A model law to protect unborn children, courtesy of Bgy. Ayala Alabang

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

CITY OF MUNTINLUPA

SANGGUNIAN BARANGAY OF AYALA ALABANG

BARANGAY ORDINANCE NO. 01

SERIES OF 2011

AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN CHILD WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF BARANGAY AYALA ALABANG; FIXING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATIONS, AND, FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Sangguniang Barangay of Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa City:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

This Ordinance shall be known as the Protection of the Unborn Child Ordinance of 2011.

SECTION 2. DECLARATION OF BARANGAY POLICIES

A. BARANGAY AYALA ALABANG (hereafter, the BARANGAY) upholds (a) the State’s recognition of the sanctity of family life and its obligation to protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution (Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution); (b) the duty of the State “to equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child from conception” (Ibid.) since the unborn is the family’s most vulnerable member, and, (c) the State’s identification of the Filipino family including the unborn child as “the foundation of the nation” and its pledge to “strengthen the family’s solidarity and actively promote its total development” [Article XV, Section 3 (1)];

B. The BARANGAY also adheres to (a) the State’s declared policy of “full respect for human rights” (Article II, Section 11), the most basic of which is the right to life for without it all other rights become meaningless; (b) the implicit Constitutional principle that the people’s right to life (Article III, Section 1) like that of the unborn child is an absolute value and norm that cannot be repealed by ordinary legislation;

C. The BARANGAY likewise supports the State’s recognition of (a) the right of children to proper care and nutrition, protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development [Article XV, Section 3 (2)]; (b) the vital role of the youth in nation building, and (c) its commitment to promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual and social well-being, and, (d) the role of women in nation-building, and, its pledge to ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men (Article II, Sections 13 & 14);

D. The BARANGAY as well (a) endorses the view that contraceptive pills and hormonal contraceptives and the IUD may kill children and injure the health of women who use them; (b) condemns the irresponsible and indiscriminate use of contraceptives as they undermine the solidarity of families by promoting premarital sex, giving rise to more fatherless children, more single mothers, more poverty, and more abortions when the contraceptives fail to prevent conception, and by causing a decline of legitimate marriages, and, (c) denounces the use of condoms as far as they promote and sanction immoral sexual congresses among the unmarried and especially among the young, thereby contradicting the Constitutional injunction that the State “shall promote and protect … the physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual and social well-being” of the youth;

E. The BARANGAY (a) acknowledges that the unborn possesses and enjoys all human rights like other persons by nature and by law and that he or she shall be entitled first and foremost to the right of life, safety and protection even as he or she may still be in his or her mother’s womb; (b) follows the mandate of the Constitution that the unborn child shall be protected from the moment of conception from all outside interventions, interferences or intrusions, including, but not limited to, intentional acts that may be medically considered as abortive whether through the use of chemicals, surgical or abdominal massage during the natural process of growth of the fertilized ovum, and (c) backs up the principle that the right of the parents over their minor daughters with unborn children is superior to that of the State in instances involving the safety, protection and welfare of the said unborn children and their mothers of minor age; and,

F. The BARANGAY lastly deduces from pertinent Constitutional tenets that since life begins at conception there is no place for the so-called “free choice” argument to justify compulsory sex education in the schools within its territorial jurisdiction that, among other things, disregards “the right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them” [(Article XV, Section 3 (2)] or that insidiously allows the State to take over “the natural and primary right and duty of parents” to rear their children “for civic efficiency and the development of (their) moral character” (Article II, Section 12 last sentence).

SECTION 3. OBJECTIVES

The ordinance has the following objectives:

(a) to promote the safety, protection, and, welfare of the unborn child from the moment of conception or fertilization and during all stages of development while inside the mother’s womb;

(b) to acknowledge the unborn child as a human being with human personality and to extend the mantle of legal protection to the child from the moment of his or her conception or fertilization;

(c) to mandate that the delivery of health services to the mother during pregnancy shall be done without prejudice to the unborn child;

(d) to ensure the continued well-being and good health of the mother by protecting her from any act or threat that may adversely affect the viability of the unborn child in all stages of the mother’s pregnancy and even after the child’s delivery;

(e) to encourage the legal, moral and healthy sexual relationships among those entitled thereto under the laws of the country and pursuant to the religious convictions of the couples concerned as mandated by the Constitution; and

(f) to support the Constitutional precept that the total development of the child is a primordial duty of both the parents and the State and its agencies, including the BARANGAY.

(g) to promote and provide effective and scientifically proven Natural Family Planning (NFP) services to married couples and those engaged to be married, because NFP, unlike contraceptives, strengthens rather than weakens the marriage bond between husband and wife, which is the foundation stone of the family, the foundation of the nation.

SECTION 4. DEFINITION OF TERMS

For purposes of the Ordinance, the following terms are defined as follows:

Unborn – refers to a child at any stage of his or her existence and development beginning from the union of the sperm and the egg until the birth stage;

Conception or Fertilization – refers to the time that the sperm fertilizes the egg, which starts a new life that has a distinct existence and genetic make-up of its own;

Implantation – refers to that stage of development of the fetal life which takes place around five days after fertilization when the fertilized egg is implanted in the ovum.

