The Catholic Position on the RH Law

This is an archive for open letters and declarations, illustrations, treatises, opinion pieces, interviews and videos that support the orthodox Catholic position on the so-called "Reproductive Health Law" passed by the Philippine Legislature and signed into law in December 2012. (NB: Inclusion of a given piece in this blog-archive neither necessarily signifies the blog owner's agreement with all of its assertions, nor does it mean that he endorses it as completely accurate or precise.)

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Comparison of the previous (HB 5043) and current (HB 96) versions of the RH Bill

Dr. Quirino Sugon has posted a detailed comparison of the previous and current version of the Reproductive Health Bill on his blog, Monk's Hobbit.

Comparison of Reproductive Health Bills 5043 and 96 with annotations by Fr. Melvin Castro

Why not just support HB 13?

Better bill to swallow

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away)

By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)

Updated October 08, 2010 12:00 AM

So many legislators are outhustling each other in resurrecting their own versions of the oft-“aborted” RH bill because it is the center of media attraction. Obviously they are riding on the perceived presidential support and the rude behavior or other “noises” created by its ignorant and misinformed backers in the streets.

Before our legislators are carried away by the frenzy surrounding this controversial RH bill, it may be advisable for them to go over their legislative records of bills filed. Here they will find House Bill No. 13 introduced by the Hon. Roilo S. Golez without so many hullabaloos. It is entitled “An Act providing for the Safety and Protection of the Unborn Child and for Other Purposes” and it certainly has more significance and greater impact on the lives of our people, our families and our culture.

As explained by Congressman Golez, the Philippines has one of the most comprehensive Constitutions for the protection of human rights. It even mandates that the State shall equally protect the life of the mother and of the unborn child from conception. Yet since its adoption 23 years ago in 1987, no law has been enacted to implement this constitutional provision. HB 13 thus aims to remedy the oversight by recognizing and extending the mantle of legal protection to the basic right to life of the unborn child equally with the right to life of the mother. It is based on the truism that the right to life is the most fundamental of all rights from which all other rights are derived, including the women’s reproductive rights, and without which such other rights are meaningless.

For this purpose HB 13 has clarified and defined the meaning of: (1) conception, as the precise moment when the sperm fertilizes the egg which is when a new life is formed, with a genetic make-up distinct from the parents; (2) unborn child, as a child at any stage of existence and development beginning from the union of the sperm and the egg until the birth ; (3) implantation, as referring to that stage of the development of the human life taking place around five days after conception when the fertilized egg is implanted in the ovum; (4) fetal development, as the scientifically established development process of the beginning of human life from the union of the egg and the sperm until birth of the child during which changes occur from fertilization, implantation, six weeks embryo, six months fetus until the infant is brought out of the womb; (5) abortion, as any act or practice done intentionally or unintentionally such as hilot or abdominal massage, administration of certain medicines or herbal concoctions, suction, hysterectomy, saline injection, various formulation of the morning after pills Levonorgestrel or other similar means or device, substances whether used singly or in combination with other substances that cause or recklessly endanger or result in injury, damage, expulsion, interference in the natural development of the fetus, or the death of the unborn child; and (6) abortifacient, as any device, medicine, substance, practice which may damage, injure, interfere or recklessly endanger or cause the expulsion of the fetus or death of the unborn child.

In conjunction with its declared policy that the State recognizes the Filipino family including the unborn child as the foundation of the nation, HB 13 bestows and attaches human personality to an unborn child from the moment of conception thereby entitling it to possess and enjoy all human rights conferred by law to other persons, first and foremost of which is the right to life, safety and protection while still in the mother’s womb. On the other hand to strengthen the solidarity of the family, the bill expressly recognizes the rights of parents of a minor with an unborn child superior to that of the State in all matters involving said unborn child and the mother, particularly the right to give consent to any decision or disposition relating to the unborn child at any stage of development.

One of the objectives of the bill is also to enhance the health of the mother by avoiding means that may adversely affect the viability of the unborn child at any stage of development. Hence HB 13 prohibits abortive acts that include using, administering, dispensing, injecting and delivery by whatever means, of “abortifacients”. These prohibited acts, as well as the act of abortion itself are penalized by the bill one degree higher than the penalties provided in Articles 255 to 259 of the Revised Penal Code.

