One more time: on abortifacient contraceptives

Two recent Manila Times editorials on the RH bill

Beware the aging population

26 July 2012 

ADB says, “Asia’s aging population is a development challenge, since caring for the elderly can be costly and economic growth and productivity depend on a labor force regularly replenished with young adult workers.”

That is the serious problem being faced by Western Europe and Russia. 

Japan and Korea, whose pensions and care for the elderly are among the world best, are suffering because they have overwhelmingly succeeded in the population-control programs. They now suffer from what experts call “the empty cradle” phenomenon. 

Japan and Korea may have policies and laws to provide generously for retired workers and the elderly but they are facing the problem of where to get the money for the pensions and the benefits from.

The pension funds, like those of our SSS and the GSIS, need contributions from young workers and employees so that the pensions for the retirees can be paid. But if there are no more millions of young Japanese and Koreans entering the labor force and enrolling in the pension funds how can the pensioners be paid?

Japan is increasingly depending on robots to do the work that used to be done by salaried workers. Robots are getting to be more efficient and competent—sometimes even more so than humans. Robots however do not contribute to the pension fund.

That is why the population control desired by proponents of the so-called Reproductive Health Bill must be recognized as a threat to Philippine development, to the economy and to the common good.

Last April, a World Health Organization official, warned that the Philippines must be ready for older people constituting larger and larger parts of the population.

More money would be needed to care for the aged in our country.

The heart-breaking movie Soylent Green 30 years ago offered a solution. Governments would just give seniors who reach the appropriate age a quiet and happy death. Then, because food would be scarce, their bodies would be processed into edible soylent green.

For a better future than that we must reject the mistake that the Western Powers imposed on mankind—population control through contraception and abortion. Instead, the new world order should favor population replenishment and the florescence of the Culture of Love.

World Health Organization sees the population of people 65 and older outnumbering children younger than five in our Western Pacific Region by 2017. By 2050, says WHO, 65 and older adults will outnumber children under 14.

“The older age group is becoming the ‘new normal’ for the world’s population. Populations are ageing fastest in low and middle-income countries. A transition toward an older society took more than a century in Europe and might take place in less than 25 years in countries like Brazil, China and Thailand,” WHO said.

Contrary to the population control lobbyists’ words, our birth rate has been declining steadily. It is now approaching the replacement fertility rate minimum of more than two births essential to avoid the ageing population disaster the West, Japan, Korea and even China have.

****

The President did not endorse the RH bill

28 July 2012 

PROPONENTS of the so-called Reproductive Health Bill are now marshalling their forces to call for a vote on it in both houses of Congress. Their zeal had noticeably been petering out in the weeks before the President delivered his SONA on Monday. But they got a morale boost when they thought they heard him endorse the RHB.

The bill is not as much about reproductive health as about empowering women and giving them the choice to terminate their pregnancy so that they may more freely concentrate on doing what they want without the burdens of the “sickness” they call pregnancy and the sacrificial work of caring for unwanted babies and raising unwanted children. The RHB is also about being able to end unwanted pregnancies that are the result of their drunken husbands lust. It is also about so many wonderful goals to help women become more fulfilled human beings.

But the bill will result in the killing of human embryos, the killing funded by government and made possible by government fiat, as ordered by the RH law (if, God forbid, the RHB gets passed and enacted.) This will surely happen because the law would command that medicines in pill and other forms, and various means and tools, to prevent pregnancies be made freely available for anyone who has the money to buy them and for the government to give these gratis to indigent women. 

The reason human embryos will surely be killed is that these contraceptive pills have been scientifically proved to be destructive of them. They do not prevent pregnancies by preventing the fertilization of the female egg by the male sperm. What they do is snuff the life of the fertilized ovum, which is the beginning of a human being, the early embryo, the first stages of the baby, by poisoning it. Then, in case the embryo is not terminated by poisoning, the contraceptive medicines’ next effect is to coat the uterine wall with a toxic substance to keep the embryo from clinging to the wall of the mother’s uterus. 

Killing tiny babies in the womb

The tiny baby, which some people would rather think about as just cells and a blob of blood, and not the human life that it is, must attach herself or himself to the uterine wall to go on living. This attachment is the way the tiny baby can get sustenance from the mother and grow an umbilical cord through which the mother’s blood containing life-giving substances flows to make the baby grow. 

Opponents of the RHB have asked the proponents to make a list of contraceptive medicines that do not kill the fertilized embryo. They cannot supply a list. They say it is not the job of the law and the government to determine that scientific fact. It should be left to the pharmaceutical companies and the pharmacists dispensing the medicines to determine which contraceptives do what. 

That reply is irresponsible. Why pass a law that will cause the death of babies?

Now killing babies, even in embryo form, is a crime. It is a crime NOT because the Catholic Church and other religions say so. It is a crime because the Philippine Constitution says human life begins at the moment of conception and it is the duty of the Philippine state to protect and nourish human beings from the time of their conception to the time of their natural death.

Therefore, the Philippine government would be committing genocide against Filipinos if the RHB is enacted. Doctors who prescribe contraceptive pills that kill and the pharmacists who sell them, the government nurse and public health officer and caregiver who are ordered by the law to distribute the abortion-causing contraceptive pills, will become murderers of little babies in the womb.

Most members of Congress in both houses understand this. That is why the RHB has not been passed despite years of campaigning by Filipino population control and pro-choice activists supported by the foreigners who bankroll them.