Fetal development – refers to the development process of human life from the union of the sperm and egg until the birth of the child.

Abortion – any act or practice whether done intentionally or unintentionally to endanger, cause or bring about the death, injury, damage, expulsion or interference in the natural development of the fetus or the unborn child such as through “hilot” (abdominal massage), administration of certain medicines or herbal concoctions, suction, hysterectomy, saline injection, hormonal contraceptives, intra-uterine devices (IUD’s) or other similar means or devices like vacuum aspirators or abortifacient substances whether used singly or in combination with other substances.

Abortive acts – abortion practiced by the woman herself or by her parents or guardians, physicians or midwives or pharmacists who dispense abortives in violation of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Articles 256-259).

Contraceptive – any device or drug that is intended or has the purpose or effect of preventing conception as a consequence of sexual intercourse.

Abortifacient – is any device, medicine, substance or practice which may damage, injure, interfere with the natural development, endanger or cause the expulsion or death of an unborn child; except for such devices, medicines, substances or practices which are standard medical treatments for medical conditions which threaten the life or physical health of a pregnant woman or an unborn child, when used to treat such medical conditions, and neither the primary effect nor purpose of such device, medicine, substance, or practice is to cause the termination of a pregnancy or prevent conception. Abortifacients include Intrauterine Devices (IUD’s), and hormonal contraceptives, as well as any and all other devices, medicines, substances or practices which fall within the foregoing definition, including but not limited to the list hereto attached as Annex A entitled as List of Hormonal Contraceptives. This list shall be updated from time to time as the need arises.

Human personality – refers to the status that is gained and attaches to an unborn child from the moment of conception.

Parental Right – refers to the right of parents to give or withhold consent when minors are involved in any decision or disposition relating to unborn children at any stage of their development in the wombs of their minor mothers.

SECTION 5. HEALTH SERVICE DELIVERY

All health services performed within the territorial jurisdiction of the BARANGAY including any other institution or person, whether natural or juridical, the Barangay Health Centers and any domestic health care institution, which is duly licensed and accredited and devoted primarily to the maintenance and operation of facilities for health promotion, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and care of individuals suffering from illness, disease, injury, disability or deformity, or in need of obstetrical or other medical and nursing care shall use only safe, ethical, effective, legal and non-abortifacient medicines or drugs or machines, devices or methods of treatment that do not cause abortion intentionally or unintentionally.

For the protection of the unborn and the institutions of marriage and family, no abortifacients shall be prescribed by health care providers within the territorial jurisdiction of the BARANGAY.

All funds which are budgeted or disbursed by the BARANGAY for programs to support responsible parenthood shall be used exclusively to promote and provide effective and scientifically proven Natural Family Planning (NFP) services to married couples and those engaged to be married.

The BARANGAY shall encourage, and where possible support, financially and otherwise, the establishment of one or more crisis pregnancy centers within the Barangay, to provide assistance in the form of counseling, and, if possible, medical and material support to women who are experiencing a crisis pregnancy.

SECTION 6. PROHIBITED ACTS

It is hereby declared illegal and unlawful for:

1. Any natural or juridical person to advertise within the territorial jurisdiction of the BARANGAY by billboards, brochures, leaflets, flyers or similar means or in any manner or form, sell, offer for free or endorse, promote, prescribe or distribute abortifacients as defined in Section 4. Definition of Terms.

2. Any person to subject an unborn child or his or her mother to acts that may endanger or expose the unborn child or mother to injury or death.

3. Any person to hold, conduct or teach compulsory sex education without prior consultation with, and written permission of, the parents or guardians of minor students in any school, public or private within the territorial jurisdiction of the BARANGAY;

4. Any funds of the BARANGAY to be used for the purchase or provision of contraceptives as defined in Section 4. Definition of Terms; and,

5. Either the BARANGAY or its employees or its agencies to solicit, accept or dispense contraceptives as defined in Section 4. Definition of Terms.

SECTION 7. REGULATED ACTS

The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 5921 entitled AN ACT REGULATING THE PRACTICE OF PHARMACY AND SETTING STANDARDS OF PHARMACEUTICAL EDUCATION IN THE PHILIPPINES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES enacted into law June 21, 1969 are hereby incorporated into the Ordinance as an integral part thereof and are reproduced as follows:

“Section 37. Provisions relative to dispensing of anti-conceptional substances and devices. No drug or chemical product or device capable of provoking abortion or preventing conception as classified by the Food and Drug Administration shall be delivered or sold to any person without a proper prescription by a duly licensed physician.

The pharmacist in charge of a drug store or pharmacy after filling a prescription containing abortive or anti-conceptional substance or devices shall record in a separate register book for abortives and anti-conceptionals, the following data;

(a) Number and date of the prescription;

(b) Name and address of the physician;

(c) Name, quantity and manufacturer of the drug;

(d) Name and address of the purchaser;

(e) Date of filling the prescription; and

(f) Signature of the pharmacist filling the prescription.