HB 13 should therefore be prioritized over the RH bill. The sponsors of the RH bill should support this bill if they are really against legalizing abortion as they openly profess. In fact if HB 13 is passed, the RH bill may no longer be necessary.

HB 13 already takes care of some aspects of the women’s reproductive health by prohibiting abortive acts and abortifacients. The Department of Health, on the other hand can take care of the other aspects contemplated by the RH bill without even enacting it into law. The millions intended to purchase contraceptives, can be used for improving the medical services given to mother and child and for maternal and child care.

Actually foreign groups are pushing for the RH bill to control our population on the pretext that overpopulation is the cause of poverty in the land. This is a myth. There is no overpopulation in our country but only overconcentration of population in some areas. Our population is increasing only because we still have men and women of reproductive age but our population growth rate is already decreasing as shown by the US CIA statistics. Besides overpopulation is not the cause of poverty but the inequitable distribution of the country’s wealth and resources. Only the rich and the corrupt government officials are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. Whatever happened to the campaign slogan kung walang corrupt walang mahirap?

HB 13 is therefore the better bill to swallow. It should be immediately enacted into law.

* * *

E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net

A Response to the Jesuit "Talking Points" on the RH Bill

Nagging questions

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away)

By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)

Updated November 08, 2010 12:00 AM

The “talking points and proposals” advanced by the Loyola School of Theology and the John J Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues supposedly for the use of the proponents and opponents of the RH bill in formulating an amended version that will serve the best interest of the Filipinos may be useful in the dialogue between CBCP and PNoy. But they also contain some objectionable aspects.

In this connection let me just share with you this e-mail I receive a few days ago which I think properly and adequately tackle pertinent portions of these talking points and proposals particularly on contraception and conception. The letter comes from Mr. Jose Teodoro Sagalo who describes himself as one who is “old and will die one of these days” but does not “want to leave this world without doing something about the grave error that the Loyola School of Theology has posted in the Ateneo website endorsed earlier by Fr. Nebres, Ateneo President, for reflection, and now endorsed by Roberto Rivera of the John Carroll Institute”.

Mr. Sagalo singled out the proposal which says that “there can be two separate parallel programs for providing information and training, one for Natural Family Planning (NFP) and another for artificial methods of family planning (with separate budgets)” . The proposal is justified by its authors with the following statement: “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority. Thus it is the duty of the government to provide correct and comprehensive information on all non-abortifacient (as defined by law) family planning methods that are available”.

To Mr. Sagalo, such statement clearly means that “a Catholic School of theology has actually proposed in public, the use of tax payers’ money to train Filipinos to employ methods that are objectively and intrinsically evil”. To back up his claim, Sagalo cited empirical evidence “provided almost entirely by secular or explicitly anti Catholic social scientists willing to follow data where they may lead”. These data show the damaging effects of contraceptives, whether abortifacient or non-abortifacient, among which are the “general lowering of moral standards throughout society, a rise in infidelity, a lessening of respect for women by men and the coercive use of reproductive health technologies” like the forced abortion and sterilization practice in China, wrote Mary Eberstadt a research fellow of the Hoover Institution.

The findings also reveal the “causal link between contraception and abortion” because even if the contraceptives are “non-abortifacient”, they may still fail and result in unwanted pregnancies forcing women especially the unmarried ones to abort their babies. This social scientist (Lionel Tiger) also confirmed through the data he has gathered that all sorts of contraceptives cause “breakdown of families, female impoverishment, trouble in the relationship between the sexes, and single motherhood”.

Then another social scientist who is an atheist and Nobel Prize winner (George Akerlof) confirmed through data he himself gathered, that contraceptive culture has caused increase “in both illegitimacy and abortion”.

Thus, as a citizen Mr. Sagalo denounces this type of proposal as it will “bring irreparable harm” and “will destroy our country”. Then as a Catholic, citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says that: “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes as an end or a means, to render procreation impossible, is intrinsically evil”, he likewise denounces this “grave doctrinal error” of a Catholic School of Theology and asks the Pastors of the Church to do something about it.

