The New RH Bill: Same Old Same Old....

New RH bill: Deadly, anti-constitution
(An Excerpt from the UST Varsitarian Editorial for March 15, 2011)

PRESIDENT Aquino III should be commended for dropping the reproductive health (RH) bill from his legislative agenda. But his minions in the House of Representatives just the same are prioritizing the passage of the bill. They have in fact consolidated several versions of the bill and rammed it through the process so that, despite the denial of House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte that they were rushing the bill, it’s now on its second reading and up for plenary debates. What the right hand giveth, the left taketh.

The consolidated version incorporates the President’s version of family planning, “responsible parenthood,” and further pushing the envelope, now uses the word “population,” making Edcel Lagman and his battened likes eat their word since they had been claiming before that heir original version of the bill was not a population-control measure. Considering that just about every shade and nuance of the population-control movement has been incorporated into the consolidated version, the bill is now known as “The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011.”

With 35 sections and more than 5,800 words, the bill promises to become the most extensive measure by any Congress in history, and should leave no doubt to anyone about its Stalinist conceit and social-engineering intentions. Just about every possibility of unwanted pregnancy and regeneration by the poor is checked by the bill. While ostensibly declaring it does not set “demographic and population targets,” it declares that the ideal family size is two, which is just about saying that the population growth target should be zero. (The ideal population growth for the Philippines is zero, according to RH backer and former health secretary Alberto Romualdez!) The bill adds that the state “shall assist couples” to achieve that size.

Those who say that there’s nothing wrong with this should be reminded that the state is not exactly wet behind the ears: it is after all the state and its bureaucracy that have fostered the corruption and waste that characterize the debacle that is the Filipino republic. Considering the sorry tale of the tape as far as the Philippine state is concerned, should the state, which has an overpopulation of bureaucrats battening themselves like Lagman and congressmen on people’s money, have the right to suggest, much less, declare that there’s such a thing as an “ideal” number of children for couples to have?

Much more, should the state have any right to add what follows after the bill’s arrogant discourtesy of declaring how many children Filipino couples should have: “Attaining the ideal family size is neither mandatory nor compulsory. No punitive action shall be imposed on parents having more than two children.” One should rightly cringe at that.

“Assisting” couples to attain the ideal family size wouldn’t be hard for the state since the bill sanctions just about any contraceptive means and, making free use of taxpayer’s money and funding from foreign donors that support abortion, makes them available to all. Those who argue that the bill is pro-choice but not necessarily pro-abortion should look at the bill’s liberal sanction of contraceptives, some of which even physicians admit are technically abortifacient. And they should look at sections 2 and 3 on “Declaration of Policy” and “Guiding Principles.” While the bill enshrines “reproductive health” as a “universal basic human right” and exalts “freedom of choice” – where do you find such in the Philippine Constitution? – it doesn’t mention key state policies in the charter that should be the guiding principles of any law relating to family, life, demographics, and sex education for the young, the most important of which is:

“Section 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. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.”

Why the very telling bypass of such a very relevant constitutional policy in a bill that seeks to use hundreds of millions of pesos to shower contraceptives and abortifacients on the poor; to provide sex education to the young and teach them how to have “safe sex,” even if the education ministries, the biggest bureaucracies, can hardly teach school kids properly the three R’s; and generally to neuter the poor by mass ligation and vasectomy?

Amid the mass of words and declarations and provisions and platitudes of the consolidated RH bill, try to search for constitutional principles such as “the sanctity of family life,” “(protection of) the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception,” “promotion of social justice,” and “dignity of every person.”

So sorry, but you search in vain.

Ona, Akbayan, Jalin

Department of Health Secretary Enrique Ona, should also be praised for sticking to his job as health agent of the state and shunning outlandish stunts like the ones staged by his hopeless predecessor Esperanza Cabral, who distributed condoms at Dangwa Flower Market last year during Valentine’s Day.

Eager to strike back at the bishops who had been holding back the passage of the RH bill, Cabral found a bogeyman last year out of the increase in HIV cases to press for safe sex. Insisting that she was within her jurisdiction as a state health official, she distributed condoms near UST on Valentine’s Day. In doing so, she merely showed the arrogance of the state because Valentine’s is a Catholic feast. Apparently, she had thought February 14 was Motel Day.

Those who cry separation of church and state whenever the bishops and the clergy criticize the RH bill should learn from Cabral’s case. The constitutional provision is really a re-expression of the republican dictum, “non-establishment of religion”; thus, separation of church and state is really a prohibition against the state, not against the church. Cabral’s case shows that it is often the state that transgresses on the church. And whatever the alleged meddling of the church on state affairs is, it’s merely one that is suasive, unlike that by the state which, because of its police and taxing powers, is coercive. For example, where did the condoms that Cabral distributed in Dangwa come from? Didn’t they come from the money of ordinary people who were taxed by the state into supporting such an unsavoury stunt as condom distribution during a religious feast which is supposed to enshrine human love, not animal lust?

Meanwhile, the blasphemous stunt of Cabral last year was restaged on Valentine’s this year by the Akbayan party-list group at the Nepa Q Mart in Quezon City. Its youth arm, Akbayan Youth, is the same group that criticized UST Theology professor Aguedo Florence Jalin for giving incentives to students who would post criticisms on the Akbayan stunt and the RH bill on Akbayan’s Facebook fan page.

It is quite galling that a group that by and large receives international funding, some of them from groups that espouse “reproductive rights,” should take to task a Catholic educator who gives incentives to students doing a completely optional assignment to defend the pro-life stance of the Church against RH and safe-sex proponents. Considering too that the professor did not force his students to do the posting, even making it clear to those who support RH among his classes that they need not join the opposition to the measure, considering further that hardly anyone fails Theology (except those always absent) in UST, Akbayan doth protest too much. Hasn’t Akbayan heard of “academic freedom” and “intellectual honesty”? Jalin was teaching Social Issues of the Church and he had the perfect right, nay the responsibility, to tackle the RH bill and the threat it poses to things which the Church holds dear—the natural law, the dignity of the human person, and the sanctity of life. By urging his students to post their criticisms of RH and of Akbayan’s attack on religion through its distribution of condoms on Valentine’s, a religious feast, Jalin was merely asking them to stand up for what they believe in. To put their money where their mouth is. Which cannot be said of other educators, such as the Ateneo 14, who oppose Catholic teachings on birth control and flaunt their defiance despite teaching in Catholic schools: they put their money where their pocket is while completely chucking intellectual honesty.

Akbayan should be reminded that it is part of the administration coalition and technically, a part of government. Since it has representation in parliament and its people occupy key posts in the administration, it has no choice but to consider criticisms and opposing views. No one in power has the right to be onion-skinned.

Deceptive Amendments

Last country standing

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

Updated March 21, 2011 12:00 A.M.

According to latest reports, the principal author of the RH Bill (HB 4244) has introduced some amendments. This move may look like a tactical retreat as the opposition gains ground. But it may also be just a “one step backward two steps forward” strategy. Indeed, a cursory look at the changes shows that they were apparently designed to make the Bill more attractive especially to his colleagues in the House of Representatives who are still undecided.

But the amendments are not actually that substantial and significant as to lure these legislators in the Lower House to make up their minds and support the Bill. This is not my own assessment only. Several readers have sent in their reactions after closely analyzing the proposed revisions like these ones from Zoe Vidal (choice4life@gmail.com), and Linda Valenzona (valenzona.lg@gmail.com). They have apparently been closely monitoring the developments and have conducted an in-depth examination of the changes which are specifically found in:

* Section 13 on the role of the Local Government Units, where the final line now reads “help implement the Act” rather than “give priority to family planning work”. Whatever may be the intent here, “the Bill still imposes the obligation to enforce the provisions of the Act” some of which are unconstitutional. So it is still objectionable.