“Section. 41. Other penalties. Any pharmacist who shall violate any of the provisions of Sections twenty-eight, thirty, thirty-one, thirty-two, thirty-three, thirty-four, thirty-five, thirty-seven and thirty-eight of this Act or any pharmacist after his certificate of registration has been lawfully suspended or revoked, who continues to engage in the practice of pharmacy, shall, upon conviction thereof, be sentenced to a fine of not less than one hundred pesos but shall not exceed five hundred pesos or to an imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than four months, in the discretion of the court.

Any person other than citizens of the Philippines having been found guilty of any violation as provided for in this and the preceding section shall, after having paid the fine or having served his sentence or both when so required be also subject to deportation.”

In addition to the above provisions of Republic Act No. 5921, classifications of drugs or chemical products or devices that are abortifacients as defined in Section 4. Definition of Terms shall also fall under the regulatory provision of this Section.

SECTION 8. PENALTIES

(a) Any person found guilty for the first time of violating any provision of Section 6 of the Ordinance shall be fined in an amount not less than P1,000 but not exceeding P5,000; for the second offense, he or she shall be fined in the amount of not less than P5,000 and be imprisoned for not less than one month but not exceeding six months; and for the third and succeeding offenses, he or she shall be sentenced to an imprisonment for not less than six months but not exceeding one year. Violators of the Ordinance shall also be held civilly liable to the offended party.

(b) If the person violating any provision of the Ordinance is an employee of the BARANGAY, he or she shall also be dismissed from his or her office and shall thereafter be barred from holding any public office.

(c) If the person violating any provision of the Ordinance is a business enterprise, firm, company or corporation or an educational institution, its president, chief executive officer or any other person responsible for the management and/or operation of the enterprise in the BARANGAY, shall suffer the penalties provided for in Section 7. In addition, the BARANGAY permit to engage in business of the said business enterprise, firm, company or corporation or to operate a private educational institution in the Barangay shall be declared null and void.

SECTION 9. EXCLUSIONARY PROVISION

Acts already proscribed by the revised penal code or by any special law are excluded from the purview of the ordinance and shall be penalized pursuant to the provisions of the code or the applicable special law.

SECTION 10. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

If any provision of this Ordinance or part thereof is declared invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall remain valid and subsisting.

SECTION 11. EFFECTIVITY

Within three (3) days from the enactment of this Ordinance, the Sangguniang Barangay shall furnish copies thereof to the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Muntinlupa for review. If the Sangguniang Panlungsod fails to take appropriate action on the Ordinance within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof, the same shall be deemed approved. The Ordinance shall take effect upon the approval by the Sangguniang Panlungsod or as herein provided and after its posting at two conspicuous places, one at the entrance of the Barangay Hall of Ayala Alabang and another at a visible place accessible to the public in the BARANGAY for three (3) consecutive weeks and its publication in a newspaper of general circulation for one (1) week.

PASSED AND APPROVED, JANUARY 3, 2011.

SIGNED

ALFRED A. XEREZ-BURGOS, JR.

Punong Barangay

SIGNED

JOANNA CALUGCUG ALICE A. BACANI

Barangay Kagawad Barangay Kagawad

SIGNED SIGNED

MARIA CARMEN G. REYES MA. SOLEDAD M. TUGADE

Barangay Kagawad Barangay Kagawad

SIGNED SIGNED

MARIANO S.MANAS, JR. APOLINARIO R. DE LOS SANTOS III

Barangay Kagawad Barangay Kagawad

SIGNED

GIANCARLO A. NAZARIO JUAN ENRICO A. PARFAN

Barangay Kagawad SK Chairman

Attested by:

SIGNED

SANTOS A. RANCUDO

Barangay Secretary

Filipino Seminarians' detailed critique of the RH Bill

OFFICIAL STATEMENT ON THE PENDING BILL ON “REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT” (RH BILL) 

The Seminarians’ Network of the Philippines, Inc.

Context

1. More than a decade has passed since the very first “Reproductive Health Bill” was filed in Congress, a long period which is a testimony of how divided we have become as a nation on this issue. This issue has ripped us apart, set each of us up as either pro-RH or anti-RH, each against the other.

2. At present, no less than six such bills are pending in the two houses of Congress. And most widely known of them is HB 96 which is currently being studied by the appropriate legislative committees. Once more, we have become divided among ourselves. We hear and read various data and opinions said and written on television, radio, newspaper, and now, the internet.

3. Having read the bill and carefully listened to all sides of the issue especially that of the poor, having rigorously studied the insights of ethics and theology and the data from scientific research, and having discerned in our individual seminary communities and as one network, we, The Diocesan Seminarians’ Network of the Philippines, Inc. (SemNet), comprising Catholic theology seminarians who are preparing to take up leadership roles in our local Churches, wish to offer the following thoughts and sentiments.

Protecting Life

4. We call on everyone to pay attention to the fact that the principle that life is of fundamental value is not only upheld by Judaeo-Christian tradition (Evangelium Vitae, 1, 47) but also protected by the Constitution of our land, which defends it from the time of conception up to its natural end (Art. II Sec. 12). This provision set in our fundamental law stands as the testament to the commitment of the Filipino to care for life. As a nation, we believe that we will never attain true development if the right to life is violated in our society.

