Filipinos for Life - Statement of Support for Senator Tito Sotto

Metro Manila is not the Philippines, and MM's overcrowding does not make the Philippines overcrowded too

From the Letters to the Editor section of the PDI:

MM overcrowded but PH not overpopulated

Philippine Daily Inquirer

Monday, August 13th, 2012

“We are not poor because we are plenty; rather we are plenty because we are poor.”

Women do not beget children on their own. So it is unfortunate that throughout the raging controversy over the Reproductive Health bill, no one seems to be paying attention to Filipino men, especially the poor. Virtually all arguments from both sides seem to focus on the protection of women and children alone. But we must get to the root of the problem. Why do husbands continue to force themselves on their wives despite their inability to support large families?

Based on experience from working with the poor, it is due to our individual and collective greed and lust. Our poor menfolk, whom nature designed to be providers for their families, lose their sense of dignity and turn “predatory” when they are jobless or woefully underpaid. Their depressed condition is exacerbated by the vulgarization of sexuality in all forms of mass media.

The RH bill is therefore not a real and lasting solution because it only addresses the symptom of overpopulation among the poor. The end does not justify the means, especially if it is harmful and immoral. Rather, the true and real solution is to promote morality, specifically the virtues of charity and chastity, the values of caring and sharing to overcome greed, and the values of purity and modesty to overcome lust. The late US President Ronald Reagan said it so eloquently, “Economic growth is the best contraceptive.” Metro Manila is overcrowded, but the Philippines is not overpopulated. This is only because we have failed dismally to develop our agricultural sector and provinces, which could have sustained rural families instead of driving them to become illegal settlers in Metro Manila. They are not poor because they are plenty; rather they are plenty because they are poor. Make our poor rich and they will have less time and energy for irresponsible parenthood. Then our rich will only become wealthier because better-paid workers are more productive workers, and they are also more affluent consumers who possess higher purchasing power to buy products and services sold by the rich.

No to Reproductive Health. Yes to Reproductive Wealth, where wealth begets more wealth because the rich help the poor and the poor help themselves through various forms of profit-sharing—not forcible land reform or mandatory wages. Workers who are part-owners will drive revenues, cut costs and conserve cash on their own. And how can we acquire the virtues of charity and chastity? Through personal discipline and self-control (not birth control), and most of all through prayer and sacrifice, because the virtues of charity and generosity, chastity and self-control are fruits of God the Holy Spirit.

Of course, all this must start with the nation’s top leadership. Enough of self-centered leadership. We demand God-centered leadership because we deserve God-centered leadership. Nothing more. Nothing less. P-Noy says “Kayo ang boss ko,” but let us remind him, “ngunit ang Diyos ang boss nating lahat!”

—WILLY ARCILLA,

willyarcilla@yahoo.com

Marwil Llasos' response to the INC support for the RH bill

From the blog The Knight of Mary - Marwil N. Llasos, O.P. comes the following comprehensive critique of the Iglesia Ni Cristo's support for the RH bill:

A CRITIQUE OF IGLESIA NI CRISTO EXECUTIVE MINISTER EDUARDO V. MANALO’S STATEMENT ON THE RH BILL 

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

PART 4

Neither a time for lamentation nor for rejoicing

On August 6, Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord, as rain poured down from the heavens and floods raged in the areas surrounding the Batasang Pambansa, the Philippine House of Representatives voted to terminate the debates on the RH bill in order to move on to the period of amendments. 

Many supporters of the RH bill are rejoicing, and many of my fellow pro-lifers are lamenting, as if the bill has already passed. I can't help but think that these reactions are premature. 

First of all, just because some Congressmen voted to terminate the debates does not necessarily mean that they favor the bill and that they want it to pass. While it is true that the termination of the debates was willed and wanted by the President and the pro-RH side, this does not necessarily mean that those who went along with their desire shared the same intentions and the same plan of action. 

Second, many things can still happen during the period of amendments. 