* Section 15, where the procurement and operation of Mobile Health Care Service shall now be funded by the National Government rather than from the Priority Development Assistance Fund of each congressional district. Obviously, the amendment aims to assure members of the House of Representatives that the RH Law will not diminish their respective pork barrels.

* Section 16, where parents are now given the option of not allowing their minor children to attend classes pertaining to Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education. This is still not acceptable because it does not prohibit but mandates the DepEd to “conduct the immoral and deformed UNFPA sex education programs” which are of doubtful constitutionality.

* Section 20 fixing the ideal family size, has been deleted. But such deletion “does not mean that the government cannot set population targets or engage in cultural re-engineering activities to reduce family size. In fact such programs are now being implemented by the DOH and other government departments”.

* Section 21 on employers’ responsibility has been deleted because it is just a “restatement and amplification of the existing Article 134 of the Labor Code”. So the deletion actually means nothing and adds nothing to the acceptability of the RH Bill. If anything, it merely confirms how laws can be crafted to coerce employers to apply inhumane and anti-life policies on their employees”.

* Section 28 (e) prohibiting the “malicious disinformation about the intent and provision of this Act” will also be deleted in its entirety “in order to afford widest latitude to freedom of expression within the limits of existing penal statutes”. This deletion however does not diminish the imposition on moral consciences of the Filipinos. The very existence of an RH Law is an oppressive imposition on freedom of conscience”.

Actually, the foregoing amendments do not at all change the underlying premise of the RH Bill, “the cornerstone upon which it builds the legal framework supporting its mandate for the promotion and distribution of artificial methods of family planning, particularly all forms of contraceptives”.

The Couples for Christ and the Families for Life (CFC-FFL) have correctly pointed out in their position paper opposing the RH Bill that its “underlying premise — that life begins at implantation — is wrong”. According to them both the “Philippine Medical Association and renowned embryologists concur that life begins at conception, when the male sperm fuses with the female egg cell”.

And pursuing the point further, the CFC-FFL then said that: “The framers of the Constitution had the same notion about the onset of life when they adopted Article II Section 12 which pertinently provides that ‘the State shall equally protect the life of….the unborn from conception. Thus during their deliberations to clarify this provision, the authors adopted the medical definition of the term conception (i.e fertilization of the ovum).

Since life begins at conception, then any post-conception act that prevents or stops the natural development of the fertilized ovum — an essential element of which is its implantation on the uterus — is an attack against life. If the attack is done deliberately — and succeeds — it may well qualify as murder. In any case, the act falls squarely within the legal meaning of abortion.

Many contraceptives exist for this specific purpose. They prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting itself on the uterus, depriving the ovum of its natural habitation and life support. Except for the relative degree of helplessness, the effect is no different from where an assailant kills an infant by means of starvation and suffocation.

By indiscriminately promoting all types of contraceptive devices and services, the RH Bill violates Article II Section 12 of the Constitution. In terms of effect, it will legalize the mass murder of innocent babies”.

The CFC-FFL also pointed out that while the Bill proclaims that the “State shall promote without bias all modern natural and artificial methods of family planning… practically all the important provisions relate to the promotion, implementation and funding of artificial family planning, e.g. Section 10 (Family Planning Supplies as Essential Medicines), Section 11 (Procurement and Distribution of Family Planning Supplies), Section 15 (Mobile Health Care Services), Section 16, (Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education), Section 19, (Capability Building of Barangay Health Workers), Section 25 (Implementing Mechanisms), Section 26 (Reporting Requirements), Section 28 (Prohibited Acts), Section 29 (Penalties),and Section 30 (Appropriations). There is hardly any doubt therefore that the RH Bill is tilted heavily towards contraceptives and other forms of reproductive health services”, the CFC-FFL rightfully observed.

Undeniably, the RH Bill will sink because it is laden with provisions heavily weighed down by constitutional infirmities. But because of this Bill, “the fundamental love of Filipinos for family and life is under serious threat today”. Being the last country standing against this threat, there is an urgent need to stop it. So let us heed the call of Cardinal Rosales and join the prayer rally at the Luneta on March 25, 2011, 4:30 pm, the feast of the Annunciation, also the day of the unborn children. This promises to be “another EDSA at the Luneta”.

Jesus Estanislao versus the RH Bill

(I originally posted this on March 18, 2011, using a forwarded copy. On March 20, 2011 I received a copy of the PDF file of the original article by Mr. Estanislao, which has a short introduction that was absent from the apparently truncated copy I had received earlier. I am now posting the full version of this article. - CAP)

***

Over these past several months, I have often been asked for the reasons behind my stance regarding the proposed Reproductive Health (RH) bill.

Many have long known I am against the bill in its present “consolidated” form. They guess that since the Bishops are unanimously against it, then I must also be against the RH bill.

When it comes to matters of faith and morals, Bishops provide guidance; they have spoken clearly and authoritatively in accord with their Pastoral responsibilities.

Nonetheless, as an ordinary person, while I listen to the moral guidance of our Bishops, I also put forward my own reasons, based on my professional background, for my stance on the RH bill.

As I make clear in the attached, being against the RH bill in its “consolidated” form is being for: transparency; the value of human life; enjoyment of freedom with corresponding responsibility; a balanced approach to development; the dignity of every person, including each person’s sexuality; putting proper limits on the role of government; respect for the primary right of parents to educate and bring up their children in an atmosphere that respects and promotes high moral standards; respect for the right of conscientious objection; and securing the foundations of our long-term, sustained progress as a people.

WHY I AM AGAINST THE RH BILL

by Jesus P. Estanislao

1. The bill, in its present “consolidated form”, dissimulates. It is far from transparent: it purports to be for reproductive health. In fact, by its aim, it is dangerous not only to the health, but even the life, of unborn babies. It can also be dangerous to the health—both physical and psychological---of women.

2. The bill aims at fewer babies being born in our land, under the premise that the fewer they are, the better off the Philippines would be: fewer mouths to feed, fewer children to educate, fewer people to care for. This premise looks at children---indeed at people---as mere liabilities. It turns a blind eye on the other side, that they can be---indeed often are---great net assets.

3. The bill claims to make the road to development much easier: the fewer babies we have to provide for, the more resources we free up for investments, particularly for infrastructure. It forgets that the best investment we can make is on people, on a big natural base of human resources.

4. The bill ignores one of the most pressing development issues now confronting Japan and a few other countries as well, including many European countries and soon also South Korea and China. Ageing of the population, arising from too few babies being born, is bringing about a demographic winter, which considerably darkens the long-term prospects of the economies concerned.

5. The bill is simplistic in its view of development: one shaped and determined mainly by lowering birth rates and population growth rates. It fails to give due importance to the key determinants of development, which include the following top five factors: “good governance; openness to knowledge; stable finances; allocation of goods and services principally by markets; high rates of savings and investments” (Michael Spence).

6. The bill expands the role of government considerably, expanding it into areas that are best left to individual choices and responsible decisions of married couples. It violates the key governance principle of leaving to individuals, institutions, and other lower bodies those decisions and duties that they can and should take up on their own. It disregards the maxim that governments govern best by refraining from over-reach.