5. We therefore call the attention of our lawmakers to the knowledge about the micro-abortifacient nature and effects of some contraceptive medicines and devices like the IUD and some pills. We condemn the proposal in HB 96 (Sec. 4, 15 and Sec. 7) to use public funds for the procurement and free-access distribution of such abortifacients. Such a move is not only un-Christian, but also beyond doubt un-Filipino. Preserving the Family

6. We seek to defend the integrity of the family. We must not forget that we Filipinos are family-oriented. And we recall that good family life is the foundation of a stable and progressive society, for it is primarily in the family that mind, morals, and faith are formed (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 2) so that citizens may productively serve the society at large. Therefore, the integrity of the family must be one of the aims of any program for public health and responsible parenthood.

7. We believe that the couples must remain open to the gift of procreation, i.e. use natural means. Responsible parenthood—which includes family planning—is integral to ensuring family health (Humanae Vitae, 10). But the Church has always stressed the use of natural means in planning the number and spacing of children (Humanae Vitae, 14). Scientific research has developed many such natural means which when properly used prove to be highly effective. We fault the Department of Health for the disregard of and mere “lip service” to Natural Family Planning (NFP). Greater promotion of this morally superior option for the NFP must be done.

8. We are also against the proposal of HB 96 (sec. 9) to consider as “essential medicines” the devices and medicines for artificial methods of contraception. Such move promotes the mentality that pregnancy is a disease. We believe that such a mentality is largely based on the view about the sexual act that robs it of its loving and life-giving ends but instead reduces it to mere recreation.

9. We also believe that the most effective means to educate children and youth towards sexual integrity is through the family, especially the proper care and guidance of the parents (Gaudium et Spes, 49). This is also the best way to ensure that the youth grow in sexual awareness and maturity. To just disseminate to the youth “value-free” information about sex and contraceptives simply increases the risk of unwanted pregnancy and venereal diseases because they experiment with their sexual faculties.

10. We thus hold fast to the fact that education in sexuality is the primarily the right and duty of the parents, not of the school or the State. The parents’ exercise of their educative role must not be bypassed by any institution but rather be supported and enriched in implementing a program for sex education. Defending the Conscience

11. We staunchly oppose the provisions in HB 96 that violate the basic right of every person to live and proclaim one’s faith, i.e. according to his conscience (Dignitatis Humanae, 1) such as the following:

a. Obliging healthcare institutions and professionals to prescribe or provide to their patients artificial contraception or direct micro-abortion even if they consider it as immoral by reasons of faith (cf. HB 96 sec. 22).

b. Demanding employers to include provisions for artificial contraception or direct micro-abortion among the benefits of their employees (cf. HB 96, sec. 18).

c. Requiring schools, parents, and students to participate in sex education programs which partly or entirely violate the teachings of their religious affiliation (cf. HB 96, sec. 13).

d. Penalizing believers who speak out their conscience against a wide-scale program that includes micro-abortion and has insufficient regard for family integrity (cf. HB 96, sec. 22, e).

12. We also call on all Catholics to boldly defend their conscience, to heed faithfully the truths taught by the Church, and to eagerly proclaim these teachings to everyone. Let us not allow ourselves to be carried away by the culture that views sex as mere recreation and children as mere burdens. We urge spouses not to be afraid to witness to others about the benefits of responsible parenthood through the natural family planning. We also encourage our fellow youth not be ashamed of attesting to your fellow young ones the beauty of self-discipline and marital commitment. 

Realizing Democracy 

13. We acknowledge that a responsible parenthood program is essential to achieving national progress as long as it does not depart from the long-standing values of our nation. But we must also realize that we can only arrive at this goal through reasonable dialogue and responsible democracy. 

14. We urge those engaged in academic work, especially priests and our fellow seminarians to be more rigorous in studying and teaching ethics according to reason and faith. And as we do our learned ministry, let us not fail to attend to all angles of the discussion. Let us make it a point to listen especially to those most affected by this issue: the poor and the women. 

15. We also call on media companies to be responsible heralds of the facts. Do not editorialize the news. Do not misquote individuals or take the statements they make out of context. Do not sensationalize the news for the sake of ratings or profit. Inform the public of the whole truth. Deception of the public is grave treason to the nation! 

16. We urge every Filipino to learn the art of engaging in reasonable dialogue. The recent manner of discussion has been marked by exchanges of foul language and offensive words. Acts like these done by both “pro” and “anti” parties only bring about further unnecessary division among us. Let us not be narrow-minded. Let us read and listen so that we all may learn more about the issue and make well-grounded opinions. Only then can we exercise bayanihan. Only then can we be agents of significant development for holistic healthcare in our beloved country. 

Achieving Integral Development 

17. We firmly believe that overpopulation is not the root cause of poverty in the Philippines. It may be an actual concern, but it should not cover up the real deeper problems of inequitable distribution of the resources of our nation and the rampant corruption in our government. 