Another error in the talking points singled out by Mr. Sagalo is about conception which has been “popularly understood as the moment of fertilization…even if medical literature seems to see conception as the moment of implantation”. With such statement, the impression created is that the meaning of conception is merely a constitutional provision that has not been scientifically and medically proven. So it seems to be laying the groundwork to justify the use of contraceptives even after fertilization of the ovum by the sperm but before implantation. Hence women have been emboldened “to continue using contraceptives that are abortifacient because anyway the embryo is only human according to popular understanding and according to law but not according to science.

Yet even the Oxford Medical Dictionary of 2002 has defined conception as the start of pregnancy, when a male germ cell (sperm) fertilizes a female germ cell (ovum) in the fallopian tube. The medical textbook of T.W. Sadler which has been “long respected for its scientific authority, pedagogy, and clinical relevance to medical education”, also states that “the development of a human begins with fertilization. Then also, the Official US Senate Report on the Human Life Statute of 1981 says that: “Physicians, biologists and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being — a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological and scientific writings”.

With all these empirical evidence and scientific proofs confirming the harmful and evil effects of contraceptives to individuals and to society, some legislators and even theologians still insist on this bill granting the freedom to choose and use them for family planning provided there is proper information and training. Why? What is in it for them?

Talking Points for Reproductive Health Bill

We post this article on this blog for the sake of completeness in our presentation of various Catholic responses towards the RH Bill that do not involve any explicit rejection of Catholic doctrine. We do this with serious reservations about the soundness of this article, and with the intention of also airing the side of those Catholics who see deficiencies in the proposed talking points.

Talking Points for the Reproductive Health Bill

Below is a paper issued jointly by the Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute on State and Church Issues. This paper is intended to stimulate meaningful and thoughtful dialogue on the Reproductive Health Bill (HB 96). Kindly read, reflect, and repost.

Thank you.

Roberto E. N. Rivera, S.J.

John J. Carroll Institute on Church & Social Issues Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights

1108 Quezon City, Philippines

Tel: +63-2-426-6001 local 4657

Fax: +63-2-426-6070

------------------------------

Talking Points for Dialogue on the Reproductive Health Bill (HB 96; filed July 1 , 2010)

Issued jointly by Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues

Authors: Fr. Eric O. Genilo, S.J., Fr, John J. Carroll, S.J., and Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.

The polarization of Philippine society over the Reproductive Health Bill has been a source of discouragement and discontent among Filipinos. It is unfortunate that the debate has focused only on whether the Bill should be passed or rejected in its present form. Either option would not be good for Filipinos. The Church sees in the proposed Bill serious flaws that can lead to violations of human rights and freedom of conscience. It would not be acceptable to pass it in its present form. Total rejection of the Bill, however, will not change the status quo of high rates of infant mortality, maternal deaths, and abortions. It is a moral imperative that such dehumanizing conditions should not be allowed to continue. What is needed is a third option: critical and constructive engagement. By working together to amend the objectionable provisions of the Bill and retain the provisions that actually improve the lives of Filipinos, both the proponents and opponents of the Bi ll can make a contribution to protection of the dignity of Filipinos and an improvement of their quality of life.

The following are talking points and proposals for dialogue and negotiation on the objectionable portions of the Bill:

The Protection of Human Life and the Constitution

. The Church insists on protection of human life upon fertilization. The question to be answered by the State is if this is the same position it will take regarding the protection of human life.

. The Philippine Constitution says that the State will protect the life of the unborn upon conception. It is not specified in the Constitution whether conception means fertilization or the implantation of an embryo in the womb. The Constitutional Convention seemed to favor fertilization. The definition of conception will have a bearing whether contraceptives that prevent the implantation of embryos would be legally allowed or not. This definition of conception in the Constitution must be worked out both by medical and legal experts in order to determine the parameters of what reproductive services can be provided by the Bill.

Contraceptives that prevent the implantation of embryos

. At the center of the controversy regarding abortion and the RH Bill are IUDs and other contraceptive medications and devices that may have the possible effect of preventing the implantation of an embryo, which for the Catholic Church, is considered an abortifacient effect. [Contraceptives without abortifacient effects are treated differently in church teaching. They are forbidden for Catholics but other religious traditions allow them.]