7. The bill proposes to spend tax money on population control programs, featuring artificial methods of family planning, which many citizens find offensive to their conscience and objectionable on the basis of the constitutional protection of the unborn. Indeed, many citizens are asking: what business does the government have dispensing contraceptives and condoms and spending public funds on items that are supposed to be a matter of individual “choice”?

8. The bill is not only intrusive; it is also coercive. It tramples upon the right of conscientious objection on the part of individuals and institutions by threatening jail and other punishments to those who refuse to promote and observe its anti-life orientation and propagation of artificial methods of birth prevention.

9. The bill offends the basic dignity of human sexuality so essential for strong families as the foundation of a strong society. While proposing to improve the condition of families, it can easily lead to a fools’ paradise, characterized by “more premarital sex, more fatherless children, less domesticated men, more crimes, more social pathology, more single mothers, and therefore more poverty”, as has actually occurred in some countries that have taken the path the bill proposes (George Akerlof).

10. The bill promotes a mind-set that weakens the ethical fiber of our people. It devalues human life. It fosters short-term enjoyment of “freedom” without instilling a deep sense of duty to take on its corresponding long-term responsibilities. It views personal relationships and social processes from a narrowly pragmatic, materialistic perspective without giving due consideration to ethical and spiritual values, the bedrock foundations for the genuine development of our people.

Manila, March 2011

Dr. Estanislao holds a Ph.D. from Harvard University, where he was also a Teaching Fellow and Research Fellow. He obtained his MA in Economics from Fordham University in Economics and Ph.B. (summa cum laude) from the University of San Carlos. He has been conferred honorary doctoral degrees from Angeles University, Xavier University, St. Paul University, and Manila Central University. He holds the title of University Professor at the University of Asia and the Pacific. He was Finance Secretary during Pres. Corazon Aquino’s administration. Currently, Dr. Jesus Estanislao is head of Institute of Corporate Directors and Institute for Solidarity of Asia.

The blessing that is our large population

Roberto de Ocampo was Finance Secretary of the Philippines from 1992 to 1998 and a former President of the Asian Institute of Management. Although he admits to having used contraceptives, he wrote an article on his serious misgivings with the RH Bill in 2009 entitled "Kill 'Bill'?" In the following article, Mr. Ocampo demolishes some of the myths regarding the Philippines' population. Although not directly against the RH Bill, it certainly strengthens the case made by pro-life advocates that having a large population is a boon for a country.

Business Matters : The Chosen People

By Roberto de Ocampo

Philippine Daily Inquirer

Posted date: March 18, 2011

EVERY NOW and then I find myself invited by various groups—civic, business, or academic—to give talks or briefings on the state of the Philippine economy. More often than not, particularly during the last decade or so, these talks would inevitably be burdened with bad economic news rather than brightened by tidings of joyful ones. Even with the usual “hope springs eternal” or the wistful stock praise of the “resilience of the Filipino” to end such talks on a positive note, the overall picture could not shake the reality from the minds of the audiences that things weren’t going as well as they should.

I would thus end some of these briefings with a rhetorical question, “I suppose you are now all sufficiently depressed?” and proceed with the somewhat tongue-in-cheek statement that there was really nothing to worry about since little of what I had said during the talk had to do with the “real” economic strategy of the Philippines. Noticing the audiences’ immediate surprised and quizzical look, I would then proceed to say that the “real economic strategy of the Philippines is to populate the rest of the world”—and we would all have a good laugh to lighten things up.

But is this really just a laughing matter? Maybe, not entirely.

Consider that, according to some researches, “in order for a culture to maintain itself for more than 25 years, there must be a fertility rate of 2.11 children per family. With anything less, the culture will decline. Historically, no culture has ever reversed a 1.9 fertility rate.”

The 2011 fertility rate estimate for Spain is 1.47, Italy 1.39, UK 1.91, France 1.96 and Germany 1.41, to name a select few. The average fertility rate of all Western Europe is about 1.5. In short, these nations are either on are perilously close to what population experts call an irreversible demographic decline. To put it more starkly, for example, by 2020 (or just nine years from now) more than half of all births in a country like, say, the Netherlands (1.66 fertility rate) will be of non-European Dutch origin. Furthermore, with the birth rate dropping below replacement, the population of such countries ages and the problems facing an aging population are numerous and startling enough to deserve a separate treatise.

Western Europe is not the only one experiencing this phenomenon. The US fertility rate is, at 2.0, just below replacement and Japan is at a worrisome level of 1.2. For Japan, this means a population decline of about 60 million in the next 30 years and an aging population that will have one out of every five Japanese at least 70 years old by 2020.

However, with the exception of Japan, the overall populations of the above-mentioned countries are not declining. The overwhelming reason for that is immigration (to which Japan is by comparison with others, still somewhat resistant). Guess who comprise one of the larger immigrant populations. Yes, dear—Filipinos!

With a 2011 fertility rate of 3.2, we are nowhere close to demographic doomsday. And we all know that the Philippines’ main industry is the production and export of Filipinos. Estimates of the number of Filipinos overseas come close to 10 million, not counting TNTs (Tago nang Tago) or illegal immigrants. This is more than the population of Sweden. Add to this the fact that about 3,800 Filipinos daily or about 1.4 million yearly leave as OFWs and you’ll know why many get the sense that Filipinos are everywhere. Great masses of Filipinos cover the entire park of Central Hong Kong and the famed Spanish steps in Rome every Sunday. About 30 percent of all seafaring ships’ manpower are Filipino seamen.

Even I sensed this omnipresence early on when, as a then World Bank loan officer (in 1978) on a mission visit to Yemen, a country I knew little about at the time, I learned to my surprise that the power plants, airport, hospitals and hotels were run by Filipinos. A year later, during a visit to Oman, I was invited to dinner by a minister who proudly asked his two kids to recite English poems. They did—with an Ilonggo accent! Their “nanny” was from Aklan and she passed on to them not only the accent but also appreciation of aswangs and adobo. Well, you know the saying, “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”—and there are thousands of cradles worldwide being rocked by Filipino hands.

Now we have begun to creep into the world’s bloodlines. The 2010 World Series winning pitcher Tim Lincecum, 2011 best supporting actress Oscar nominee Hailee Steinfeld, head coach Erik Spoelstra of the Miami Heat, and R&B star Bruno Mars are all Fil-Ams. It may only be a matter of time before nearly every race on earth has some Filipino blood.

The icing on the cake is that just about every major Catholic church, particularly in predominantly Christian Europe, Hong Kong and the Middle East would be almost empty without devout Filipinos. Perhaps, after several more years of wandering in our self-inflicted political-economic desert, we may yet emerge to find ourselves as actually, The Chosen People.

Roberto F. de Ocampo is a former finance secretary and was Finance Minister of the Year in 1995, 1996 and 1997.

Cardinal Rosales on the RH Bill

The First Temptation and being pro-RH Bill

From Random Thoughts and Musings:

I was rereading the book "Jesus of Nazareth" and I got to a post last year which quotes the Pope partially, as he writes about the first temptation of Jesus.

"At the heart of all temptations is the act of pushing God aside because we perceive him as secondary, if not actually superfluous and annoying, in comparison with all the apparently far more urgent matters that fill our lives. Constructing a world by our own lights, without reference to God, building on our own foundations, refusing to acknowledge the reality of anything beyond the political and material, while setting God aside as an illusion - that is the temptation that threatens us in many varied forms. Moral posturing is part and parcel of temptation. It does not invite us directly to do evil, no - that would be far too blatant. It pretends to show us a better way, where we throw ourselves into the work of actually making the world a better place. What is real is what is right there in front of us: power and bread. By comparison, the things of God fade into unreality, into a secondary world that no one really needs."