18. We likewise believe that instead of allocating large portions of our budget to the proliferation of contraceptives and abortifacients, it is much wiser to use our funds for more indispensable priorities like basic health services, free education for all, livelihood for the poor, better job opportunities, and infrastructure development. 

19. We acknowledge the nobleness of the principles enshrined in the first parts of HB 96: alleviation of poverty, education of the young, happy and healthy family life, safety of women, informed conscience, and development of the nation. 

20. However, reading the bill makes us conclude that its authors are careless with nomenclature when it comes to formulating methods to apply these principles. “Poverty alleviation” seems to mean means looking at persons as mere burdens. “Education” ends up introducing young minds to corrupt sexuality. “Family health” accommodates materialistic comfort and contraceptive mentality. “Women’s safety” could open the doors to libertine sexuality. “Informed conscience” effectively allows violation of the conscience. And “national development” could mask justifying the inability of the government to efficiently provide jobs and social services. 

21. The righteous path (daang matuwid) is necessarily constituted by respect for life, integrity of the family, reverence to the conscience, and responsible democracy. The Church has always offered both her criticism and her collaboration to the State to achieve these ends. We who will share leadership in the same Church in the future commit ourselves to the same. 

Calling for Self-Examination 

22. We also humbly admit that very few dioceses or parishes have effectively implemented programs for promoting the natural methods. It is a sad fact indeed that much of our advocacy for this cause are merely preaching and not positive concrete actions. 

23. We understand that promoting family integrity and family health are constitutive parts of the mission of the Church. (Familiaris Consortio, 3) While healthcare is first and foremost a task of the State, the Church must also contribute her part. Throughout the world, our Church has championed holistic healthcare. Our healthcare institutions render not only physical care but also psycho-social and spiritual. Let us not fail here in the Philippines when it comes to the health of our people. 

24. We therefore urge our bishops and priests, religious and laity to make real concrete measures for the promotion of natural family planning in all ecclesial communities in our nation. We cannot just keep on speaking against the evil that is happening. We have to make a more effective proactive response to make real our aims. 

Conclusion 

25. In the end, we call on everyone not to drown in the details and debate. Let us not to lose sight of our ultimate aim: the realization of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of justice, peace, truth, and love. Thus, we offer a prayer: 

Loving Father, you have called every person to life through the love of a family. Grant us steadfastness in protecting these lofty gifts you have given us. Give us courage to champion the good you have instilled in us. And make us one nation in working for genuine progress. Mary, Mother of Life, Protectress of the Family, and loving Advocate of every Filipino, lead us to the path that is your Son. Amen. 

January 9, 2011, Sunday 

Solemnity, Baptism of our Lord 

Feast Day, Black Nazarene

The Business Side of the RH Bill

PiNaysaAmerika's take on the RH Bill:


RH BILL - It is a big business -facts and questions.

Using the rhetoric of the pro-RH side against the RH bill: Antonio Montalvan's latest salvo

Going natural or going chemical?

By Antonio J. Montalvan II

Kris-Crossing Mindanao

Philippine Daily Inquirer

First Posted 04:49:00 02/21/2011

GIVE A chance to choice before saying anything disparaging about the consolidated “reproductive health” bill that has already passed the scrutiny of the committee on appropriations of the House of Representatives. That was what somebody said among the minority downbeat letters I get every time I write about pro-life issues.

The operative word, however, seems to be the word “before,” which in reality already suffers as a non-sequitur. And that is because “choice” is actually existent. Couples can easily buy condoms over the counter. That goes true with pills. Sterilization, which is an injectable administered to women every three months, can be demanded for free at any government health center.

So where is the need for a “reproductive health” bill? Good question, but I continue to enclose that term in quotation marks. Is it really a health need that puts human vigor and well-being as its primary target? Well, we are fixated with scientific surveys. Why can’t we just stick to the facts?

In this day and age of passion for the environment, when many are going natural and organic, artificial means of contraception appear to be an anachronism. Let science speak.

Among many is a five-year study done by the Environment Agency in the United Kingdom where half of the male fish in lowland English rivers are “developing female characteristics because of pollution.” The BBC, a cable television favorite alongside CNN, reported that “Scientists blame the pollution on a ‘potent’ form of estrogen found in urine from women using the contraceptive pill, which may be flushed through sewage works and into rivers.” In 2002, the United Kingdom declared hormonal birth control a type of pollution.

Biodiversity activists may wish to take a deeper look at the evidence. In the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute’s Center for Environmental Oncology—the name alone is already indicative of what it does—a research team discovered that fish caught inside the water they were testing “may be carrying enough chemicals that mimic the female hormone estrogen to cause breast cancer cells to grow.”

Why should we be concerned with that? Right to life advocates behind the study aver: “Think about the water you drink. Think about the fish you eat. Could your own drinking water be infested with high levels of estrogen? What kind of effects would take place if we drink water containing high levels of estrogen and eat these contaminated fish?”

What is the democratic choice that “reproductive health” advocates now say must be legislated? First, it is this. It is a choice for women who take the birth control pill, patch and other birth control products who put themselves at risk. What kind of choice is that? Science has already confirmed that the pill can cause a woman to develop deep vein thrombosis which can block the blood supply to the heart or brain, resulting in a heart attack, stroke or death. The clot could also travel to the lungs, which then could result in a pulmonary embolism or death.