. Proposal: The State first has to make a clear position whether it considers the prevention of implantation of an embryo as an abortion. If the State takes this position, there must be a careful and scientifically based evaluation of each of the medicines and devices provided by the Bill. Those contraceptive medicines and devices which are determined to have abortifacient effects are to be banned even now and regardless of whether the RH Bill is passed or not.

Age Appropriate, Value-Based, Integral Human Sexuality Education

. The mandatory nature of the sexuality education curriculum proposed by the Bill is a concern for the Church because it would compel Catholic educators to teach parts of the curriculum that may be unacceptable for Catholics. The Church is also concerned that the parents' right to decide on the education of their children would be denied by such a mandatory curriculum for all schools.

. Proposal: For the purpose of protecting academic freedom and respecting religious traditions, should not the right of religious schools to write and implement their own sexuality education curriculum according their religious traditions be respected? For public schools and non-religious private schools, an appointed panel of parent representatives, educators, experts in child development and psychology, medical experts, and representatives of religious traditions can write the sexuality education curriculum and the DEPED can monitor the implementation. Parents with children in public schools should have the right to have their children exempted from the sexuality education class if the curriculum is not acceptable to them. The Constitution allows religious instruction in public schools only if the parents consent in writing. Should a similar provision be enacted relative to sexuality education? The Bill must also respect the conscientious objection of individual educators who refuse to teach a sexuality curriculum that violates their religious beliefs.

Providing Reproductive Health Information and Services for a Multi-Religious Society

. Even if the majority of the population of the country are Catholics, our democratic system should ensure that public polices are not determined solely by majority vote but also by a careful consideration of the common good of all, including non-Catholics.

. The Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church rejects any imposition of norms by a majority that is discriminatory of the rights of a minority: (#422) "Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups;" (#169): "Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority."

. It is the duty of various religions to teach their faithful and form their consciences about what their religious tradition allows and prohibits with regard to family planning. It is the duty of the government to provide correct and comprehensive information on all non-abortifacient (as defined by law) family planning methods that are available. Consciences will thus be better equipped to make informed choices according to their religious traditions.

. Proposal: There can be two separate parallel programs for providing information and training, one for NFP and another for artificial methods of family planning (with separate budgets). The separation of the programs will ensure that NFP will get adequate funding and those trainers who wish to teach only NFP for religious reasons will not be forced to teach artificial methods. The conscience of health workers and trainers should be respected. If a Catholic health worker or trainer conscientiously objects to teaching contraception methods, he or she should be allowed to teach only NFP methods.

Limits to the Anti-Discrimination Provision

. The current Bill prohibits the refusal of health care services and information based on a patient's marital status, gender or sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work. This provision must have parameters. For example, if a doctor refuses to administer an IUD to a minor who requests for it, would that be considered age discrimination?

. Should the provision apply equally to both in the public and private health care providers or shouldn't private practitioners have more leeway in practicing their medicine as they see fit?

Employers' Responsibility

. Employers should not be required to provide in their CBAs reproductive health services of their employees. To enforce this requirement would be a violation of the conscience of Catholic employers.

. Proposal: Such a provision is unnecessary because the general Philhealth medical coverage, which is mandatory for all employees, provides for such reproductive health services upon request of the employee. This allows employers with religious objections to contraceptives or sterilizations to avoid direct formal cooperation in the provision of such family planning methods to their employees.

Contraception as Essential Medicines in Government Health Centers and Hospitals

. The Church's objection to this provision is that it appears to treat pregnancy as a disease.

. Proposal: The question of whether contraceptives are essential medicines should be resolved by a panel of objective medical experts such as the Philippine Medical Association. What contraceptives actually prevent diseases? It would be helpful to be able to present cases where the use of a contraceptive is a medically indicated treatment for a particular disease or emergency situation. If some contraceptives are ultimately decided as essential or emergency medicines that should be stocked in government health centers and hospitals, no contraceptives with abortifacient effects are to be allowed.

Freedom of Speech

. Proposal: The Bill's provision that penalizes malicious disinformation against the intention and provisions of the Bill should be refined by a clear description of what constitutes "malicious disinformation," or failing that, the provision should be scrapped.

Implementing Norms

. Proposal: The committee to be in-charge of the Bill's implementing norms should have representatives from major religious traditions to ensure that the rights of people of various faiths would be protected.