I will devote the rest of this post to a comment (insightful as usual) by TE. It seems a fitting follow-up tothe previous post. Pro-RH bill Catholics would do well to read it.

/

The Pope's absolutely right. That's exactly what's happening. It's time we all open our eyes and see what really is at stake here.

The pro-condom crowd is trying to sell their side by painting it all in rosy optimistic colors. They have tons of statistics and are brazen enough to promise great benefits including families becoming financially better off. But what are they really selling? Uncertainty. All the rosy promises are just that - possibilities. They cannot really prove that all of their rosy predictions will come to pass. They are asking people to take a gamble. Of course they won't say it that way - they'll call it taking an intelligent stand based on irrefutable medical statistics.

As the Pope said, "it pretends to show us a better way,..."

The contras try hard to disprove the pro's arguments and refute their statistics by presenting their own set of counter statistics. Those passionate enough will paint a tough pessimistic picture to counter the rosy ones. They have fallen into the same trap as the pros - they are arguing for another set of uncertainties and are asking people to bet on another horse.

The contras have to open their eyes. The Church has already ruled on these issues so why engage in debate over it? To a Catholic the issue is closed. The Church's stand is clear and you might even say it's become part of the repository of truth. The Church's position is guided by the Holy Spirit. There is no uncertainty in this. The Holy Spirit is not an ambigious thing susceptible to statistical measures. The Holy Spirit is sure and its guidance is truth.

As Catholics, why should we opt for betting on uncertainties when we are already gifted with something certain? Why exchange something sure for something that isn't?

From a certain perspective Monsod's article is perhaps even more dangerous. It reads logical, balanced and fair. But it also re-opens the issue. This we have to guard against. If you take it seriously you would find yourself weighing the pros and cons of the issue. When that happens you would have opened again what the Church had closed. And that position raises a bunch of uncomfortable secondary questions like "Would I still be a good Catholic if I don't readily accept the Church's position and engage in debate over this?" Let us not be faithless - not just in the sense of not being true to our commitment to Christ but also in the sense of being lacking in faith.

As the Pope said, "the act of pushing God aside...we perceive Him as secondary."

The battlefield is not condoms and contraceptives. It's the Truth we hold, our values and beliefs. That is what is at stake. The real issue is not what the debaters are spouting about. They would have you bark up the wrong tree while secretly attacking what you truly hold dear. Let's not be deceived.

It's not about the optimists half-full glass nor the pessimist's half-empty one. The glass is actually full, it's just of a different size. Don't empty it by trading a sure thing for uncertain ones.

/

To add to that, an excerpt from Humanae Vitae:

No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation.

Are these the real reasons for the push to pass the RH Bill?

Ten Real Reasons Why the RH Bill Must Pass in the Philippines.

by Joffre Balce

Actually it’s three billion reasons but let’s make the PHP 3B (US$75 million) just one. OK, Let’s give the RH proponents a bonus & leave this one out first ...

1) By the silence of the RH Bill in protecting the rights of the unborn child, it has a voiceless victim so it may pursue its other nine agenda points below ...

‎2) It promotes a safe & more enjoyable sex life, free of responsibility – which should really be the title of the Bill

3) It blames the defenceless for the poverty in the Philippines – the poor & marginalised – just for the fact they were born & in the same breathe dedicate the proposed law to them, while letting the crooks run free & the media to continue promoting a consumerist, materialist lifestyle

4) It creates jobs in the government sector, particularly for new political appointees in the proposed POPCOM who will be paid whether it does its job well or not, if at all.

‎5) It raises sales of pharmaceutical cos. already enjoying the protection of the Phil. government’s compliance with the WTO/GATT in keeping cheap generics out of reach for the ordinary Filipino.

‎6) It distracts attention from the more difficult & serious & important task of social justice & reforms that directly address poverty & socioeconomic inequality in order that the poor traditional politicians don't have to work so hard.

7) It gives the state authority to intervene in more matters that used to be the right, responsibility & accountability of the parents & family as the basic & core social unit & puts the burden on health workers & institutions to be accountable for the consequences of acts – such as abortions -- which the family could have avoided.

8) It means more business for the media, in terms of government promo materials & free advertising for the pharma cos -- which is why there much less media covering the opposition to the RH Bill, despite superior numbers.

9) It means more grants for government & NGOs for population control from people like Bill Gates, Ted Turner, George Soros & Warren Buffet who have more than two children -- two as recommended but under no pressure by the RH Bill -- & believe that the poor have less a right to reproduce than them.

10) It looks so chic & intellectual nowadays to bash the Church & religion at every opportunity & besides, even if the Bill is passed & still fails to achieve its purpose, the Church can always still be blamed for its failure.

A Firm Response to Pro-RH Propaganda

Ten Appeals in the Philippine Debate of the Reproductive Health Bill

by Joffre Balce 

1) Stop exploiting the tragedy of 11 mothers without mourning the loss of 11 children as well. Parents AND children are what REPRODUCTION is about. Express your concern & sympathy for the other stakeholder as well.

2) Stop calling the conceived a lump of cells. It is a human with a complete set of chromosomes coming into being like you & we all are. Remember your origins & be aware of your genetic blueprint & respect others’ too. Feel free to call the conceived as an unborn child.

3) Stop blaming the population of the poor for the poverty in the Philippines. They are the logical & natural consequence of social injustices & systems of bad governance. Push the politicians to do the jobs they were paid to do – social justice, political reform & good governance.

4) Stop claiming that the poor are the beneficiaries of the RH Bill. The proposed PHP 3B budget will benefit political appointees, pharma cos., media businesses & other related interests before a fraction of that get to the poor. Spend it on the care, nutrition & cure of the living malnourished & unserved/underserved poor mother & the children they are delivering.

5) Stop claiming that the RH Bill is pro-women. Motherhood is an exclusive role that only women can assume. Motherhood is neither just another career option nor even an obstacle to becoming a full woman. Respect the full role of women.

6) Stop saying the RH Bill is for sustainable development. The future generations are the raison d'etre of sustainable development & not in any way a threat or obstacle. Start treating at them as a prospective asset under a social reform agenda rather than a potential liability under the status quo.

7) Stop promoting contraceptives bought from WTO/GATT protected pharma cos. as the weapons to battle poverty. Start prioritizing a more & affordable obstetric, primary, nutrition-based & proactive health care to combat existing poverty-related diseases & syndromes as well as hygienic & safe delivery.

8) Stop telling the opposition to the RH Bill to be rational & to stop using dogma while using your own. Fix your own logic & start seeing the inconsistencies & fundamental flaws in the RH Bill.

9) Stop telling the opposition to the RH Bill to shut up. This is a democracy, y’heard? Start applying the standards you set on the opposition to the RH Bill on yourselves as well.

10) Stop blaming the Church for standing in the way of the RH Bill's passage. It’s the your fault if your own logic can’t defend it. And I’ll bet if the RH Bill passes & population growth still doesn’t decline, you’ll still blame it on the Church anyway.

CFC FFL's Position on the RH Bill

CFC FFL’s Position re: the Consolidated RH Bill (HB 4244)

COUPLES FOR CHRIST FOUNDATION FOR FAMILY AND LIFE (“CFC-FFL”) respectfully submits this

POSITION PAPER

in opposition to House Bill No. 4244 (“An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development, and for other Purposes”) (the “RH Bill”).