Responsible Parenthood is not the same as RHB 

The President in his last SONA said nothing about supporting the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill. What he mentioned was “Responsible Parenthood.” He said: “Sa taon din pong ito, masisimot na rin ang 61.7 million na backlog sa textbook upang maabot na, sa wakas, ang one is to one ratio ng aklat sa mag-aaral. [This very year, we will wipe out the 61.7 million backlog in textbooks so that we will achieve the one to one ratio of books to students.] [Applause] Sana nga po, ngayong paubos na ang backlog sa edukasyon, sikapin nating huwag uling magka-backlog dahil sa dami ng estudyante. Sa tingin ko po, Responsible Parenthood ang sagot dito. [May it be, now that the backlog in education is about to end, that we strive not to face backlogs again because of the number of students. In my view, Responsible Parenthood is the answer. [Applause]”

Obviously, the President is asking Filipinos to do birth control and family planning. But he never said anything about genocidal artificial family planning methods proposed in the RHB. How can he endorse artificial birth control pills that not only cause abortions but also cause cancers on the women who use them?

RHB proponents have declared that they are not fighting the Catholic Church. They are saying that because a Catholic bishop has understood President Aquino’s mention of “Responsible Parenthood” in his SONA as the President’s and the RHB proponents’ “declaration of war” against the Church.

The RHB activists may not be waging war against the Church—only its values and moral teachings. But they are fighting common sense, scientific knowledge of what these abortifacient medicines do and the Constitution.

Doctor and former contraceptive user turned pro-life advocate: the edifying example of Dr. Dolores Octaviano

Published by Manila Times on July 1, 2012:

Doctor for Life

EWTN CATHOLIC LIVES 

Editor’s note: Every Wednesday (5:30 p.m.), Saturday (10:30 p.m.) and Sunday (10:30 a.m.) the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) Global Catholic Network features the program “Catholic Lives Asia.” It is hosted by Chi Chi Robles, who interviews a guest whose inspiring life story is an example of how a Catholic should live.

Spirituality Times offers a retelling of the televised interview story for the printed page. Today’s life story is that of Dr. Dolores “Dolly” Octaviano, an endocrinologist of Iloilo City who is also a champion for life. The show appears in TV stations of the Catholic Media Network.

AN endocrinologist, Dr. Dolores “Dolly” Octaviano holds clinic hours in many hospitals in Iloilo City.

“I am the 9th of 10 children. My mother was a housewife, my father a farmer. If we had the foreign family planning program then, I would not be here, ” Dr. Octaviano shares.

Now parents of four, Dr. Octaviano and her husband, a former seaman, are deeply involved in the prolife movement. 

“Initially I was not really all that prolife. I was a nominal Catholic. I even used the pill and had a ligation. But the grace of God touched me,” Dr. Octaviano confesses, and adds, “God’s grace will touch any life he chooses and he gave me the grace to recognize that being a Catholic is a defense of Jesus, it’s a defense of everything noble in us.”

The testimony of a former contraceptive pill user

From the "Letters to the Editor" section of the Philippine Daily Inquirer:

How contraceptive methods turn women into liars 
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Monday, June 4th,

The Mother’s Day editorial (“For mothers and their kids,” Inquirer, 5/13/12), using a “CNN hero” to call for the swift passage of the Reproductive Health bill, must have been written under a certain spell. Our Magna Carta for Women, which just needs to be implemented, more than covers all our needs. 

Turning his back on an election promise that he would “not promote” contraceptives, the only new thing in President Aquino’s RH bill is a P3 billion yearly budget for contraceptives—found by the most reliable science to be harmful.

I always felt sick every time I used the pill. Now I know why. The 2010 study of the prestigious Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention concluded that “Current use of oral contraceptives carries an excess risk of breast cancer” and that “Previous studies convincingly showed an increase in risk of breast cancer associated with current or recent use of oral contraceptives from the 1960s to 1980s.” 

We also have three separate meta-analyses: (1) the Stroke Journal—Pill confers “risk of first ischemic stroke”; (2) The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism of 2005—“current use of low-dose OCs significantly increases the risk of both cardiac and vascular arterial events”; and (3) Archives of Family Medicine—the Pill works after fertilization; and thus aborts a 100-cell embryonic human. 

Plus many other serious studies showing that contraception increases promiscuity, leading to more AIDS cases, more single mothers, more fatherless children, more female poverty. 

As the Philippine Medical Association itself said:  Contraception turns women into liars. “I give myself to you entirely,” I tell my husband, “but I don’t give you a key part of me: my fertility!” 

I tell you: when my husband was using a condom, I could feel na ginagamit niya lang ako. I’ve told him so; and he has been so good as to change his behavior. 

Is the Inquirer really pro-women? Or has the Inquirer just been victimized and fallen under the spell of the materialistic, animalistic, amoral and atheistic brainwashing of the powerful media of the degenerate West? 

—YVONNE CHAN-DE LOS REYES

On the refusal of RH bill supporters to admit that their pet bill supports abortion

From Journal Online:

Missing the point

Bishop Teodoro Bacani

The arguments for or against the RH bills both in the Lower House and in the Senate continue unabated. I notice, though, that the pro-RH people in general do not get or refuse to get one of the major objections against the bill. It is this: The so-called contraceptives to be purchased and distributed by the government to the poor are not only contraceptives. They are, in fact, abortifacients.

We who oppose the RH bill do not equate contraception with abortion. We know the distinction very well. When ovulation is prevented or when fertilization is prevented, you have contraception. But when the pill, device or procedure do not only prevent ovulation or fertilization but prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum or to dislodge from the uterus the already fertilized ovum, you are already talking of abortion. Now, many of these so-called contraceptive devices (pills, IUDs, injectables, and implants) are precisely designed to prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting itself on the uterine wall. The IUD would dislodge the fertilized ovum already implanted on the uterine wall (endometrium).