Second, science has already established that the birth control pill, patch, intra-uterine device and similar birth control products also work as abortifacients by thinning the uterine lining and making it impossible for the newly conceived child to implant and grow. Even the Physician’s Desk Reference or PDR, the most frequently used reference book by American physicians, and the US Food and Drug Administration which requires drug manufacturers the so-called “professional labeling,” both claim birth control pills have an abortive mechanism by “introducing changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation” of a newly fertilized human being.

Third, the hormones in the contraceptives are partially absorbed by the body of the woman who consumes them. The residue ends up in our wastewater, which causes hazards to the environment and ultimately to those who consume the water. It goes without saying that it is like bringing cancer direct to the dinner table.

These studies have been replicated by researchers in the South Platte River and Boulder Creek in Colorado as well as in Puget Sound in Washington State in the last 10 years. Similar studies at University of California-Long Beach, the US Geological Survey study done at the Potomac River, the Canadian Rivers Institute at the University of New Brunswick, all say in unison: estrogens cannot be completely broken down by sewage treatment. Yet here we are in the Philippines completely oblivious to what the evidence says. We must be out of touch with the rest of the 21st-century world.

Consider these from the consolidated “reproductive health” bill: “The State likewise guarantees universal access to medically safe, legal, affordable, effective and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information and education thereon even as it prioritizes the needs of women and children, among other underprivileged sectors.”

A section of that proposed bill specifically identifies “modern” artificial birth control methods and devices that the Philippine government ought to subsidize and their access legally enforced, as namely, “hormonal contraceptives,” “intrauterine devices,” “injectables,” and “others” because they are arguably “medically safe and effective, pro-poor and affordable, rights-based.”

Pray tell us—unless we are as dense as not to understand the fine print—where is the ethics there? Where, oh where, are the human rights? Where is the sustainability to human development?

Surely it should not take sophisticated legalese to complicate the answers.

(Comments to antonmonta@gmail.com)

23 Critiques of the Reproductive Health Bill

I would like to bring your attention to the following document on Scribd: a compilation of 23 critiques and articles written in the past few years against a previous version of the RH Bill. Despite the minor changes in the RH Bill from 2008 to the present, the points made in these studies retain their relevance.

23 Critiques of the Reproductive Health Bill.

A thorough presentation of the objections to the RH Bill

Fr. Joaquin Ferrer SVD, Ph.D is a full-time Associate Professor at the Faculty of Business Administration, Nanzan University, Nagoya, Japan. He has just finished a scholarly paper, 30 pages long, rigorously analyzing House Bill 96, the best-known version of the Reproductive Health Bill before its consolidation. Nevertheless, the points raised in this article remain valid even with the advent of the consolidated bill.

RH 96: Ethical Analysis and Objections

Statement of Bro. Rolando Dizon FSC and the Good Citizenship Movement against the RH Bill

Statement of the Good Citizenship Movement on the RH Bill

The Good Citizenship Movement strongly rejects the Reproductive Health Bill on the following grounds:

Once it becomes law –

1) It will turn mothers’ wombs into killing fields because the contraceptive devices and substances it promotes are abortifacient or abortive in nature (Lagman HB 96: Sec. 2, par. 3 and Sec. 4 – 15), per the authoritative Randy Alcorn documentation and admissions of pharmaceutical manufacturers [please see attachment].

This bill is unconstitutional in that it violates Art. II, Sec. 12 of the Philippine Constitution.

It also violates the natural moral law contained in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and Article 6 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child adopted in 1989 because Lagman HB 96 subverts the spirit of its preamble.

2) Children aged 10–12 shall have the legal right to satisfying sex with full access to all types of contraceptive devices and substances, and parents who stop them will be imprisoned or fined or both [please see attachment].

The bill will also legalize in effect child prostitution and pedophilia.

Worst of all, children and adolescents will become the jailers of their own parents who will refuse them their sexual “rights” supported by the new RH law. (Lagman HB 96: Sec. 22, a, a-3 & e; Sec. 3b; Sec. 4 – 1 & 19d, Sec. 23)

These are all brazen violations of Art. II, Sections 11 and 12 of the Philippine Constitution.

3) The mandatory sex education program from Gr. 5, 6 to 4th year high school obliges parents to have their children undergo it or face penalties if they refuse. Also, teachers, principals, school administrators, priests, pastors, ulamas, journalists or anyone who oppose this program or any part of the passed RH law , face the same penalties. (HB 96: Sec. 13; Sec. 22-e; Sec. 23)

Again, these are blatant violations of Art. II, Sections 11 and 12 of the Philippine Constitution and Art. 26-1 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and Art. 29-c of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child.

These three valid grounds are compelling enough to reject the RH Bill with fullness of conviction and finality. Any attempt, therefore, to force the passage of this unjust and immoral bill into law is clearly a legal hocus pocus because it will be a maneuver to “smuggle” into a law a constitutionally flawed bill. On this account, every Filipino citizen will have every right and duty to disobey it should this unconstitutional bill become law.