A.     Legal Objections

1.  The RH Bill is inherently unconstitutional

The underlying premise of the RH Bill is that life begins at implantation. It is this fundamental assumption that breathes life to its cause—the cornerstone upon which it builds the legal framework supporting its mandate for the promotion and distribution of “artificial methods of family planning”, particularly all forms of contraceptives. Without this foundational anchor, the RH Bill collapses under its own weight, deprived of legal moorings.

CFC-FFL humbly submits that the premise of the RH Bill is wrong.

Life begins at conception, not implantation. Both the Philippine Medical Association and renowned embryologists concur that life begins at conception, when the male sperm fuses with the female egg cell. At that point, the number of chromosomes necessary to create a human being (i.e., 46) becomes complete, resulting in the creation of a unique human being. However, for this human being to grow and develop to full term, he/she needs to be implanted on the mother’s uterus, which serves as his/her source of sustenance and habitation.

The framers of the Constitution had the same notion about the onset of life when they adopted Article II, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, which pertinently provides that “[t]he State . . . shall equally protect the life of . . . the unborn from conception.” Thus, during their deliberations to clarify this provision, the authors adopted the medical definition of the term “conception” (i.e., fertilization of the ovum).

Since life begins at conception, then any post-conception act that prevents or stops the natural development of the fertilized ovum—an essential element of which is its implantation on the uterus–is an attack against that life. If the assault is done deliberately—and succeeds–it may well qualify as murder. In any case, the act falls squarely within the legal meaning of abortion.

Many contraceptives exist for this specific purpose. They prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting itself on the uterus, depriving the ovum of its natural habitation and life support.  Except for the relative degree of helplessness, the effect is no different from where an assailant kills an infant by means of starvation and suffocation.

By indiscriminately promoting all types of contraceptive devices and services, the RH Bill violates Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution. In terms of effect, it will legalize the mass murder of innocent babies.

2. Specific Infirmed Provisions of the RH Bill

• a.   Section 16 of the RH Bill

The referenced provision would force students starting from Grade Five up to fourth Year High School to undergo “mandatory age-appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education”. The RH Bill defines “Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education” as a life-long learning process of providing and acquiring complete, accurate and relevant information and education on reproductive health and sexuality through life skills education and other approaches (Sec. 4). Parenthetically, the term “Reproductive Health Care” includes “sexual health, the purpose of which is the enhancement of life and personal relations” (Ibid.)

CFC-FFL objects for several reasons.

First, since matters of sex raise issues of morality, the provision contravenes the State’s principle that “the natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth . . . for the development of moral character shall receive the support of the State.” (Constitution, art. II, sec. 12). The RH Bill would snatch from parents their sacred right and duty to teach morality and sexuality to their growing children within the privacy of their home and in accordance with their religious beliefs.  Yet, the RH Bill would declare as a policy that “the State recognizes and guarantees the exercise of the universal basic human right to reproductive health . . . particularly of parents . . . consistent with their religious convictions (and) cultural beliefs . . .”—one of several examples of the RH Bill’s self-contradiction.

Second, because of its intrusive effect, the provision runs counter to the State’s commitment to “protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution” (Ibid.) It also conflicts with Article 149 of the Family Code, which provides that “the family, being the foundation of the nation, is a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects.” If allowed to pass, the RH Bill would invade the sanctity of family life by imposing behavioural patterns that will undermine family values. To this extent, it would violate the family members’ basic right to privacy.

Third, the prescribed sex education wrongly assumes that children as young as 10 years old have the discernment and emotional/psychological maturity to handle properly the delicate topic of sex and its ramifications. Under Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006”, a child 15 years old or below at the time of the commission of the offense is exempt from criminal liability, because the law assumes that a child of such age has no discernment. Without the ability to discern, how could students between the ages of 10 and 15 be expected to process such a complicated topic as sex correctly and responsibly?

Fourth, Section 16 of the RH Bill—to the extent that it forces families and their children to comply with the requirement on sex education–contradicts the RH Bill’s own guiding principle in Section 3(a) guaranteeing freedom of choice. Compulsion is anathema to an individual’s right to make free and informed decision.

• Penal Provisions of the RH Bill

By way of general opposition, CFC-FFL respectfully submits that the penalties imposed in the RH Bill represent a discriminatory bias in favour of contraceptives and against natural family planning methods, in wanton disregard of the equal protection clause. Worse, the prohibitions ignore Constitutionally-protected personal and property rights of individuals.

One example is Section 28(a)(1), which penalizes any health care provider who shall “knowingly withhold information or restrict the dissemination thereof, and/or intentionally provide incorrect information regarding the programs and services on reproductive health, including the right to informed choice and access to a full range of legal, medically-safe and effective family planning methods”.  By forcing the health care provider to speak the line of contraception–and punishing him for expressing his own opinion and beliefs against it–the provision clearly impinges on the individual’s freedom of speech and religion. To the extent that it restrains his desire to speak his mind, the prohibition constitutes unlawful prior restraint.

Section 28 (a)(2) is objectionable to the extent that it allows the beneficiary of reproductive health services to proceed with the procedure despite protest from his/her spouse. Such evident bias for population control promotes division and disunity in the family, at the expense of the Constitutional dictum recognizing “the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation” and directing the State to “strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.” (See art. XV, sec. 1 of the Constitution).

Section 28(a)(3) is defective because it would force the health care provider to extend health care services even to a minor.

For stifling dissent and legislating prior restraint, Section 28(e) violates free speech and religious freedom. The provision would penalize any person who “maliciously” engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of the law. The threat of imprisonment and/or fine—found in Section 29–would create a chilling effect among those who disagree with the law for any reason, effectively muzzling their opinion. It would also open the floodgates for crackdowns and the filing of harassment suits. By all legal yardsticks, the provision constitutes a direct affront to the Bill of Rights.

• Section 7 of the RH Bill

This provision would require PhilHealth to “pay for the full cost of family planning” if the beneficiary “wishes to space or prevent her next pregnancy”. Why is family planning given special attention?  There are thousands of destitute citizens afflicted with tuberculosis, diabetes, dengue, cancer and other kinds of illness, who need the support of Government. Who will provide the cost of their medicine? Why are they left out? Why are beneficiaries of family planning singled out for a guaranteed financial support? CFC-FFL sees no valid classification for this warped sense of prioritization, and opposes it on the ground that it violates the equal protection clause enshrined in the Constitution.

• Section 10 of the RH Bill

Article II, Section 15 of the Constitution obligates the State to “protect and promote the right to health of the people . . .” The RH Bill would undermine this obligation by classifying “products and supplies for modern family planning methods” as “essential medicines”, in the process diverting scarce funds that would otherwise go to the purchase of truly essential medicines and equipment necessary for the treatment of cancer and other deadly ailments.