This third abortifacient function of these contraceptives was not yet known when Humanae Vitae was issued in July 1968. This encyclical-letter very strongly rejected abortion. It also rejected explicitly direct contraception. It was this rejection of all direct contraception which became very controversial then and up to the present. But even those who would disagree with the Pope in his rejection of all direct contraception have no grounds for accepting direct abortion. After the encyclical, the abortifacient effect of many pills came to be known: They do not only prevent conception; they also prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum. Attacks on papal authority or on the binding force on Catholics of the papal teaching against contraception, therefore, are no argument in favor of the RH bill. The most objectionable part of this bill is not its promotion of contraceptive devices but its proposed dissemination by the government of contraceptive devices which are abortifacient.

To a person, all the proponents of the RH bill claim they are against abortion, and that the bill does not promote abortion. Why then do they propose in the bill the dissemination by the government of devices which are abortifacient?

Some would say that there are opinions from authoritative bodies that the contraceptive devices are not abortifacients since those bodies say that conception begins at implantation.

The answer to that is: The majority today still hold that conception happens at fertilization and not at implantation (which takes place about a week after fertilization). But even if we admit, for the sake of argument, that there is a division of opinion, there is no sound ethics that will admit the direct killing of what is at least probably a human being. When there is any serious doubt at all about the existence of a human life, it is ethically wrong to kill that life. For example, you do not shoot at what seems to be an animal hiding in the bushes if there is at least a probability that it may be a human being and not an animal. Likewise, an embalmer should not embalm a body which may still probably be alive.

This is what the proponents of the RH bill seem to ignore or are ignorant of.

Once they look at this argument in the eye, they will be left only with proposing the dissemination of condoms or spermicides or those pills which will be certified as not capable of preventing the implantation of the fertilized ovum. I do not think they will relish that prospect.

But in all this matter, we should all seek divine guidance. We should pray for our enlightenment and the enlightenment of those who propose or support the bill.

More than for enlightenment, we should also pray for the courage to do what is right and not vote for a bill simply because the party bosses say so.

A doctor speaks out on the moment of conception and the definition of "abortifacient"

This is the document that is cited in the Filipinos for Life press release that, in turn, forms the basis of the following article on CBCP for Life: Debate over conception settled decades ago, lawmakers told.

****

The following questions are frequently asked in connection with the debates over the Reproductive Health bill:

1. What's the scientific basis of conception occurring at fertilization?

2. What contraceptives can therefore be considered abortive under that definition?

The following is my response. 

The key feature of a human pattern is its organization towards the production of a mature human body. Basic embryology teaches us that the instant of fertilization (the union of the ovum and sperm) is time zero of human development. Fertilization results in the formation of a new cell that is distinct from the cells that give rise to it, because the fertilized ovum/zygote/embryo, as a stage in human development, possesses the material composition (genetic and molecular) and behavior (developmental pathway) necessary for its maturity.

Since LIFE is defined as an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction, and it is governed by the law of biogenesis, which states that all life comes from preexisting life, the fertilized ovum/zygote/embryo, whether it has implanted on a woman’s endometrium or not, is ALIVE and is HUMAN.

Historically, the terms fertilization and conception were used interchangeably. However, in the 1960s, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) and the International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (FIGO) redefined conception as the implantation of a fertilized ovum, citing that the union of sperm and ovum cannot be detected clinically unless implantation occurs. Pregnancy was subsequently defined as the state from conception to expulsion of the products of that conception. This invariably changed the definition of conception from fertilization to implantation. Coincidentally, this redefinition was not brought about by any scientific breakthrough during that time but was made at around the same time that the first intrauterine device (IUD) was sold in the market and birth control pills were legalized in the US.

It must be emphasized that pregnancy is the state of the mother, not of the unborn. Therefore, non-implantation does not negate the status of the fertilized ovum/zygote/embryo as a living human being.

The confusion over the term conception and whether it refers to fertilization or implantation is not a result of lack of scientific data but of verbal engineering. The implications of redefining conception are seen in the mechanisms of action of contraceptive pills and IUDs and whether they act as abortifacients.

From the pharmacologic standpoint, hormonal contraceptives (pills and injectables) have multiple mechanisms of action. Katzung’s Basic and Clinical Pharmacology 11th ed (2009) 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.”

(Note as well that in pharmacology textbooks, conception is used to refer to fertilization and is clearly distinguished from implantation.)

On the other hand, the IUD incites an inflammatory reaction on the endometrial lining. This inflammation acts as a spermicide AND as a means to decrease the likelihood of implantation should fertilization occur (Comprehensive Gynecology, 5th ed 2007).

By virtue of the ACOG/FIGO redefinition of conception, the post-fertilization effect of preventing implantation does not SEMANTICALLY equate to the abortifacient effect of contraceptive pills and IUDs, since abortion is technically defined (again by ACOG and FIGO) as the expulsion of all the products of conception before the twentieth week of pregnancy.

HOWEVER, this is in direct contradiction to the Department of Health and Human Services, US Department of Health, Education and Welfare statement which affirms that life begins at fertilization when it states that:

“All measures which impair the viability of the zygote at any time between the instant of fertilization and the completion of labor constitute, in the strict sense, procedures for inducing abortion.”

It is therefore only logical that, if we subscribe to the scientific fact that human development begins at fertilization, the prevention of implantation terminates life. While it may be argued that the prevention of implantation is not the PRIMARY mechanism of action of these drugs and devices, fertilization can occur, as evidenced by breakthrough ovulations and contraceptive failures. A contraceptive failure is a human being. THUS, the SECONDARY mechanism of preventing implantation constitutes the abortifacient effect of hormonal contraceptives and IUDs.

However, it is logistically, technologically, and ethically impossible to determine which “successful” prevention of pregnancy is due to inhibition of ovulation, fertilization or implantation. This is where World Health Organization (WHO), medical societies and scientific journals use the term “no evidence” in reference to the lack of empirical data, and NOT to the fact that a phenomenon does not occur.