The above proposals are intended to generate constructive and respectful dialogue leading to concrete actions that would correct the RH Bill. It is hoped that the parties involved in the RH debate would move away from hard-line positions and consider negotiations as a more positive step towards working for the good of all Filipinos, with special consideration for the unborn, the youth, women and families in difficult circumstances.

Finally, we can turn to the following Christian maxim as our guide in our search for answers and solutions regarding the RH Bill: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity." For things pertaining to protecting human life and dignity, we need to come to a consensus for the common good; for things that can be left to individual decisions without violating human life and dignity, we need to respect freedom of conscience of every Filipino both Catholics and non-Catholics; in all our discussions, we need to speak and act with charity and understanding as members of the same human family and community.

Atty Jose Sison on the Separation of Church and State

Atty. Jose C. Sison is, perhaps, the most indefatigable of all Filipino columnists is opposing anti-life and antifamily bills. He has written literally hundreds of articles defending various aspects of Catholic doctrine against the accusations and propositions of secularists, liberals and other champions of the culture of death. This blog intends to slowly, but surely, post his best and most informative writings regarding the RH Bill and similar matters.

Mistaken notion
A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away)
By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)

Updated October 18, 2010 12:00 AM

As P-Noy and the Catholic Bishops hold their dialogue on the RH bill, the violation of the principle of Church and State will surely be brought up anew. This is one of the mistaken notions persistently raised in this controversy simply because of ignorance as to its real meaning and intent; or because of the twisted interpretation given to it by the RH bill advocates who insist that the Church is intervening on purely political process of legislation when the Bishops and priests oppose the passage of said bill.

Church-State separation however is not about an imaginary wall built between the two institutions over and beyond which either of them cannot breach or pass through. It is actually a prohibition directed more against the State enjoining it from favoring or supporting any religion or Sect or the virtual putting up a State religion in violation of the freedom of religion clause also enshrined in our Charter (Section 5, Article III). In other words the imaginary wall here is built to prevent the State from using public funds or property to benefit or support any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution or system of religion or to prefer one religion over another.

The principle does not definitely enjoin the priests and pastors of any faith or religion from expressing their views or opposing any action or measure adopted by the State which they believe is morally wrong and spiritually harmful to the citizens. When the bishops and priests of the Catholic Church or the pastors of any other religious sect for that matter, express their moral opinion on said bill or on any other government action, they are not violating this principle. Branding the Catholic Bishops and priests as modern day “Padre Damasos” because they oppose the RH bill on moral grounds is therefore unfair and uncalled for.

Actually, a closer scrutiny of the RH bill that has been repeatedly introduced in Congress will readily show not only the morally but also the constitutionally objectionable portions. These are the coercive provisions of the bill that impose penalties for those violating them. In fact, there is even a penalty clause punishing those who oppose or express derogatory opinions on the bill. Undoubtedly this is unconstitutional as it runs counter to the freedom of speech and of expression guaranteed by our charter (Section 4, Article III).

More specifically the bill also impinges on the natural right and duty of parents in the education of their children (Section 4, Article III); the freedom of religion clause (Section 5, Article III); the right of the spouses to found a family according to their religious convictions (Section 3 (1), Article XV); the right of the families or family associations to participate in the implementation of policies and programs that affect them (Section 3 (4) idem); and of course the inviolability of marriage (Section 2, Article XV).

All these violation are best articulated by a position paper now circulating in the Internet coming from lay people from all sectors of society, not from the CBCP, setting forth the various reasons why they oppose the RH bill. For the information and guidance of the members of Congress, of P-Noy, and of every Filipino, the said position paper says:

As EMPLOYERS, we do not want to be compelled to provide free reproductive health care services, supplies, devices and surgical procedures (including vasectomy and ligation) to our employees, and be subjected to both imprisonment and/or a fine, for every time that we fail to comply. (Section 17 states that employers shall provide for free delivery of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers more particularly women workers. (Definition of Reproductive Health and Rights Section 4, paragraph g, Section 21, Paragraph c and Section 22 on Penalties)

As HEALTH CARE SERVICE PROVIDERS, we do not want to be subjected to imprisonment and/or a fine, if we fail to provide reproductive health care services such as giving information on family planning methods and providing services like ligation and vasectomy, regardless of the patient’s civil status, gender, religion or age ( Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Letter a, Paragraphs 1 to 5 and Section 22 on Penalties)