3.  Provisions of the RH Bill are self-contradictory

The RH Bill is mired in fatal inconsistencies and contradictions. To cite some glaring examples:

1. Section 3(a) of the RH Bill guarantees the right of every individual to make free and informed decisions, and to be free from any form of restraint or coercion. This is contradicted by the subsequent Penal Clauses in Section 29, which would imprison or fine any person for expressing an opinion contrary to the law or for refusing to perform reproductive health services. Another contradiction to Section 3 is the provision on sex education (Section 16 of the RH Bill), which would compel parents and their children to comply with mandatory sex education.
2. The RH Bill purportedly aims to protect the rights of adolescents and children (see Section 3(b and c). However, they would expose these hapless individuals to the sensitivity and complications of sex through mandatory sex education, and would even allow them to decide for themselves whether or not to ask for and accept any form of reproductive health services, despite scientific findings that children fifteen years old and below are without discernment. CFC-FFL respectfully submits that the duty to protect these youth includes the obligation to protect them against themselves.
3. Section 3(c) concedes that “human resource is a principal asset of the country”. Yet, practically all the provisions of the RH Bill seek to stunt the growth of this valuable resource through a well-orchestrated and funded promotion of contraceptives and other forms of artificial family planning. The RH Bill would also “encourage” couples to limit their children to just two (see Sec. 2).
4. In Section 3(f), the RH Bill proclaims that “the State shall promote, without bias, all modern natural and artificial methods of family planning”. But considering that practically all of the important provisions relate to the promotion, implementation and funding of artificial family planning, e.g., Section 10 (“Family Planning Supplies as Essential Medicines”), Section 11 (“Procurement and Distribution of Family Planning Supplies”), Section 15 (“Mobile Health Care Services”), Section 16 (“Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education”), Section 19 (“Capability Building of Barangay Health Workers”), Section 21 (“Employers’ Responsibilities”), Section 25 (“Implementing Mechanisms”), Section 26 (“Reporting Requirements”), Section 28 (“Prohibited Acts”), Section 29 (“Penalties”), and Section 30 (“Appropriations”), there is hardly any doubt that the RH Bill is tilted heavily towards contraceptives and other forms of reproductive health services.
5. The RH Bill claims that it is not changing the law against abortion (Section 3(j)), but the fact that it would allow the use of contraceptives that prevent implantation of the fertilized ovum negates such gratuitous claim.
6. Section 3(m) admits that the State has “limited resources”, and that the same cannot be “suffered to be spread thinly”. If so, why then would the RH Bill appropriate scarce resources for the propagation of contraceptives, instead of channelling these resources to the containment of killer diseases?

B.     Other Objections

1. The Filipino race will become extinct

For a nation to continue its existence, it must maintain a Total Fertility Rate (“TFR”) of 2.1 per woman of reproductive age. This is the rate needed to replace inevitable human loss. In the 1960’s, the country’s “TFR” stood at a healthy 7 children per woman. By 2008, it had plummeted to a mere 3.1. Without an RH Law, the TFR will decline to just 2.1 by 2025, after which it will continue its downward spiral, resulting in the aging and eventual extinction of our race similar to what is happening in Japan, Singapore, Italy and France.

The RH Bill correctly proclaims that human resource is a principal asset of the country. The two most populous countries — China and India — are now the world’s second and fourth largest economies, respectively. They achieved this distinction principally because of their huge population, which gave them natural advantages in terms of having a broader pool of scientists, engineers and other skilled people, a wider base of productive workers, and an expansive consumer market.  No less than the former U.S. President Bill Clinton recognized the benefit of a huge population during his recent visit to the Philippines. Indeed, if harnessed properly through the adoption of sound government policies that attack corruption and promote people’s training, the country’s population has the potential of extricating us from poverty and elevating the Philippines to the league of developed countries.

2.  Children will become “sex experts”

Section 16 of the RH Bill obligates students, starting in grade 5 until 4th year high school—a total of 7 straight years—to undergo sex education that will teach them about the purpose and use of condoms, pills, IUD, and other contraceptives, ovulation periods, and other aspects of sexuality. Bombarding them with these birth-control methods increases the risk of these children believing that it is okay to have pre-marital sex, especially if the natural deterrent to engaging in sex (e.g., pregnancy) is perceived to have been removed.

3.  Morality will deteriorate

Seven years of continued exposure to contraceptives–and the notion that the use of contraceptives removes the natural deterrent to pre-marital sex (i.e., pregnancy)—inevitably erodes such traditional values as “virginity before marriage”, marital fidelity, and chastity. The sexual act becomes a mere biological necessity, devoid of its spiritual dimension.

4.  Parents will lose part of their parental authority

By compelling children to undergo sex education even against their parents’ wishes, Section 16 of the RH Bill would force parents to surrender (i) their Constitutional right to raise and develop the moral character of their children (see Art. II, Sec. 12 of the Constitution) and (ii) their statutory right to care and rear their minor children for the development of their moral, mental and physical characteristics and well-being (see Article 209, Family Code). Moreover, Section 28 (a)(2) of the RH Bill removes the requirement on parental consent in cases where a minor is abused by another member of the family, e.g., brother. Finally, Section 28 (a)(3) of the RH Bill forces a health care provider to extend health case services, e.g., dispensing contraceptive pills, to a minor even without parental consent.

5.  Parents will surrender the right to raise their children according to their faith and the law

The Catholic Church prohibits the use of contraceptives. The RH Bill ignores and nullifies this prohibition by promoting the use of contraceptives (through mandatory sex education under Section 16) and by enabling a minor to demand reproductive health services even without parental consent under Section 28 (a)(3)(4).

6.  Families will be divided

By empowering children to decide for themselves matters of reproductive health without involvement from, and even against the will of, their parents, the RH Bill would seek to destroy the unity of the family by driving a wedge between the children and the parents. The law will promote the independence of children, ultimately resulting in their rebellion, disobedience and defiance.

7.  The poor will lose the opportunity to have more jobs, public schools, public hospitals, and free medicine

A significant segment of the poor has no access to medical services and vocational education. They cannot afford to see a doctor, buy medicine, or go to college. The funds that would otherwise go to the purchase of contraceptives would be better used for generating more jobs, providing free medicine, and building more public schools and hospitals.

8. People will pay more taxes

The RH Bill requires enormous funding for the acquisition of contraceptives and the delivery of reproductive health services, running in billions of taxpayers’ money as provided in Section 30. The escalating financial requirement will inevitably translate to more taxes.

9.  A new source of corruption will be created

Quoting Renaud Meyer, the United Nations Development Program country director, the Phil. Daily Inquirer reported that the Philippines lose P1.92 billion to corruption every year. In 2000, the cost of corruption was 10% of GNP. A more recent estimate puts it at close to 20% of the national budget.

10.  Women will be exposed to a higher risk of contracting deadly diseases

The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies oral contraceptive pills as Group 1 carcinogens. This means that the use of these pills increases the consumer’s risk of contracting breast cancer. Findings of the Women’s Health’s Initiative have confirmed this risk, and have added the conclusion that their use also exposes women to the risk of acquiring cerevascular disease, myocardial infarction, and pulmonary embolism.

11.   No Compelling Need for the RH Bill

At this day and age, contraceptives and other kinds of artificial family planning are readily available in the market. Condoms and birth-control pills can be purchased over the counter or through third parties, invariably without need of medical prescription. There are even herbal concoctions sold in the corners of Manila, and practices of “mang-hihilot, that produce the same effect. Truth be told, there is no cogent need for the RH Bill.

Authors of the RH Bill claim that their goal is to give women the right to space their children and to choose the kind of family planning method. At present, such rights exist even without the RH Bill. There is no law that deprives them of the right to space or determine the number of their children, or that prohibits them from choosing artificial family planning as their preferred method.

There is also the proponents’ argument that the RH Bill will reduce pregnancy-related deaths. Such contention is flawed. First, the correct solution to this problem is not the promotion and distribution of contraceptives, but the legislation of programs that will provide free pre-natal care to poor pregnant women. Second, there is no clear proof that flooding the country with contraceptives will lower the incidents of pregnancy. On the contrary, because this strategy naturally encourages promiscuity and promotes sexual adventurism, the risk of pregnancy and abortion increases in proportion to the established failure rate of contraceptives.