In this light, it is imperative that the precautionary principle, which states that:

“if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action,”

be applied. When science finds a plausible risk, social responsibility must compel us to protect the public from exposure to harm, until such time that further scientific findings provide sound evidence that ABSOLUTELY NO HARM TO LIFE will result from the action.

Ultimately, as human beings, our actions must always PROTECT LIFE in order to be truly PRO-LIFE, because we cannot afford to risk even one human life.

===================================================

Abraham Daniel Campo Cruz, MD

Instructor A, Department of Pharmacology, FEU-NRMF Institute of Medicine

Master of Science (cand.) in Pharmacology, UP Manila

Associate Member, Philippine Society of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology

Member, Filipinos for Life

Filipinos for Life in defense of Senator Tito Sotto (and more on the maternal deaths issue)

FILIPINOS FOR LIFE’S OFFICIAL STATEMENT: Akbayan’s tirade vs. Sotto unfair, out of context, narrow-minded

Posted on 24 August 2011

FILIPINOS FOR LIFE OFFICIAL STATEMENT:

Akbayan’s tirade vs. Sotto unfair, out of context, narrow-minded

FILIPINOS FOR LIFE (F4L) strongly condemns Akbayan Citizens’ Action Party for unfairly and maliciously accusing Senator Tito Sotto of ignoring the plight of women.

The statement by Akbayan’s youth leader is at best narrow-minded and out of context.

Sotto was merely questioning the basis of the oft-repeated statistic of 11 maternal deaths a day, in the context of a legislative debate on a bill that seeks to establish a wide-ranging national policy. It is therefore fair to examine the basis of this bill. THERE IS NOTHING TO APOLOGIZE FOR.

In the first place, there was no derogatory statement on women, and the sarcasm, if at all, is directed at foreign lobby groups, some of them pro-abortion, that routinely peddle this statistic. The supposed offense is in the creative, nay, malicious imagination of Akbayan’s propagandists.

Based on our own estimates, the correct figure is 4.8 maternal deaths a day, based on 2008 data from the National Statistics Office and the National Statistical Coordination Board. This assumes a maternal mortality ratio (MMR) of 99 per 100,000 live births and 1.784 million live births in 2008. Assuming a high MMR of 169 per 100,000 live births, the figure is 8.3.

We do not downplay the problem of maternal deaths. Indeed, it is a problem that needs concrete solutions, like more birthing centers and midwives. But we should guard against the excessive emotional use of the outdated statistic to influence Philippine government policy.

If Akbayan is really pro-women, it should tell its women constituents that contraceptive pills that would be distributed for free under the RH bill are considered by a WHO agency as a Level 1 carcinogen. Pills, according to reputable literature produced by entities such as the US National Cancer Institute and the Mayo Clinic increase the risk of breast and other cancers.

If Akbayan really is pro-women, it should tell mothers that the pills it wants them to ingest daily could expel a fertilized ovum, which is already a human being. It should inform women that pills don’t always prevent ovulation. In case the pills do not prevent ovulation and fertilization occurs, the pills have been proven to create an environment that is hostile to the beginning of life. Akbayan’s lawmakers should be reminded of what the Constitution says about the protection of the unborn.

Likewise, may we remind former Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel to elevate the level of the debate on RH. Her repeated references in social networks to an incident decades ago involving a dead movie starlet are uncalled for and below the belt.

###

Contact: Anthony Perez (f4vita@gmail.com)

A doctor's open letter to Pia Cayetano

Open Letter to Cayetano by Rey Echavez, MD

The truth about oral contraceptives

What Guttmacher failed to point out in RH
Philippine Daily Inquirer
12:15 am | Thursday, July 28th, 2011

THIS REFERS to two letters, published in the Inquirer, that may be confusing to readers.

The first letter, from Raul Nidoy (“Breathtaking infatuation for RH bill,” Inquirer, 5/10/11), correctly referenced our systematic review, published in the Archives of Family Medicine, in which we concluded, “that good evidence exists to support the hypothesis that the effectiveness of oral contraceptives depends to some degree on postfertilization effects” on the lining of the uterus (endometrium).

This fact is now so well-established in medical literature that the United States Food and Drug Administration says of the pill: “Although the primary mechanism of action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include… changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation.”

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine also admits that the pill modifies “the endometrium, thus preventing implantation.”

If a woman on the pill has a breakthrough ovulation, the pill-caused changes in the endometrium will increase the chance of an unrecognized, pill-induced loss of a preborn human.

For those who believe that human life begins at fertilization, then any pill-caused post-fertilization loss of life would be, by definition, an abortifacient.

The second letter, from Guttmacher Institute (“RH research findings distorted,” Inquirer, 7/1/11), claims that the “pill only serves to prevent a pregnancy; it does not terminate a pregnancy. It is blatantly false and against all scientific evidence to claim that the pill is an abortifacient.”

This letter, purposefully we think, does not tell the readers that the Institute defines pregnancy as beginning at implantation, a full 5-7 days after fertilization, when the unborn human, now called a blastocyst (not a “fertilized egg”), is made up of roughly 100 or more cells.

Since the pill does not affect an unborn child after implantation and the Institute defines pregnancy as not beginning until implantation, then they can claim the pill is not an abortifacient, but only because they refuse to define pregnancy as beginning at fertilization.

The bottom line is this: if one believes human life begins at fertilization, then good scientific data exist to demonstrate that the pill works, at times, as an abortifacient.

Furthermore, given that there are highly effective, inexpensive, totally natural, and non-abortifacient methods of birth control (the methods of modern natural family planning), it appears that most arguments for using birth -control pills can be said to be advocating convenience for mothers and fathers at the potential expense of innocent and invaluable human life.