Finally, having rejected the RH Bill, the Good Citizenship Movement strongly endorses the Golez HB 13 and the Enrile SB 2497 because these uphold and protect the life and the rights of the unborn child as mandated by the Philippine Constitution and the abovementioned UN declarations on the preservation and protection of authentic human rights.

Only by defending and protecting human life in its most helpless state, when yet unborn, and in safeguarding the natural rights of parents over their children will our nation discover the first true and sure step to authentic human development.

It is with much hope and prayer, therefore, that the Good Citizenship Movement respectfully calls on all the members of Congress and the Senate to consider and heed the wise words of a great man of law:

“Every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal, that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that man acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

- Alexander Hamilton,

The Federalist

(Sgd.)
Bro. Rolando Dizon FSC
Chairman
Good Citizenship Movement

References cited in Statement of Good Citizenship Movement on Lagman HB 96:

1) Lagman HB 96: Sec. 2, par. 3:

“The State likewise guarantees universal access to medically-safe, legal, affordable, effective and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information and education thereon even as it prioritizes the needs of women and children, among other underprivileged sectors…”

HB 96: Sec. 4-15: Modern Methods of Family Planning - refers to safe, effective and legal methods to prevent pregnancy such as the pill, intra- uterine device (IUD), injectables, condom, ligation, vasectomy and modern Natural family planning methods which include mucus, Billings, ovulation, lactational amenorrhea, basal body temperature, and Standard Days methods.

Philippine Constitution - Art. II, Sec. 12: The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception…

Note: Randy Alcorn’s “Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?” is a separate attachment. (You can read this book here. -- CAP)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights Art. 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

UN Convention of the Rights of the Child: Art. 6: States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.

Preamble of the Rights of the Child: ….”the child, by reason of his physical and and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth”,

2) Lagman HB 96: Sec. 22 Prohibited Acts – The following acts are prohibited:

a: Any healthcare service provider, whether public or private, who shall:

a-3: Refuse to extend health care services…..on account of the person’s ……AGE!..... (capitalization and underscoring supplied)

Sec. 3. Guiding Principles – This Act declares the following as guiding principles:

Sec. 3-b: Respect for, protection and fulfilment of reproductive health and rights seek to promote not only the rights and welfare of adult individuals and couples but those of adolescents and children as well. (underscoring and italization supplied)

Sec. 4. Definition of Terms. – For the purposes of this Act, the following terms shall be defined as follows:

Sec. 4-1: Adolescence – refers to a life stage of persons aged 10 to 19.

Sec. 4-19: Reproductive Health Care – the access to a full range of methods, techniques, facilities and services that contribute to reproductive health and well-being by preventing and solving reproductive health-related problems. It also includes sexual health……The elements of reproductive health care include:

d) adolescent and youth reproductive health;

Sec. 23: Penalties – Any commission of the foregoing prohibited acts or violation of this Act shall be penalized by imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six (6) months or a fine of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) or both.

Philippine Constitution: The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights (Art. II, Section 11). The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception (Art. II, Section 12).

3) Lagman HB 96: Sec. 13 – Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education …….starting from Grade Five up to Fourth Year High School…

Age-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education shall be integrated  in all relevant subjects and shall include, but not be limited to, the following topics:

d. Children’s and women’s rights;

Sec. 22. Prohibited Acts. – The following acts are prohibited:

22-e: ANY person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.(Capitalization and underscoring supplied).

Sec. 23: Penalties – Any commission of the foregoing prohibited acts or Violation of this Act shall be penalized by imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six (6) months or a fine of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) or both.

Please see above cited articles of the Philippine Constitution.

UN Declaration of Human Rights Art. 26-1: “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”

UN Convention of the Rights of the Child Art. 29-c: “1. State Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to…..(c) the development of respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own.” .

Prayer Rally on February 13, 2011 at PICC

A prayer rally for the defense of life against the RH Bill dubbed "Filipinos! Unite for Life" will be held at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC) from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. on Sunday, February 13, 2011.

World Youth Alliance Statement on the RH Bill

Monday, February 7, 2011

WYA Asia Pacific Response to “The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011”

The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011 violates international human rights to freedom of conscience, thought and belief that are enshrined in Philippine law. These rights are protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and CEDAW, all of which have been ratified into Philippine law.

The following passages in the current bill violate freedom of conscience, thought and belief, and include punitive measures for those who oppose these rights:

RH bill. SEC. 7, Ln. 9-10

RH bill. SEC. 8, Para. 2, Ln. 26-29

RH bill. SEC. 12, Ln. 25

RH bill. SEC. 16, Ln. 4-5

RH bill. SEC. 16, Ln 10-11, (a)

RH bill. SEC. 16, Ln. 27

RH bill. SEC. 17

RH bill. SEC. 18

RH bill. SEC. 20, Ln. 24-25

RH bill. SEC 22

RH bill. SEC. 28(a)(1)

RH bill. SEC. 28(a)(2)

RH bill. SEC. 28(a)(3) Ln. 5-9

The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011 will be presented to the Appropriations Committee on the morning of Feb 8th, 2011. If passed in this committee, the bill will be referred to the Committee on Rules, which will schedule the bill for plenary voting.