Third, even if the RH bill were to gain the approval of the House of Representatives, this does not mean that the Senate will also capitulate automatically. Senators Sotto and Enrile do not strike me as pushovers, and they are not the only Senators who are inclined to listen to the reasons and arguments of pro-lifers.

And if the Senate approves the RH bill? Are we not already certain that the President will sign it? However, we are not there yet, and in a democratic Republic, not even a President's signature is the final word on the enshrinement of a proposed law.

To the supporters of the RH bill: don't drink your champagne yet! You might want to save it for a better occasion. 

To my fellow pro-lifers: please, don't panic. A step as ambiguous as this should not be an occasion for your tears, and hysterical declarations will not help our cause at all. 

On the eve of voting: the prophecy of Paul VI

From Manila Bulletin:

CASSANDRA PROPHECY
By FR. ROLANDO V. DE LA ROSA, O.P.
August 4, 2012, 8:21pm 

FORTY-FOUR years ago, Pope Paul VI prophesied the horrible effects of contraception to marriage, family, the individual, and society. It was a Cassandra prophecy: Fated to be right, but never heeded. 

In his encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI warned that a contraceptive mentality would lead to the prevalence of divorce, unmitigated premarital sex, the lowering of moral standards among the youth, the phenomenal increase in the number of children born out of wedlock, and rapid decrease of population in countries advocating contraception. He also prophesied that the pervasive use of contraception would diminish our innate sense of responsibility and commitment. Finally, he predicted that contraception would lead to the legalization of abortion. 

Marwil Llasos on why the RH bill is anti-women -- a short and sweet little note

The following note from Atty. Marwil Llasos is currently being shared across Facebook.

The RH Bill is anti-women. Kanino ginagamit ang condom? Sa babae. Sino ang linalagyan ng IUD? Ang babae. Sino ang nila-ligate? Ang babae. Sino ang iniineksiyonan? Ang babae. Sino ang NAGPAPAKASASA sa sarap? Ang LALAKI. Bow.

Ansel Beluso on why he opposes the RH bill

Mr. Ansel Beluso published the following note on Facebook on why he opposes the RH bill. I am publishing this note with his permission.

For more about Mr. Beluso and his life story, please read this: ANSEL BELUSO: From zombading of the worst kind to being zealous for Christ!!!!

BAKIT KO TINUTUTULAN ANG RH BILL?

Una, ako ay sumasampalataya sa kabanalan ng buhay, na siyang pinakasagradong biyaya ng Diyos. Ako ay nananalig na ang buhay ay nagsisimula sa akto ng pagtatagpo ng punlay ng ama at ng itlog ng ina. Ako ay naniniwalang anumang paraan na humahadlang at sumisira sa pagpapatuloy ng likas na daloy ng buhay mula sa puntong iyon ay labag sa kalooban ng Diyos.

 

Pangalawa, ako ay tutol sa abortion. Bagama’t ang salitang “abortion” ay hindi matatagpuan sa alinmang pahina ng House Bill No. 4244, marami sa mga contraceptive methods na isinusulong at popondohan nito ay mayroong abortifacient potential, may kakayahang magbunga ng tinatawag na chemical abortion. Ang chemical abortion ay abortion.

Pangatlo, naniniwala akong ang tinatawag na reproductive health education component ng RH Bill ay mapanganib para sa pamilya at sa kabataan na ayon sa Saligang Batas ng ating bansa ay tungkulin ng Estado na itaguyod, kalingain at pagyamanin.

 

Ang RH Bill ay mapanganib sa pamilya dahil pinahihina nito ang ugnayan ng magulang at anak; at pinanghihimasukan nito ang karapatan at obligasyon ng magulang bilang pangunahing guro at gabay ng mga anak sa usapin ng seksuwalidad.

 

Ito rin ay mapanganib sa kabataan dahil ituturo nitong isabuhay ng ating mga anak ang kalayaang magbubunga ng ibayong kapusukan at mga maling pagpapahalaga. Ito ay salungat sa aral ni Ama at ni Ina, kumakalaban sa tradisyon at kalinangan nating mga Filipino, at may malaking potensiyal na magdulot ng peligro sa kapakanan ng mga bagong sibol na Filipino. 