—WALTER L. LARIMORE, MD,

assistant clinical professor,

Department of Community and Family Medicine,

University of Colorado Health Sciences Center

Denver, CO, USA; J

-- JOSEPH B. STANFORD, MD, MSPH, CFCMC, 

Professor, Division of Public Health,

George D. and Esther S.Gross Chair,

Department of Family and Preventive Medicine,

University of Utah,

375 Chipeta Way, Suite A

Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA

The RH bill, abortifacients, and the government's failure to protect the health of mothers

DEVICES OF DEATH
By: Cong. Karlo Alexei Nograles
Representative, Davao City, 1st District
(Privileged Speech delivered during the RH Bill Hearing, June 8, 2011)

Madam Speaker, Majority Leader, dear colleagues, good day.

I rise today on a subject that demands this august Chamber's gravest concern: the dismal failure of a major government agency to discharge its mandated function in law to protect and promote the health of Filipino mothers, shield and protect motherhood from peril, and safeguard their maternal functions.The regulation of providers of drugs and medicines is reposed by law, R.A. No. 3720, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in the Food and Drug Administration or FDA, a regulatory agency under the Department of Health. It is mandated to ensure the safety, efficacy and good quality of all food and drug products being made available to the general public pursuant to Section 2 which provides: “It is hereby declared the policy of the State to insure safe and good quality supply of food, drug and cosmetic, and to regulate the production, sale, and traffic of the same to protect the health of the people.”

On April 19, 1992, the Consumer Act of the Philippines, R.A. No. 7394, went into effect. According to Article II, “It is the policy of the State to protect the interests of the consumer, promote his general welfare and to establish standards of conduct for business and industry. Towards this end, the State shall implement measures to achieve the following objectives: a) Protection against hazards to health and safety.”

After all, there is a clear and express constitutional mandate that: “The State shall protect consumers from trade malpractices and from substandard or hazardous products,” Article XVI, Section 9 of our Constitution.

Pursuant to Article VI of the Consumer Act, it is the Department of Health, through the Food and Drug Administration, that is responsible to the public with respect to drugs, devices and substances.

Section 4 of the Consumer Act defines “drugs” to mean articles recognized in the current official United States Pharmacopeia-National Formulary, official Homeophatic Pharmacopeia of the United States, official National Drug Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and number two, articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease in man or other animals.

Among the drugs, Madam Speaker, that fall under this definition are the oral contraceptives administered to women and mothers, the injectible contraceptive Depo Provera and the so-called “morning-after pill”.

CONTINUE READING HERE

Taking the Philippine Daily Inquirer to task for its infatuation with the RH bill

The following letter to the editor was posted on the Philippine Daily Inquirer's website last night:

Breathtaking infatuation for RH bill

Philippine Daily Inquirer

11:52 pm | Thursday, June 9th, 2011

I just want to help wake the Inquirer up from what I see might be its “RH infatuation,” which I believe led it to assert that the “best argument for the RH bill as it now stands is that it will help minimize the number of illegal or illicit abortions we suffer every year. Think of tens of thousands of innocent lives spared.”

A cold shower of scientific findings might help.

First, from a study on the link between contraception and abortion (published early this year, not in a prolife magazine but in the scientific journal, Contraception, subtitled “an international reproductive health journal” and conducted through a 10-year period). From 1997 to 2007, the overall use of contraceptive methods increased from 49.1 percent to 79.9 percent. The elective abortion rate increased from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1,000 women.

Second, Nobel prize winner and liberal economist, George Akerlof, writing at the Quarterly Journal of Economics (published by the MIT Press), described the effect of contraceptives: more premarital sex, more fatherless children, more single mothers, and since the contraceptives sometimes fail, more abortions.

Third, leaders of the abortion industry themselves have openly admitted the empirical link between contraception and abortion. Malcolm Potts, the first medical director of International Planned Parenthood: “As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate.” Judith Bury, coordinator of Doctors for a Woman’s Choice on Abortion: “There is overwhelming evidence that … the provision of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate.”

Fourth, silent abortions caused by the use of the pill amount to deliberate killings of innocent lives. Dr. Walter Larimore, who for decades prescribed the pill, tried to disprove the claim that the pill is abortifacient, only to find 94 scientific studies proving that “postfertilization effects are operative to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy.” He published his findings in the scientific journal of the American Medical Association, and from then on stopped prescribing the pill. Shouldn’t we as a nation also stop prescribing a drug that kills our youngest Filipinos?

Please take note that the basis of Rep. Edcel Lagman’s claim of an 85-percent reduction in abortion rate due to contraception is a report of the Guttmacher Institute, which started as a division of Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortion services in the United States.

It is significant that the Guttmacher Institute itself found in its 2003 study that “levels of abortion and contraceptive use rose simultaneously” in six countries: Cuba, Denmark, the Netherlands, the United States, Singapore and the Republic of Korea.

These are hard facts. And the rational explanation behind the link is clear: the anti-human mentality at the heart of contraception’s falsification of sex, which casually call some children “unwanted” rather than gifts.

—RAUL NIDOY,

ranidoy@gmail.com

The RH Bill and Poverty

From Federico Pascual's May 22, 2011 column entitled The world didn't end; RH debate continues:

Since birth control is a core RH issue and since the burgeoning population is being blamed for widespread poverty, one is wont to ask if our population growth rate of 1.9 percent is really the cause of poverty and its manifestations. 

But even if contraception and abortion result in every family having only two children, if the government is hardly moving to generate enough jobs, poverty will continue to hound the population. 

Even if children from Grade V to high school are given sex education and taught how to have sex without risk of pregnancy, there will only be heightened experimentation with sex and more teenage pregnancies if the youngsters are not taught values. 

Even if we succumb to the lobby and flood public clinics with condoms and contraceptives, the standard of public health will remain low if frontline clinics and hospitals catering to the poor are not stocked with basic and critical medicines.