As SPOUSES, we do not agree that our husband or wife can undergo a ligation or vasectomy without our consent or knowledge. (Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Letter a, Paragraph 2)

As PARENTS, we do not agree that children from age 10 to 17 should be taught their sexual rights and the means to have a satisfying and sex life as part of their school curriculum. (Section 12 on Reproductive Health Education and Section 4 Definition of Family Planning and Productive Health, Paragraph b, c and d)

As CITIZENS, we do not want to be subjected to imprisonment and/or pay a fine, for expressing an opinion against any provision of this law, if such expression of opinion is interpreted as constituting malicious disinformation; ( Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Paragraph f and Section 22 on Penalties)

We also oppose other provisions such as losing our parental authority over a minor child who was raped and found pregnant (Section 21, a, no.3)

We also do not agree to the provision which reclassifies contraceptives as essential medicines (Section 10) and appropriating limited government funds to reproductive services instead of basic services (Section 23) Thus, we urge you to immediately stop deliberations on the bill and stop wasting taxpayers’ money.

Email us at jcson@pldtdsl.net

Population Control Does Not Reduce Poverty

Corruption, lack of education, and lack of opportunity cause poverty. The poor are victims of poverty, not the cause of poverty. House Bill 96 (HB96), more commonly known as the “Reproductive Health Bill,” blames poverty on the presence of too many poor people.

It focuses on “the problem of a bloated population and high and unwanted fertility”1 and proposes “family planning and mitigation of our population growth rate” as “allied components of the development agenda.”2 HB 96 seeks to establish a government-managed program of population management and demographic targets in the Philippines.

This policy is based on incorrect economics assumptions.3 Decades of study have shown there is no direct correlation between population growth rates and economic prosperity.4 In fact, population control policies have never been shown to mitigate poverty.5

Reproductive health policy should focus on improving maternal care by increasing skilled attendants and improved infrastructure that allows access to healthcare. Using the banner of “reproductive health” as a way to achieve demographic targets distracts from the real issues. Population control was not the key to prosperity for our Asian neighbors, but rather education and good, honest strategic planning.

We are opposed to House Bill 96 and call on legislators of the Philippines to reconsider support for this bill.

Signed by:

Andreas Widmer,
SEVEN Fund, USA

Angelo Bertolo,
Teacher, Italy

Barun Mitra,
Liberty Institute, India

Cecilia Feiler, PhD,
Economics Deparment,
University of Pennsylvania, USA

Charles Paternina,
Managing Director, Faber Advisors, USA

Christopher Grizzetti,
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, USA

Duncan Maxwell Anderson,
President, High Tor Media, USA

Duncan Sahner,
Abdiel Capital, USA

Franklin Cudjoe,
Executive Director, Imani Institute, Ghana

George Weigel,
Distinguished Senior Fellow,
Ethics and Public Policy Center, WDC

Greg Pfundstein,
Executive Director, Chiaroscuro Foundation, USA

John Donogue,
Partner, Thomas Auslander and Drohan, USA

Kevin Mackin,
President, Mt. St. Mary’s College, USA

Kofi Bentil,
Lecturer in Business Strategy, Ghana

Lord Alton of Liverpool,
Convenor, All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Dignity

Mahamadou Sinte,
Executive Director, CEDAH Burkina, Burkina Faso

Mary Ann Glendon,
Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard University, USA

Parth Shah,
President, Center for Civil Society, India

Pratik Chougule,
Yale Law School, USA

Rob Murphy,
Developer, USA

Robert George,
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence,
Princeton University, USA

Roy Cordato, PhD,
VP for research and resident scholar,
The John Locke Foundation, USA

Sean Fieler,
General Partner, Equinox Partners, USA

Thomas Lickona, PhD,
State University of New York (Cortland), USA

Thompson Ayodele,
Executive Director,
Initiative for Public Policy Analysis, Nigeria

Timothy Flanigan,
Professor of Medicine, Brown University, USA

Yavnika Khanna,
Liberal Youth Forum, India

*Institutional affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.