Pang-apat, naniniwala akong hindi solusyon ang idudulot ng RH Bill kungdi karagdagan pang problema. Nakikita natin ang masamang bungang idinulot ng batas na ito sa mga kanluraning bansa – contraceptive mentality, secular lifestyle, godless ideology, etc. Ang panukalang ito ay magpapabago sa pananaw at pagpapahalaga ng lipunan sa lahat ng aspeto ng buhay na nauuwi sa kapahamakan ng tao sa pangkalahatan. 

Panglima, hindi ako naniniwalang ang RH Bill ay pangkababaihan. Una, isang katotohanang marami sa mga contraceptive methods na sinasabing “safe” ay hindi “safe” dahil nagpapanipis ng matres, nagpaparupok sa obaryo, sumisira sa natural cycles ng katawan ng babae, at may potensiyal na magbunga ng sakit tulad ng iba’t ibang cancer. Pangalawa, walang contraceptive method na 100 percent safe. Ang mga kontraseptibong itinuturing na 99-percent safe ay naglalagay sa panganib sa 1 percent ng gumagamit nito. Samakatuwid, sa bawat isang milyong kababaihang gumagamit ng 99-percent safe contraceptive methods ay may sampung libong babaeng magkakaroon ng pinsala mula rito.

 

Pang-anim, hindi ako naniniwalang ang RH Bill ay pangmahirap. Ayon sa aking payak na pang-unawa, ang solusyon sa kahirapan ay hindi yung lipulin natin ang mga mahirap at hadlangan ang kanilang likas na kakayahang magparami. Sa halip, kasama sa mandato ng pamahalaan na mabigyan sila ng mga paraan upang makaahon sa kahirapan sa pamamagitan ng mga basic services na kailangan nila para magkaroon ng parehas na laban sa buhay, umunlad, yumaman at makapag-ambag din sa lalo pang ikasasagana ng bansa. 

Pampito, sumasampalataya ako sa Simbahang Romano Katoliko at Apostoliko; at kusa akong pumapailalim at nagpapasakop sa mga Obispo at kaparian na pinananaligan kong nag-aangkin ng dunong ng tao at pinagdadaluyan ng dunong ng Diyos. Naniniwala akong hindi katigasan ng ulo o bulag na pagtaguyod sa makaluma at sinaunang kaisipan ang nagbubunsod sa Simbahan para tutulan ang RH Bill; naniniwala akong ang panukalang ito ay labag sa kalooban ng Diyos kaya ito, ayon sa kunsensiya ko, ay imoral at makasalanan.

 

Panginoon, gabayan Mo ang Iyong bayan.

Three Inquirer editorial cartoons versus the RH bill

Even as some of the columnists of the Philippine Daily Inquirer vie with one another in defaming the Church over the issue of the RH bill, the veteran editorial cartoonist of the same newspaper, Mr. Jess Abrera, continues to defy the currents with his editorial cartoons versus the RH bill.

In addition to three cartoons below, Mr. Abrera has made other editorial cartoons against the RH Bill. I've archived another three of them -- as well as this very post -- under the following link: Jess Abrera.

PDI editorial cartoon of August 6 (source):

PDI editorial cartoon of August 5 (source):

For the record, this particular editorial cartoon is now being shared extensively by pro-lifers on social media networks. 

PDI editorial cartoon of August 4 (source):

No comparison!

From my friend Juan Carlo Argo:

GMA, the Catholic Bishops, and the Amnesia of the Philippine Media

In the course of the debates on the RH bill since the inauguration of President Benigno S. Aquino III, one accusation that the Philippine media has liked to repeat is that the CBCP is and has always been in cahoots with GMA, and that the bishops did not condemn her alleged corruption and never did anything to oppose her. How quickly amnesia kicks in for much of the mainstream media!