Even if Filipinos become world-class experts in safe sex, that will not enhance their chances for employment and liberation from poverty if the government has neglected quality education and training for technical skills. 

Even if we are able to achieve zero population growth, poverty and its attendant ills will continue to stalk the land if the government does not move to disperse opportunities (for jobs, schooling, etc.) and stem migration to urban centers. 

* * * 

ABORTIVE PROCEDURES: The RH bill (HB 4244) speaks grandly in Section 2 (Declaration of Policy) of guaranteed “universal access to medically-safe, legal, affordable, effective and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, and supplies.” 

In Section 3 (Guiding Principles), it also says: “While this Act recognizes that abortion is illegal and punishable by law, the government shall ensure that all women needing care for post-abortion complications shall be treated and counseled in a humane, non-judgmental and compassionate manner.” 

But critics counter that the RH bill would pave the way for easier access to abortion.

Under Section 4 (Definition of Terms), the bill speaks of providing “Basic Emergency Obstetric Care” which refers to “lifesaving services for maternal complications being provided by a health facility or professional, which must include the following six signal functions: administration of parenteral antibiotics; administration of parenteral oxytocic drugs; administration of parenteral anticonvulsants for pre-eclampsia and eclampsia; manual removal of placenta; removal of retained products; and assisted vaginal delivery.” 

If a woman starts bleeding because of contraceptives, under the “compassionate” law, her case can be declared a failed abortion or miscarriage and she can then demand a full repertoire of emergency services that are in effect those for an abortion. 

* * * 

SIPAG APPROACH: The fight against poverty need not concentrate on just curbing population growth, but must also help the poor become more productive and fulfilled. 

In Las Piñas, there is the Villar Sipag Center rising in the sprawling grounds of a memorial park a stone’s throw away from Diego Cera Ave. where the world-renowned bamboo organ is. 

This project of the Villar Foundation (established in 1995) seeks to empower the poor and enhance their humanity. Set for completion next year, the center will house a library or resource center for poverty reduction, a reception area, a theater, and an exhibit hall. 

More Sipag Centers for the poor will be put up near churches that the foundation plans to build around the country after the completion of the Santuario de San Ezekiel Moreno church beside the Las Piñas center. 

* * * 

BANISH POVERTY: Sen. Manny Villar, the foundation’s founding chairman, explains, “Social enterprise experts say that poverty should be banished to a museum. I share their vision… And until that happens, we’ll work tirelessly to ease poverty wherever we find it in our country.”

The United Nations reports that close to 900 million of the world’s poor, who survive on less than $1 a day, live in Asia Pacific, and that nearly one in three Asians is poor. 

Over 40 million Filipinos are living on less than $2 a day. Although poverty incidence in the country has been reduced, the actual number of people still in the grip of poverty has increased over the last two decades. 

The country’s economic growth has not been robust enough to speed up poverty reduction, one of eight targets that the Philippines pledged to fulfill under the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals. 

* * * 

A BEEHIVE: Cynthia A. Villar, the foundation’s managing director, says the Villar Sipag Center will be a proactive beehive of activity. 

“We’ll promote industriousness or hard work to beat poverty,” the former Las Piñas congresswoman says. “We’ll guide, train, teach and empower womenfolk, the youth, jobless and even relatives of overseas Filipino workers to persevere in life.” 

Although being pursued quietly, the livelihood-generation and skills training initiatives of the foundation have caught the eye of the world. 

One of its programs, the Las Piñas-Zapote River System Rehabilitation program, recently bested those of 38 other countries for the United Nation’s “Water for Life” Best Practices Award. It won the UN award because it did not only rehabilitate the river, but also improved the living conditions of the poor along the banks.

In very simple words: Contraceptives as Abortifacients

From the Multiply account of Pro-Life Philippines:

LIES & DECEIT ON CONTRACEPTION

Portia Sy

Let us tackle the word itself - CONTRACEPTION - and the history of the contraceptive pill. Decades ago, my ob-gyne told me that the first contraceptive pills that pharmaceutical companies manufactured were really effective on preventing conception, hence they were called contraceptives. However, the pregnant women who took them complained of so many awful side-effects - nausea, ulcer-like stomach aches, pimples, increased desire to eat leading to overeating, etc. - that the pharma companies decided to reconstitute the pills. They came out with pills that were "weaker" - thus succeeding in eliminating the mentioned complaints - but...because they were weaker, the "new" pills, the pills now in the market - are less successful in its purpose of preventing conception, the union of sperm and egg. So, they are no longer contraceptives, YET THE WORD CONTRACEPTIVE CONTINUED TO BE USED!

My ob-gyne continued to explain: because the embryo which succeeded in becoming alive (so there is life!) is weakened by the chemicals still remaining in the "new" pill, it is unable to implant itself in the mother's endometrium (lining of the uterus) where the embryo get its nourishment, and thus dies away and gets ejected in the mother's next menstruation. The mother thinks she did not conceive when she did! The pharmaceutical companies should instead use the word CONTRA-IMPLANTATION! which KILLS! Until they do, they are engaged in DECEIT! They are promoting ABORTION!

Once more with feeling: Yes, there are abortifacient contraceptives!

The following letter was written in 2008 in the context of the RH Bill debates at the time, but remains relevant and accurate.

Why pills, injectables, IUDs are abortifacient

Philippine Daily Inquirer

First Posted 01:25:00 08/26/2008

We are a group of friends, all pro-lifers. Some of us are private medical practitioners—all faceless supporters of the stand of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) against artificial contraception. We would like to express our support to the CBCP not by starting another debate but by enlightening readers and, we hope, our legislators as well, regarding this hot topic, from a theoretical standpoint.