It is critical for individuals to act now by contacting their Congressional Representative to ask them to protect basic human rights by voting against this bill. Only a vote against this bill will protect these basic human rights in Philippine law.

To find your Congressional representative’s contact information, go to this link: 

http://www.congress.gov.ph/members/

Jose C. Sison on how to respond to the RH Bill

Call to action

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) 

By Jose C. Sison 

Updated February 07, 2011 12:00 AM

In last Friday’s column (Reaching another crossroad), the CBCP has clearly shown in its pastoral letter that contrary to what its advocates are claiming, the RH bill does not really promote reproductive health, does not reduce but increases the rate of abortion, does not really prevent HIV/AIDS, empowers women with ownership of their own bodies which are really God’s gift subject to God’s will, and is not necessary to stop overpopulation and to escape poverty. Thus in the light of these false premises, the Bishops were forced to express their strong objections to:

1. The non-consideration of moral principles, the bedrock of law, in legislative discussions of bills intended for the common good and the good of individuals.

2. The anti-life, anti-natal and contraceptive mentality that is reflected in media and in some proposed legislative bills.

3. The efforts at railroading the passage of the RH bill.

4. The overall trajectory of the RH bill towards population control.

5. The use of public funds for contraceptives and sterilization.

6. The compulsory sex education that would effectively let parents abdicate their primary role of educating their own children especially in the area of sexuality which is a sacred gift of God.

Obviously, these objections of the Bishops stem from their firm convictions which they also expressed in their pastoral letter as follows:

a) Deep concern about the plight of the poor, especially of suffering women who are struggling for a better life and who must seek it outside the country or by recourse to a livelihood that is less than decent.

b) Defense of human life from the moment of conception or fertilization up to its natural end.

c) Belief in the responsible and natural regulation of births through Natural Family Planning that requires character building involving sacrifice, self-discipline and respect for the dignity of the spouse.

d) Belief that we are only stewards of our own bodies and that responsibility over our own bodies must follow the will of God who speaks to us through our conscience.

e) Belief that on the choices related to the RH bill, conscience must not only be informed but most of all rightly guided through the teachings of one’s faith.

f) Belief in the freedom of religion and the right of conscientious objection in matters that are contrary to one’s faith which is one more reason to denounce the RH bill as it imposes sanctions and penalties in violation of this freedom and right.

Admittedly, the government has called for a dialogue with the Bishops to enable them to convey and express these views. Sadly however, the dialogue only “revealed how far apart” their respective positions are. Besides, while the dialogue is still ongoing, the Congressional Committee on Family Life already approved and endorsed to the Lower House a consolidated version of the various bills now entitled “An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development and for Other Purposes” containing the same objectionable features of the original RH bill. So instead of further “building false hopes”, the CBCP just decided to issue the pastoral letter containing their unanimous moral judgment to “reject the RH agenda and to choose life”. In doing so, the Bishops did not only draw up what they object to and what they stand for. They also appealed for more concrete actions as they called:

• For a fundamental transformation of our attitudes and behavior towards all human life especially the most defenseless human life being formed or being conceived.

• For our legislators to consider the RH bill in the light of the God-given dignity and worth of human life and, therefore, to shelve it completely as contrary to our ideals and aspirations as a people.

• For other lay people and adherents of other religions to join the advocacy to defend and promote our commonly shared ideals and aspirations.

• For our government to address effectively the real issues of poverty such as corruption, lack of social and economic services, social inequities, and lack of access to education and the benefits of development.

• For the establishment of more hospitals and clinics in the rural areas, the deployment of more health personnel to provide more access to health services, the building of more schools, the provision of more aid to the poor for their education and the building of more and better infrastructures for development.

The bishops thus echoed the challenge prophetically uttered 25 years ago at EDSA I and called upon “all people of goodwill who share our conviction” …to “pray together, reason together, decide together, act together always to the end that truth prevail” over the many threats to human life and to our shared human and cultural values”.

This is a great challenge indeed. But we must accept and respond to it as we did during EDSA I. And one of the most feasible and immediately implementable actions that can be done in response to this challenge is of the course to organize massive prayer rallies similar to that organized in the late ’90s which foiled the plan of some ambitious politicians to extend their stay in power by amending the constitution. This time the prayer rallies will be imploring the help of the Divine Providence to stop Congress from enacting that anti-life and anti-family RH bill.

Another doable move that can be done immediately is to lobby for and support House Bill No. 13 entitled an “Act Providing for the Safety and Protection of the Unborn Child and for Other Purposes”. This bill actually seeks to implement the Constitutional Provision in Article II Section 12 mandating the State to equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. It is based on the truism that the right to life is the most fundamental of rights from which all other rights are derived and without which other rights including women’s right to reproductive health are meaningless. Due to space limitations, HB 13 shall be discussed in a subsequent article.

E-mail us at jcson@pldtdsl.net

Draft of the Consolidated RH Bill

Thanks to the new blog Filipinos for Life, the latest draft of the consolidated RH Bill is now available here.