By way of response, I would like to post here a part of an essay that I circulated among some Catholic groups on January 2, 2008 regarding the attitudes shown by some of the bishops towards the November 29, 2007 mutiny in Makati. I'm not even including here the more numerous harshly anti-GMA statements made by a number of Catholic bishops from 2005 to 2010. While I do not deny that some bishops supported GMA and that some bishops turned to government agencies for help with programs for their flock, this cannot erase the words and actions of those bishops -- including, at one point, the President of the CBCP -- who were against GMA. 

Regardless of how one views the administration of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and regardless of the soundness of the case for her forcible ouster before the end of her term as President, there can and should be no denying that some bishops were by no means GMA supporters, and went so far as to call for her ouster, either in implicit or explicit terms. By way of contrast, not one bishop has called for President Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino III to be overthrown because of his support for the RH bill. 

Background:  The support of Philippine Catholic bishops for the Peninsula Mutiny

The events at the Manila Peninsula last November 29, 2007 demonstrated, among other things, that there continues to be a section of the Catholic Church in the Philippines that believes in the necessity of an uprising or a revolution in order to remove the current Philippine government and install a revolutionary government to be led (according to Bishop Antonio Tobias of Novaliches) by the Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. Furthermore, this pro-revolutionary section enjoys the support of some members of the episcopate of the Catholic Church in the Philippines .

Pictures don't lie: the crowds at the August 4, 2012 rally against the RH bill in EDSA

UPDATE 8/5/12 at 2:18 P.M. Manila time: Please see this article for a picture comparing the anti-RH rally in EDSA with the pro-RH rally with the Filipino Freethinkers a few days ago. No Comparison!


UPDATE 8/5/12 at 3:33 A.M. Manila time: Based on the pictures on this blog post as well as other sources, Dr. Quirino Sugon of Manila Observatory, blogger at the Monk's Hobbit, has made an initial estimate of the crowd as having been at 60,000. 

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

And the pro-RH spin machine goes into high gear!

Manila Bulletin, in what will probably go down as one of the lowest and most shameful points in its history, declared that only 2,500 attended the rally. 

According to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, there were only 7,000 at the rally today...

Manila Standard Today is a bit more generous: 10,000 were there!

As for the Philippine Star, it counted "more than 10,000" at the rally.

However, the pictures tell a different story.

From the UST Varsitarian:

From my friend Anna Cosio:

From Ricardo Boncan:

And from Lenard Berba comes this picture taken earlier in the rally, with a nice view of the streamers on a footbridge:

Prayer Power Rally at the site of People Power

This post, originally published on August 2, will stay as the top post until noon of August 4. Newer posts below. 

***

A NonFAQtual FAQ?

There's an "RH Bill FAQ" penned by a certain Donna Malangit that is currently being circulated on Facebook and elsewhere. Catholic apologist and blogger Ricardo Boncan has penned a comprehensive rebuttal for his blog, The Struggling Dad:


The Deeply Misleading and Erroneous RH Bill FAQ of Donna Malangit, A Response

Comprehensive Q and A on the RH bill in Tagalog / Filipino

Tanong at Sagot Tungkol Sa RH Bill 4244 - originally published in the CBCP Monitor

A sacred choice

Sayang ang Pera

The RH Bill and the Law, 2: A Response by Atty. Cristina Montes to Prof. Florin Hilbay on "Legal Issues on Reproductive Rights"

Critique by Atty. Cristina A. Montes of the UP Primer on Legal Issues on Reproductive Rights - Constitutio...

The RH Bill and the Law, 1: A Critique by Atty. Marwil Llasos J.D.

The Reproductive Health Bill is Unconstitutional
Atty. Marwil N. Llasos J.D.

The Reproductive Health Bill (House Bill No. 4244) in its entirety is unconstitutional because its very premise is at war with the philosophy embodying the 1987 Constitution, dubbed as the Pro-Life Constitution.

The RH Bill proponents hail it as a solution to poverty in our country. They insist that the RH Bill will spare children, especially those who are unwanted, from a life of poverty. The RH Bill will save mothers from emotional trauma brought about by child bearing. These arguments are not new. They were already discussed and voted on the floor of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. The result is the present Article II, Section 12 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution:

“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.”