Oral contraceptives (more commonly known as pills), hormonal injectables and Intra-Uterine Devices (IUDs) are all artificial contraceptives. Unfortunately, most people are not aware that they are, indeed, abortifacient. A review of the various literatures on these contraceptives will show that each of them has an efficacy rate that is less than 100 percent because fertilization (the meeting of egg cell and sperm cell, which leads to the conceptus) is not absolutely prevented.

For instance, the IUD does not prevent ovulation and so fertilization may occur several times in the span of time the device is in the womb of the woman. However, most of the fetuses will not be able to implant themselves because there is an “appliance” in the womb that prevents them from doing so. This is why the IUD is abortifacient.

In the case of the pill, ovulation and fertilization can still occur and we have seen this in our practice. We have seen patients with abnormal bleeding and positive pregnancy tests despite their taking the pill, which proves that fertilization had indeed occurred. Unfortunately, the pill—whether oral, patch or injectable—renders the uterus hostile to implantation. And this is what makes it abortifacient.

Some people pushing for this reproductive health bill may even want to define that life begins at implantation. But even if we all go back to our Biology in high school, life truly begins at fertilization. Catholic or not, should we not all protect life from the beginning to its very end?

VIRGINIA G. MANZO, M.D., CAROL SANCHEZ, NINA REYES, P. ALVIA, ROSE A. DOMINGUEZ, IRENE B. OCAMPO and 4 other signatories

The Manila Times summarizes the case versus the RH bill

To the best of my knowledge The Manila Times is the only Metro Manila-based mainstream newspaper that unambiguously opposes the RH bill at the editorial level. Their Easter Sunday (April 24, 2011) editorial -- which I am belatedly posting on this blog -- has the following summary of reasons for rejecting the RH bill:

That bill now pending in the House of Representatives would impose an anti-life, morally neutral and unjust outlook on human sexuality, fertility and reproduction—the very opposite of the culture of life that Easter commemorates. 

We also think the CBCP pastoral letter and the summary of reasons against the bill have not been given enough exposure in the most widely circulated media. Leading broadcasters and radio-TV commentators have been summarily mocking the pro-life stand without honestly, accurately reporting the arguments against the RH bill. 

Here are some of the most fundamental reasons the RH bill should be rejected. 

1…As a consolidated bill (a melding of the bills filed) it pretends to be about reproductive health but it is really more an effort to impose measures that will lead to a reduction in the Philippines population. 

The real purpose of the bill is to prescribe and promote universal birth control for all married couples through an official program funded and run by the state and all its agencies and instrumentalities. 

Section 18 of the bill provides: “No marriage license shall be issued by the Local Civil Registrar unless the applicants present a Certificate of Compliance issued for free by the Local Family Planning Office certifying that they had duly received adequate instructions and information on family planning, responsible parenthood, breastfeeding and infant nutrition.” 

We fear that passing laws with such compliance requirements will become a precedent for the state requiring a compliance certificate for having voted in an election before being given a passport. Or a compliance certificate for having a woman ligated before being qualified for a government job. 

2…Some of its provisions are directly unconstitutional because these provisions would make the Philippine state an accessory to abortion for they make government supply contraceptive pills and devices that cause abortion by making the fertilized ovum unable to cling to a mother’s uterine wall and there receive sustenance and life from the mother. 

3…It proceeds, unmistakably, from the same motives and mentality that first invented the term Reproductive Health, which includes in United Nations documents and in the laws of countries that have passed RH legislation, the meaning “access to abortion.” Therefore the RH bill in our House of Representatives, in spirit and despite its stated and avowed prohibition of the killing of human embryos, is really a pro-abortion proposed law. 

4…In making the use of contraceptives and access to them a universal right it would allow the use of even the clearly abortive contraceptive pills and chemicals. For the bill does not prohibit pills, medicines and devices that do cause abortion, such as the notorious R-486 and similar pills. The bill also does not accept the warnings made by even a division of the World Health organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), that certain oral contraceptives are carcinogenic. 

The CBCP objections 

Here is the Catholic Bishops Conference pastoral letter’s list of the prelates’ basic objections to the RH bill: 

1. We object to the non-consideration of moral principles, the bedrock of law, in legislative discussions of bills that are intended for the good of individuals and for the common good. 

2. We are against the anti-life, anti-natal and contraceptive mentality that is reflected in media and in some proposed legislative bills. 

3. We object strongly to efforts at railroading the passage of the RH bill. 

4. We denounce the over-all trajectory of the RH bill towards population control. 

5. We denounce the use of public funds for contraceptives and sterilization. 

6. We condemn compulsory sex education that would effectively let parents abdicate their primary role of educating their own children, especially in an area of life—sexuality—which is a sacred gift of God.

Why we can't be silent: the dangers of condoms, pills and IUD's

From FILIPINOS FOR LIFE:

Why do we keep saying that the Pill is abortifacient?

From I Oppose the RH Bill:

"Misconceptions and Clarifications on Issues Related to Humanae Vitae and the Reproductive "Health" Bill in Philippine Congress."

(Note: I have no access to a hardcopy of this article, and I'm working from a hastily-typed and unsatisfactory soft copy of Fr. Gaston's article, so I suspect that there might be some typos in this copy. Should anyone see any such errors, please say so in the combox)

"Misconceptions and Clarifications on Issues Related to Humanae Vitae and the Reproductive "Health" Bill in Philippine Congress."

by Rev. Fr. Gregory D. Gaston, STD

(This primer was written for Avenues, the Journal of San Carlos Seminary Graduate School of Theology. Copyright © 2008 by the author, a priest of the Archdiocese of Manila, assigned since January 2008 at the Holy Apostles Senior Seminary, Makati City, Philippines, and was previously an Official of the Pontifical Council for the Family, Vatican, for five years. For consults and resources on related topics, please visit Safe.ph.)