If it becomes law, the RH Bill will do nothing more than force or condition the mind of people to use contraceptives and other forms of reproductive health services—this, at the expense of the fundamental rights of the people. With the liberties of the citizenry trampled, and the national coffers poorer–only the manufacturers and distributors of these artificial family planning devices and services—and others with their own hidden agenda—stand to benefit from this proposed legislation.

For the foregoing reasons, CFC-FFL humbly asks that the RH Bill be recalled, withdrawn, or rejected by the Honorable House of Representatives.

NOTE: AN EARLIER VERSION OF THIS PAPER CAN BE FOUND HERE.

The Filipino Family Under Siege

The Filipino Family Under Siege

View more presentations from Jessie Somosierra

A doctor on "making a truly informed choice."

Making a Truly Informed Choice: Why I Am Against the RH Bill

By Abraham Daniel Cruz, M.D.

In order to arrive at an intelligent decision regarding any issue, it is imperative that we educate ourselves, in order to understand its true complexities. Sadly so many of us have been victims of making hasty generalizations and sweeping judgments. Such is the case with the very divisive Reproductive Health (RH) Bill. People have taken sides, whether, pro or against this bill, and yet when questioned further, the simple act of reading the bill itself has not even been accomplished, and intelligent discussions have degenerated to the hurling of insults, labeling and name-calling (religious fanatics, baby killers, pro-life vs pro-choice, etc.). I honestly fear that bigotry and religious-based violence is not an all too far reality if this matter is not resolved objectively. While my stand against the RH Bill stems from the initial fact that I am a Catholic first and a physician second, this faith must be enlightened with reason, lest we reduce our faith to natural religiosity, sentimentality, and pious intentions. As Pope John Paul II has beautifully articulated in Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason):

“Deprived of reason, faith has stressed feeling and experience, and so run the risk of no longer being a universal proposition. It is an illusion to think that faith, tied to weak reasoning, might be more penetrating; on the contrary, faith then runs the grave risk of withering into myth or superstition.“

As a lay Catholic, it is my responsibility to understand this faith, despite the limitations of my intellect, for I can never fully grasp the immensity of Christian teaching. Of course, I am not a theologian, and the objective of this article is not to impose Catholic teaching, but for the reader to gain a bigger and better perspective on the issue at hand. Current surveys say 69% of Filipinos are OK with the RH bill, yet only a very minute handful may actually have read the bill. Thus, these respondents may agree with the CONCEPT of RH, but in actuality have not even read the RH Bill. As Filipinos, it is our duty to educate ourselves, so that we can ask our own questions and eventually make a truly informed decision.

In this article, I will focus on certain issues on the RH bill which I find objectionable. However, since the RH bill has evolved so many times in Congress (HB 5043, 96, 101, 513, 1160, 1520, 3387), I am not able to provide the specific articles and sections of the objectionable provisions since I am only beginning to read the new consolidated RH bill (which is 23 pages, by the way). Also, the current version in Congress seems to have been watered down (eg. removing “satisfying and safe sex” from the definition of Reproductive Health, stating that the bill recommends but does not impose a two-child policy, no specific population to attain, etc.) and has added new provisions on HIV/AIDs and STD prevention, and breast cancer management among others. Nevertheless, the contents and ideology of the bill remain essentially the same as with previous versions.

It is important to note that there is actually a broad agreement on both sides regarding many of the issues on RH (reduction of maternal and infant mortality, violence against women, breastfeeding, infant nutrition, care of post-abortion complications, improvement of infrastructure, training and deployment of skilled birth attendants, etc.). These areas are not up for a lengthy discussion. Most discord is actually on the issues of subsidizing (i.e. using taxpayers’ money) and mandating contraception, population control as a solution to poverty, mandatory sex education in grade school and high school, the seeming loss of parental authority in the acquisition of RH services by minors, provision of RH services by employers, and the punitive provisions which make health workers, employers, and any advocate vulnerable to prosecution. We must remember that when people say we they are pro-RH bill, it means they support ALL its PROVISIONS and not merely the concept of RH. But when I say that I am anti-RH bill, it means that I do not agree with SOME of the provisions of the bill, thereby I cannot support the bill that is currently being discussed in Congress. These objectionable provisions are the ones I will tackle.

Do We Need A New Law?

First and foremost, presupposing that I agree with the ideology of the pro-RH camp, the question of the necessity to even put into law something as broad as health care and reproductive health may be raised. This is a valid issue, since amendments in already existing legislation and programs of the Department of Health will achieve the same goals as what the RH bill supposedly wants as well. Why the need to make a new law?

Hormonal Contraception and Other Devices

This will be the meat of the article, since this is the most highly contended issue. I will not tackle the morality of sex, since that is another altogether different issue, and I urge the reader to try to understand what sex means to them, what it does to them, and its implications in their lives. However, sex and the issue of contraception and STD prevention are closely intertwined. The issue on contraceptives and other devices as part of the family planning program and prevention of STDs is very complex, and three things need to be settled. First is on when life begins, second is the mechanism of action and failure rate of these drugs and devices, and last is the issue of State subsidy. The freedom to choose is a non-issue here, since a person can choose any method in the freedom of his/her conscience without fear of coercion.

Actually, the issue of when life begins should also be a non-issue. It begins at the moment of fertilization (the union of the egg and sperm). This has been settled, not by faith, but by science. Consult any embryology textbook, and all will say that the fertilization is time zero of human development. Before the 1960s, the terms fertilization and conception meant one and the same thing. Now, if the embryo, the zygote, is not alive and is not human, then I don’t know how else to describe it. Yet doubt is cast even over this simple fact because the International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (FIGO) , in the 1960s, defined the onset of pregnancy not during fertilization but during the implantation of the blastocyst into the endometrium – what they now term as conception. Surprisingly, this was not brought about by any scientific breakthrough during that time but coincidentally was made at around the same time that the first oral contraceptive pill was sold in the market. The implications of this “redefinition” will be seen in the mechanism of action of oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), where our pharmacology textbook (Katzung) states that:

The combinations of estrogens and progestins exert their contraceptive effect largely through selective inhibition of pituitary function that results in inhibition of ovulation. The combination agents also produce a change in the cervical mucus, in the uterine endometrium, and in motility and secretion in the uterine tubes, all of which decrease the likelihood of conception and implantation. The continuous use of progestins alone does not always inhibit ovulation. The other factors mentioned, therefore, play a major role in the prevention of pregnancy when these agents are used.

By virtue of the FIGO definition of conception, the post-fertilization effect of preventing blastocyst implantation does not equate to the abortifacient effect of OCPs, since abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy before the age of viability (20wks), and you cannot terminate something that hasn’t even started yet. However, I will not insult your intelligence. We can see that it is all a matter of semantics and word play in order to make the OCP “palatable”, and that the prevention of implantation terminates life. While it may be argued that the prevention of implantation is not the primary mechanism of action, it happens nonetheless, as evidenced by breakthrough ovulations and failure rates of OCPs. However, the extent to which it does cannot be empirically measured, since it is logistically and ethically impossible to determine it which “successful” prevention of pregnancy is due to inhibition of ovulation, fertilization or implantation. This is where the concept of precautionary principle is applied. When we are unsure of whether these drugs and devices can harm life itself, it is always better to err on the side of life, because we cannot afford to risk even one human life.

The intrauterine device (IUD) does not even prevent ovulation. Fertilization does take place and the IUD works by causing an inflammatory reaction on the endometrial lining, making it hostile to implantation. The condom and other barrier methods, while preventing fertilization, can fail. There’s no such thing as “safe sex”. Multiple scientific studies show that they only reduce the risk, but are not 100% effective, with conservative figures going as high as 10% - 15% failure rate.

