Juan Tamad nation

For those who thought that the RH bill was simply about "responsible parenthood":

From CBCP for Life:

RH proponents believe singles entitled to free contraceptives, reject anti-RH solon’s amendment

MANILA, Dec. 4, 2012—Based on the way legislators voted on proposed individual amendments on House Bill 4244 on Monday, many of the pro-RH solons have no qualms about enabling single men and women to benefit from taxpayer-funded contraceptives that the P3.7 billion measure seeks to provide to the public.

In a line-by-line process of going through the measure which ended at around 10:00 pm, Cebu Representative Pablo Garcia proposed several individual amendments pertaining to the insertion of phrases pertaining to the sanctity of the family and the protection of the life of the mother and unborn from conception.

However, it became clear that “responsible parenthood” was farthest from the minds of those who shot down the proposed amendment which would have included only married couples among the recipients of free birth control supplies and services.

In its current version, the “Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development Act of 2011” states in the Declaration of Policy (Section 2):

“The State recognizes and guarantees the exercise of the universal basic human right to reproductive health by all persons particularly of parents, couples and women, consistent with their religious convictions, cultural beliefs and the demands of responsible parenthood.”

Pangasinan Representative Kimi Cojuangco and Gabriela Representative Luzviminda Ilagan were among those who voted “no” to the amendment, with the former citing the presence of unmarried couples living together as an indication of the proposed revision’s unsuitability. Ilagan regarded the proposed amendment as “discriminatory” towards unmarried people.

“Now we can see that billions in taxpayers’ money will be used to give condoms and contraceptives to even high school kids. Wow, ang galing na ‘responsible parenthood’ bill ah!” said an observer after the six-hour session ended.

The tackling of amendments will continue today, with the session expected to run for many hours again, due to the enthusiasm with which RH bill proponents have pushed toward passage of the measure.

“It really seems that Pnoy provided much motivation for them to ensure that the bill is passed,” one university student remarked from outside the plenary hall, referring to the meeting between President Benigno Aquino III and his allies in Congress, which took place earlier that day. (CBCP for Life)

A redundant bill - 2

See also the following article: A redundant bill

Senator Pia Cayetano: REDUNDANT times 5

Willy Jose
(Published on June 7, 2011)

Earlier today, Senator Pia Cayetano delivered her sponsorship speech of the Senate version of the RH bill. In essence, she spells out 5 supposedly earth-shaking points up front of what the Senate version of the RH bill is all about. To cut it to the chaste, the 5 points she enumerated are as follows: 1) REDUNDANT; 2) REDUNDANT; 3) REDUNDANT; 4) REDUNDANT; and 5) REDUNDANT. However, she should be credited with a feel-passionate , heart-tugging sponsorship speech, but at the end of her melodramatic, long-winded speech there is only one conclusion to the discerning listener. Please bear with me for repeating it again for the umpteenth time : REDUNDANT.

Catholic bishop of Antipolo responds to Fr. Joaquin Bernas SJ

Published on the CBCP for Life website:

Defense of the Stand of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines on the House Bill 4244 (Reproductive Health Bill)

One of the main reasons, if not the main reason, why the Catholic Church is against the House Bill 4244 (Reproductive Health Bill or Responsible Parenthood Bill) is that the bill directs the government to promote contraception and to give free contraceptives to people. According to Father Bernas, SJ (Sounding Board, Philippine Daily Inquirer, May 23, 2011), this opposition of the Church is against religious freedom. He says that, because of religious freedom, “the state should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their beliefs nor may churchmen compel President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief.”

What will happen to our taxes when the RH bill passes?

2

Once more with feeling: the RH bill is unnecessary!

Published this morning on the website of the Philippine Star:

No need for the Reproductive Health Bill

By Davao City 1st District Rep. Karlo Nograles

There is no need for Congress to pass the Reproductive Health Bill. The proposed measure is unconstitutional, inappropriate, inimical to the interests of the Filipino people and unnecessary.

Notwithstanding Section 12, Article II of the Constitution, which mandates the State to protect the life of the unborn, the proposed Reproductive Health Bill seeks to prevent the life of the unborn by making the State the main provider of contraception and sterilization services, contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

Several contraceptives are abortifacients (cause abortion), because their mechanisms include preventing the proliferation of the endometrium (the uterine lining of the woman) so it will NOT be favorable for the implantation of any fertilized ova. The RH Bill seeks to give these abortifacients for free to Filipino women; this goes against the constitutional guarantee for the protection of the life of the unborn.

The RH Bill also seeks to require all individuals to set aside their religious beliefs and support with their tax monies an RH agenda that runs counter to those beliefs, contrary to the Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of religion. Under pain of imprisonment and/or fine, health professionals, health workers and other health service providers, as well as teachers and school administrators, among others, will be forced to perform services even if these go against their religious convictions and moral beliefs.

There are more important ways to spend taxpayers’ money. The State has no duty to use public money to cure pregnancy, which is NOT a disease. It is the State’s duty, however, to protect our people from real diseases, namely: heart diseases, vascular diseases, cancer, pneumonia, tuberculosis, respiratory diseases, diarrheal diseases, diabetes, pulmonary diseases, and the like. This is where we must spend our taxes for health.

On the issues of maternal death and infant mortality, these could be brought to zero by ensuring adequate basic and emergency obstetrics-care facilities and skilled medical personnel and health attendants all over the country. This is where our taxes must go.

Spending hard-earned taxpayers’ money on Population control will not be intelligent investment. Multiple studies have shown that there is no correlation between population growth and economic growth. There are countries with large populations that are prosperous. For our country to attain economic prosperity, government must spend on education and job generation. Besides, our country’s population growth rate and fertility rate have been steadily decreasing over the years, even without the RH Bill. This trend will continue naturally without massive government intervention, like the RH Bill.

The non-passage of the RH Bill will not prejudice nor have any adverse effect on any one. As it stands today, any person who wants to use contraception or sterilization in this country may do so, since everyone is free to use any method of birth control even now. Thus, it is unnecessary to enact an RH Bill.