deserve to be spayed or neutered

Another response to the "Salve" tearjerker from the Philippine Daily Inquirer:

"Petrufied" of Drawing Lines

The Philippine Daily Inquirer last Thursday came out with a front page story that detailed the life of a poor woman and her husband struggling to raise their eight children in poverty. I'm not linking the article here because I believe it's one of the worst the Inquirer has ever done, and it puts their motto, "balance news..." in jeopardy. I didn't take up journalism but I recognize a title seeping in bias when I read one. And on the front page with a miserable photo, too.

The reason I brought this up is that it was the core of a discussion my mother and I had that day; she thinking that in cases such as those, the RH bill should be beneficial, and I--very inarticulately--insisting that that woman does not need a freebie ligation but help in the form of better livelihood and education. I learned one thing from Mama that day, too; I learned that for some people, the RH measure is acceptable because it is hard to believe that the poor will ever change.

One of the things we can easily forget is that a person is a person no matter how much he makes, where he lives, how many limbs he's got, or in what stage of life he is. He has a heart, he has a mind, and if you're Christian, you know he is a child of God, therefore that he possesses the same dignity as any of the "better" folks out there.

No one, not even a poor person struggling to raise eight children, deserves to be neutered/spayed, because that is only done to cats and dogs. You do that to cats and dogs because if you don't they just multiply and get galis and spread diseases. People are not like that. People are better than that. We people can be taught, and we have a will, and besides, all of us at some point in our genealogy, were once dirt poor, too.

RH is not a solution to help people in poverty. It is a license to solve poverty by eliminating the poor. Not convinced?

FVR: “I think the philosophy of RH bill is that we must learn to produce quality people in this world instead of producing people who only end up as, say, beggars on the streets, scavengers, or sellers of cheap or prohibited items. This, I think, is the real valid argument in favor of the RH bill.” (May 18, 2011, PDI)

Makes you wonder what "quality people" are.

David versus Goliath: "People for Media"' versus Philippine Daily Inquirer on the "Salve" issue

Jun Daryl Zamora

I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts or to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis. I recognise the duty to air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly. -- The Journalist’s Code of Ethics, No. 1

THE Inquirer steps up its campaign for the passage of the RH bill — this time, in a front-page “news” article.

Kristine Felisse Mangunay’s article “Salve’s life: A strong case for the RH bill” (5/26/11) is an account of the woes of a 37-year-old woman living with her 64-year-old partner: her eight children. Generously sprinkled with vivid descriptions of Salve’s destitution, the article appears as a heart-rending argument against those who oppose the passage of the RH bill. “RH services would have prevented Salve’s poverty,” the article seems to cry.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Against pro-RH bias in the media


Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 05:35:00 11/29/2010


IN THE Reproductive Health (RH) bill debate, the Inquirer has trampled on hallowed journalism principles such as fairness and truthfulness.

While it is the Inquirer’s prerogative to favor the RH bill or not (it expressed support for the bill in at least one editorial), I believe that whatever its bias should not taint its reportage on the issue. It should bear in mind the first point of the Journalist’s Code of Ethics: “I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis.”

In dizzying near-consistency, the Inquirer in fact violated this first principle by depriving the public of adequate and well-explained information about the pro-life stand in the RH bill controversy. Contrast this fact with the newspaper’s abundant articles elaborating the pro-choice stance, while putting in good light pro-choice advocates and making villains out of pro-life crusaders. (For samples of biased Inquirer materials, visit www.peopleformedia.wordpress.com.)

In the interest of ethical journalism, I therefore plead with the Inquirer to dare to inquire with rigor and to present news as objectively as possible. I say “as possible,” because absolute objectivity in journalism is never possible. The Inquirer (and other media outfits) can, however, very well aim to at least keep on leash their biases behind (1) well-contextualized quotes from credible sources, (2) the equal presentation of both sides of an issue and (3) by clarifying data given them by sources, thereby avoiding misinterpretation and miscommunication (as happened in the news on the supposed threat to excommunicate President Aquino and the alleged acceptance by the Pope of condom use in the fight against AIDS). The Inquirer would also do well by being critical in the midst of the greedy and anti-life mindset being propagated by powerful Western secularists and ultra-liberalists.

Having been inspired by the Inquirer to take up journalism in college, I am hoping that the Inquirer, once the best newspaper in the country, would reclaim its original dignity and fulfill its vocation to serve truth, freedom and justice.

—JUN DARYL ZAMORA,
17 Maginhawa St., UP Village,
Diliman, Quezon City