We must realize that these failure rates, however low they seem, are not just numbers, they are people – your brother, your sister, your best friend. The truth of the matter is that the use contraceptives is like playing Russian roulette – it is a matter of life or death. If the contraceptives fail in preventing pregnancy, you gain a life; if they fail in the prevention of STD/HIV/AIDS, you lose a life. Sadly, most OB-GYNs turn a blind eye to to this fact, relegating failure rates to mere statistics. Are we really willing to put actual lives at stake? Is the State going to subsidize the purchase of drugs and devices that can harm lives, even when the Constitution states that “life must be protected from conception to natural death?”

Reducing Maternal Mortality

It must be acknowledged that the RH bill provides actual solutions to reducing maternal mortality by improving and increasing infrastructure and providing transportation for mothers who are about to give birth, improving prenatal care, and training and deploying more skilled birth attendants. That we can agree upon. The questionable measure is advocating contraception in this situation, because multiparity apparently increases the risk of uterine atony and hemorrhage, which is the leading cause of maternal death. In short, RH bill proponents are saying that to reduce the number of maternal deaths, we should prevent women from getting pregnant. For me, this is an absurd concept. For sure, we will reduce NUMBERS, but are we actually reducing mortality in terms of PERCENTAGE? Take this for example: The performance of a school in the board examination is not measured in terms of reducing the number of those who fail by not allowing students to take the exam, but in counting those who passed over all who took the exams. Similarly, the efficiency of a program designed to reduce maternal mortality should not be solely measured by reducing the number of maternal deaths, but in counting those who survive over every delivery that occurred. This goal can be achieved without the need for contraception.

Population Management and Poverty

The current bill states that “there shall be no demographic or population targets and the mitigation of the population growth rate is incidental to the promotion of reproductive health and sustainable development”. However, the bill also states that in the context of sustainable development, having two children is the ideal family size (but is not mandated) and that family planning is part of the multidimensional approach to fight poverty. While the words have been watered down in comparison to the previous versions of the bill, the ideology is still the same -- too much people make a country poor, and we need to reduce the number of people because we have limited resources. While this is still a debateable issue, numerous economic studies have shown that there is no correlation between poverty and population. Nobel Prize winner Simon Kuznets’ research has shown that there is insignificant empirical association between population growth rates and output per capita (economic growth). Rather, it is the rate at which technology grows and the ability of the population to employ these new technologies efficiently and widely that permit economic progress. What we need is to provide laws and opportunities that will provide stable, secure, well-paid jobs with good benefits and higher education. Ultimately, poverty is not caused by too many people, but is a result of wrong economic policies, poor governance, human greed, and systemic corruption. These are the three things that the government should focus on, and I hope our President will be true to his campaign battle cry – “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap.”

The truth of the matter is that the Philippines isn’t poor. We are capable of doing great things to uplift the lives of those less fortunate than us. Typhoon Ondoy brought out the best in us, for it showed that we have more than what we need, judging from all the donations that were gathered. In the fight against poverty, we need throw away our complacency, get our get our butts out of our comfort zone and do the dirty work. We cannot expect the government to do everything for us.

Women’s Rights and Freedom of Choice

Another issue is that of the advancement of women’s rights and the freedom of choice. Of course, the State must promote these rights, but up to what extent? At the expense of the life of the embryo? Is there currently a curtailment of these choices in the first place? No. I can even easily go to a drug store and buy a month’s worth of pills WITHOUT a prescription. Are women with post-abortion complications not being treated by our hospitals? No. Not even in Catholic-run hospitals. For women’s rights advocates, the promotion of these rights seems to equate to UNIVERSAL (State-subsidized) access to RH services as what the RH bill proposes. However, subsidy means taxpayers money. That is the issue. As taxpayers, we must have a say on where our taxes should go, and as health professionals, we must base the allocation of our resources on the top causes of morbidity (diarrhea, bronchitis, pneumonia, influenza, hypertension, TB, diseases of the heart, malaria, measles, chicken pox) and mortality (diseases of the heart, pneumonias, accidents, cancer, pulmonary tuberculosis, renal failure, diabetes mellitus, asthma, peptic ulcer, liver cirrhosis). While some may argue that bringing the population down may alter these picture in relation to a projected improved quality of life in the FUTURE, Filipinos are suffering and dying of these diseases TODAY. We must allocate and prioritize our resources to where there is an immediate need, using burden of illness as the parameter.

My take on the issue? If you want to purchase a contraceptive, use your own money. It would seem so odd to walk into a barangay health center with no antibiotics for pneumonia but overflowing with free condoms and other contraceptives. And, let us not forget that CONTRACEPTION IS AN INDUSTRY, with pharmaceutical industries and allied health professionals set to gain millions of dollars from the passage of this bill, and politicians who will undoubtedly find a way to overprice and pad their accounts in the purchase of these items.

Freedom of Conscience and Religious Expression

For us Christians, we are all invited to live our faith not only during Sundays, but also in the concreteness and ordinariness our everyday lives. This includes its application on issues with regard to family life, sex education of children inside the family, professional practice, legislation, economics, and health care. This is the true embodiment of religious expression. It is lived. Now, whether or not the rest 80% of Filipinos who are also Catholics accept, live and express this faith is another issue altogether, and what this means to our Catholic President, who will approve or reject this bill, is not up for public debate. Nevertheless, the Catholic teaching on artificial contraception, on sexual intercourse being always open to life in the context of marriage, and on responsible parenthood – these ARE Catholic teachings concretely expressed, and the State must recognize and respect this exercise freedom of religious expression. The freedom of conscience as well as freedom from coercion in religious expression must be guaranteed by the State. One cannot be Catholic and be pro-RH Bill. It is an oxymoron. Yet Church leaders are being accused, even by its own members, while invoking the separation of Church and State, of meddling with the affairs of the State, when all it is doing is proclaiming its teachings, no matter how unpopular they seem to the majority. It is sad that people praise and thank the Church when they agree with church involvement in the fight against corruption and environmental problems, etc., yet label its leaders as meddlers and hypocrites when Church teachings make them uncomfortable with their personal and lifestyle choices. And yes, the Church has problems of its own, but these issues do not diminish its role as a guide to its flock, and neither do the recent scandals forfeit the Church’s role in speaking out when corruption rears its ugly head.

In all these, the State, through the RH bill, threatens those who disagree and do not follow its mandate with imprisonment of one to six months or a fine of ten to fifty-thousand pesos. These are the “would-be criminals” , the people/institutions you might see being prosecuted – schools that don’t want to teach sex education classes, employers who don’t provide RH information and services to their employees, advocates whose stand on contraception and other issues are interpreted as forms of “malicious disinformation”, and hospitals and health care service providers who refuse to extend reproductive health services and information to a patient and do not refer the said patient to a health service provider who will do so because of ethical or religious reasons. If that is not oppression and coercion, then I don’t know what it is.

Last Words

These may very well be my last words on this issue because when HB 4244 passes, and it just might, I might be hauled into prison (hopefully, there will be Christain lawyers who will defend me). All too often, Church teaching on reproductive health and responsible parenthood has been marred with regulations, technicalities, and abstract concepts, making it difficult to understand and eventually accept. But above all, reproductive health and responsible parenthood are about love. As Dean Tony Lavina of the Ateneo School of Government said, it is:

“… the love between husband and wife, love for children and family that is the fruit of that love, and ultimately the love of God that forgives us and that enables us to be faithful to the Word in spite of our sinfulness and scarce resources. This is a beautiful message and the Church should not be ashamed of it.”