Constitutionalist Rev. Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., in his annotation on the 1987 Philippine Constitution, expresses the sense of Article II, Section 12 that it “denies that the life of the unborn may be sacrificed merely to save the mother from emotional suffering or to spare the child from a life of poverty.”[1] The commonsensical and constitutional solution to the problem was stated by Fr. Bernas, thus: “The emotional trauma of a mother as well as the welfare of the child after birth can be attended through other means such as availing of the resources of welfare agencies.”[2]

What does Article II, Section 12 seek to achieve? Fr. Bernas answers that the provision was intended “primarily to prevent the state from adopting the doctrine in the United States Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade which liberalized abortion at the discretion of the mother any time during the first six months when it can be done without danger to the mother.”[3]

Clearly, the provision constitutionally outlaws abortion. There’s no chance that abortion can ever be legal in this country as long as the 1987 Philippine Constitution stands.

***

To read more, click HERE.

RH bill: Closing the demographic window of opportunity?

The following was published by Business World Online on July 7, 2012 under the rubric "Popular Economics":

A ‘demographic window’ of opportunity

Felipe Salvosa II

IS A LARGE population a boon or a bane?

The debate has been going on for centuries. In the Philippines, it flares up whenever lawmakers take up bills proposing to control population growth.

In recent months, however, the government’s top economic managers — echoed by a number of private-sector analysts — have cited the advantages of the country’s demographic profile, changing the tone of the population debate.

Last March, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Governor Amando M. Tetangco, Jr. told the Philippine Investment Forum that the Philippines would be the last major economy in Asia to enter the “demographic sweet spot,” and this would happen by 2015. In May, Finance Secretary Cesar V. Purisima said a huge working population was expected to accelerate economic growth.

Pro-Life Philippines on the "deluge of misinformation" from the pro-RH side

From the website of Pro-Life Philippines:

Top 5 Pro-RH Fallacies

Repeat a lie often enough, according to Joseph Goebbels, and it becomes a truth. Ironically, during these times, this rings true very often, especially because there has been a deluge of misinformation that has been circulated by RH backers. Here are the top 5 most outrageous fallacies that have made the rounds in forums and in debates.

1. False: The country needs to slow down its population growth rate/lower fertility rate/lessen the number of people because too many people cause poverty.

Truth: The country’s growth rate have been going down since the 60s and according to the NSO, our growth rate is at a measly 1.94%. This is without the benefit of an rh bill. On the other hand, according to the country’s premier economist, Dr. Bernardo Villegas, 200 billion pesos are lost annually due to tax evasion, and another 200 billion lost due to graft and corruption. Given these numbers, should we lessen the number of people, or curb corruption?

Truth: The Malthusian way of thinking – that too many people in a country causes poverty – has been long debunked by people like Simon Kuznets, who was a Nobel Prize winner for Economics. There has never been a clear connection between economic growth and population growth. However, in an article from the Asean Economic Bulletin entitled “The Relationship Between Population and Economic Growth in Asian Economies,” written by Wong Hock Tsen and Fumitaka Furuoka, “For China, Singapore, and the Philippines, population is found to Granger cause (or directly cause) economic growth and not vice versa. “ Similarly, reports coming from HSBC says: ““The Philippines looks set for a multi-decade run of strong growth,” and BSP Governor Amando Tetangco mentions that “the Philippine economy will get additional boost from its citizens by 2015 as it enters the demographic “sweet spot” or average age of Filipinos 22.2 years.” He cited a recent United Nations study which showed that the Philippines is the last major economy in Asia that will benefit from a period wherein bulk of the population is of working age and has the capacity to spend.

2. False: Contraceptives are safe.

Truth: In a test conducted by scientists simulating the sexual act, as much as 29 out of 89 condoms leaked. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1411838)

The IARC and the WHO have declared that combined oral contraceptives are group 1 carcinogens – meaning that they are known to cause cancer to humans, and that they, along with other materials like cigarettes and asbestos, are the most cancer-causing. Most pro-RH proponents are quick to either deny or downplay this fact. One common excuse is that even Paracetamol is cancerous (but are not taken off the shelves of pharmacies). That is just a very ignorant way of downplaying the risk. The fact remains: combined oral contraceptives cause cancer, like breast cancer. Besides, you do not take Paracetamol 21 days straight like you do with OCPs.