Notes:

1 House Bill 96, explanatory note section, page 3.

2 House Bill 96, explanatory note section, page 2.

3 David E. Bloom, David Canning, Jaypee Sevilla, “The Demographic Dividend: A New Perspective on the Economic Consequences of Population Change,” RAND Corporation, 2003, 17.

4 Matthew Connelly, Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2008. 374-75. (Citing data from UNESCO Institute for Statistics and the UN Population Division).

5 Lant H. Pritchett, “Desired Fertility and the Impact of Population Policies,” Population and Development Review 20 (1994): 1-55

Source: A Better Bill

Science Facts on the RH Bill

Science Facts on the RH Bill -- in Plain Language, written by Raul Nidoy, is now available on Scribd.

Monday, November 15, 2010

WHY WE ARE AGAINST THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL

This was originally written against the older version of the Reproductive Health Bill, and included a petition against it. We are posting it here for informational purposes, and because the salient points of this open letter are still relevant. I am posting it here from the blog of Adrian Sison of Ang Kapatiran.

Opposition against the RH Bill is mainly because:

1. AS EMPLOYERS, we do not want to be compelled to provide free reproductive health care services, supplies, devices and surgical procedures (including vasectomy and ligation) to our employees, and be subjected to both imprisonment and/or a fine, for every time that we fail to comply. (Section17 states that employers shall provide for free delivery of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers more particularly women workers. (Definition of Reproductive Health and Rights Section 4, paragraph g, Section 21, Paragraph c and Section 22 on Penalties)

2. AS HEALTH CARE SERVICE PROVIDERS, we do not want to be subjected to imprisonment and/or a fine, if we fail to provide reproductive health care services such as giving information on family planning methods and providing services like ligation and vasectomy, regardless of the patient’s civil status, gender, religion or age ( Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Letter a, Paragraphs 1 to 5 and Section 22 on Penalties)

3. AS SPOUSES, we do not agree that our husband or wife can undergo a ligation or vasectomy without our consent or knowledge. (Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Letter a, Paragraph 2)

4. AS PARENTS, we do not agree that children from age 10 to 17 should be taught their sexual rights and the means to have a satisfying and “safe” sex life as part of their school curriculum. (Section 12 on Reproductive Health Education and Section 4 Definition of Family Planning and Productive Health, Paragraph b, c and d)

5. AS CITIZENS, we do not want to be subjected to imprisonment and/or pay a fine, for expressing an opinion against any provision of this law, if such expression of opinion is interpreted as constituting “malicious disinformation” ( Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Paragraph f and Section 22 on Penalties)

6. We also oppose other provisions such as losing our parental authority over a minor child who was raped and found pregnant (Section 21, a, no.3)

7. We also do not agree to the provision which reclassifies contraceptives as essential medicines (Section 10) and appropriating limited government funds to reproductive services instead of basic services (Section 23)

Thus, we urge you to immediately stop deliberations on the bill and stop wasting taxpayers money.

Friday, November 12, 2010

Ang pagbabalik...

Watch out for new posts in the coming days!

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Corazon Aquino's Proclamation 214: More Relevant than Ever Before

PROCLAMATION 214, 3 February 1988

Whereas, the UN Declaration on Rights of the Child provides that 'the Child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth';

Whereas, Section 12, Article 2 of the Constitution provides that it is the policy of the State to 'protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception';

Whereas, available statistics detail the frightening losses of innocent human lives by abortion; and

Whereas, in pursuance of the above constitutional mandate and in support of the UN universal declaration and in order to instill the same, as well as the value and sacredness of human life, in the minds and hearts of the Filipino people and thereby help reverse the above statistical trend, it becomes imperative to set aside a period of time for them to ponder and focus attention on their moral and constitutional obligations to protect human life or one's inherent right to life;

Now, Therefore, I, Corazon C. Aquino, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby declare the second week of February 1988 and every year thereafter as "Respect and Care for Life Week" under the auspices of the Department of Social Welfare and Development and Pro-Life Philippines, and other involved entities or organizations."

Posted in honor of Corazon C. Aquino (1933-2009), President of the Republic of the Philippines from 1986 to 1992, icon of Philippine Democracy, a true Catholic ruler. May the angels lead you to paradise!

NOTE TO ALL READERS

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Monday, November 15, 2010

Friday, November 12, 2010

Thursday, August 6, 2009