3. False: There are 11 mothers dying daily because the RH bill hasn’t passed yet.

Truth: Turns out that their rallying cry of 11 mothers dying daily is outdated information. According to this article from filipinosforlife.com:

“The issue at hand is the pro-RH lobby’s emotional and exclusive use of “11 maternal deaths a day” to scare lawmakers into spending billions of pesos in taxpayers’ money for its contraception and sterilization agenda.

The pro-RH statistic is clearly outdated as attested by not one, not two, but three sets of data. If RHAN-Likhaan-DSWP cared to look elsewhere, they would have found that we had also cited the September 2010 report of the World Health Organization (WHO), Unicef, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and the World Bank, which estimated annual maternal deaths in the Philippines at 2,100 in 2008. That is equivalent to 5.75 deaths a day, a completely different level than “11 a day.” This was clearly down from the 2000 level of 4,100, or 11.2 a day, which was published in a report seven years ago by the same international agencies.

We are astounded that the pro-RH lobby had to go to great lengths to justify the excessive and exclusive use of “11 a day.” We wonder why the figure is now attributed to government statistical agencies, when before, credit was given to the UNFPA and other international bodies. Did the lobbyists misrepresent old data as current? There is a word for that: disingenuous.

That is the plain, ugly truth: the RH camp lied, and continues to lie, about their own data. If they can be dishonest with this and appeal to emotions by using bloated numbers, I believe they are capable of more dishonesty. Like the next one.

4. False: The Church is against the RH Bill; ergo the Church is against women’s health.

Truth: You might have heard this before. And a whole lot of other baseless accusations like “the Church is the enemy of progress,” or “the Church is against science.”  I do not know how that applies as an educated comment, because historians would attribute things like the scientific method and the university system to the Catholic Church. Why is the Church against the RH bill? Precisely because it wants to safeguard women. The prophecies of Pope Paul VI about what would happen if the Church’s teaching on contraception were ignored come to mind:

- Infidelity and moral decline

The Pope first noted that the widespread use of contraception would “lead to conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality.” That there has been a widespread decline in morality, especially sexual morality, in the last 25 years, is very difficult to deny. The increase in the number of divorces, abortion, our-of-wedlock pregnancies, and venereal diseases should convince any skeptic that sexual morality is not the strong suit of our age.

- Lost Respect for Women

The Pope realized that the Church’s teaching on contraception is designed to protect the good of conjugal love. When spouses violate this good, they do not act in accord with their innate dignity and thus they endanger their own happiness. Treating their bodies as mechanical instruments to be manipulated for their own purposes, they risk treating each other as objects of pleasure.

- Abuse of Power

Paul VI also observed that the widespread acceptance of contraception would place a “dangerous weapon… in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies.” The history of the family-planning programs in the Third World is a sobering testimony to this reality. Moreover, few people are willing to recognize the growing evidence that many parts of the world face not overpopulation, but underpopulation. It will take years to reverse the “anti-child” mentality now entrenched in many societies.

- Unlimited Dominion

Pope Paul’s final warning was that contraception would lead man to think that he had unlimited dominion over his own body. Sterilization is now the most widely used form of contraception in the U.S.; individuals are so convinced of their rights to control their own bodies that they do not hesitate to alter even their own physical make-up.

5. False: The RH Bill will uplift the lives of the poor.

Truth: The only way to uplift the lives of the poor is through education. People may ask, why not do both – give contraceptives and educate? Because in a world where governments are asking their citizens to bear more children because of the effects of demographic winter, we cannot afford to follow their example.

Truth: We have yet to see someone who became rich because he wore condoms. The poor who use the contraceptives given to them remain poor; the educated child, however, has a real fighting chance to uplift himself and his family from poverty.