MISCONCEPTIONS/CLARIFICATIONS

The world is overpopulated. Global population will soar to 11.9 billion by 2050. "Yet this is not the full story. To the contrary, in fact. Across the globe, people are having fewer and fewer children. Fertility rates have dropped by half since 1972, from six children per woman to 2.9. And demographers say they're still falling, faster than ever. The world's population will continue to grow—from today's 6.4 billion to around 9 billion in 2050. But after that, it will go sharply into decline. Indeed, a phenomenon that we're destined to learn much more about—depopulation—has already begun in a number of countries. Welcome to the New Demography. It will change everything about our world, from the absolute size and power of nations to global economic growth to the quality of our lives." [Michael Meyer, "Birth Dearth," in Newsweek, September 27, 2004, p. 58. Since the 1970's, several demographers, economists, and other experts have been informing the public of these trends.]

Overpopulation is a scientific fact. Not overpopulation, but population ageing and underpopulation, as seen in these sample article titles:

* European Pension Systems Set to Collapse. Low Fertility Blamed, in Friday Fax, May 4, 2000.
* Underpopulation, Not Overpopulation, the Real Global Problem, in Washington Post, March 18, 2001.
* Developed Nations Warned on Aging Crisis Time Bomb, in Manila Bulletin, Aug 30, 2001.
* Have Three Babies to Sustain the Population, in Daily Telegraph, Dec. 12, 2003.
* Asian Economies Desperate for Babies, in Daily News Express, Feb. 2, 2004.
* Have More Babies, Say the Tories, in Daily Mail, September 22, 2003: "Women should have more babies to stave off the looming crisis of an ageing population, the Tories will say today. The call to 'go forth and multiply' comes from work and pensions spokesman David Willetts, who wants couples to send birth rates soaring."
* In address to Estonians, President Calls on Citizens to Make More Babies, in New York Times, January 2, 2003: "Worried about a declining population, Estonia's president has urged the country's 1.4 million residents to make more babies. 'Let us remember that in just a couple of decades the number of Estonians seeing the New Year will be one-fifth less than today,' President Arnold Ruutel said in a speech broadcast live on national television Wednesday.

Our population growth rate of 2.04% is extremely high. The CIA gives a much lower estimate of 1.728% (World Factbook Country Listing of 2008, available on the internet).

We should aim for a Zero Population Growth Rate. Zero Population Growth Rate will make the Filipino race at first extremely old, and then rare, and finally extinct.

Filipino families have too many children. The UN Population Division figures indicate that it is not an exaggeration to say that as early as now the Philippine Total Fertility Rate [children per woman] is already dangerously low. Whereas in the early 1970's the average Filipina had six children, today she has around three, and in another 20 years, only two. Shortly after 2020, or just fifteen years from now, the Philippine TFR will sink below its replacement level of around 2.29." [Rev. Fr. Gregory D. Gaston, STD, World Population Collapse: Lessons for the Philippines, in Familia et Vita, vol. XII (2007) no. 2, pp. 84-113, paragraph no. 22. Henceforth referred to as WPC and paragraph number.]

Having two children should be the ideal family size. SEC. 16. Ideal Family Size. – The State shall assist couples, parents and individuals to achieve their desired family size within the context of responsible parenthood for sustainable development and encourage them to have two children as the ideal family size.

As of now the Philippines' total fertility rate, or children per woman, is projected to go below replacement (2.29 children per woman) by 2025. After that we will experience the population ageing and collapse taking place today in rich countries, and like them, we will also wish to pay parents to have more children--but unlike them, we will have no money to do so.

Pushing for only two children per family will make all this occur even earlier.

(Note that two children per family would give a total fertility rate of much lower than two, since women without children would have to be included in the computation of "children per woman," or total fertility rate.)

Intensified population control programs will slow down population growth, improve the economy soon, and thus solve poverty. The effect desired by population controllers, the slowing of population growth, will not immediately take place, due to population momentum, decreased mortality and longer lifespan. By the time population growth will have slowed down, the Total Fertility Rate will be way below the replacement level, and the average population age will be extremely high. In other words, the solution proposed to solve poverty, that is, population control programs, will just create more economic difficulties in the long run.

Nor may one say that we should limit population growth now, hope for rapid economic development, and finally try to solve whatever problem might come up in the future. It will simply be too late by then. Countries that were already rich 30 to 40 years ago when their TFR's started to decline, and are now ageing, encounter extreme difficulty in solving their economic problems today. Their efforts to encourage their citizens to produce more children have not yielded acceptable results after a decade. They depend on immigration to maintain their population growth. The Philippines is not a rich country today, and may or may not be rich within 50 years. How will it support its ageing population? Will it also invite workers from other countries to replace its dwindling workforce? How will it attract immigrants if it has no jobs to offer to its people in the first place? Even if it becomes rich by then, it will have to face the same problems rich countries face now, and will have to tell the people to raise more children. We simply cannot afford to fall into the trap rich countries have fallen into 30-40 years ago, and from which they desperately try to escape today. Graphically speaking, we cannot afford to have in the future a population pyramid like theirs now, and then, like them today, wish to regain the population pyramid we have now." [WPC 26]

In ruling out population control as a solution to poverty, the Catholic Church teaches that the people should beget as many children as they can, following God's command, to "go forth and multiply. Ruling out population control' simply means not encouraging people to have few children, which is entirely different from telling them to have all the children they can possibly produce. Parents should instead be guided and supported to attain the number of children they can generously and responsibly raise and educate. For some spouses, this means having one child or two; for others, five, ten, twelve, fifteen or even more. Neither the government nor the Catholic Church may compel, instruct, or encourage spouses to raise a specified number of children, as what population control programs definitely try to do, either through massive propaganda, or through deceptive and coercive policies. Rather, the government and the Catholic Church should form and guide the people to reflect on their actual circumstances, and to freely, generously and responsibly decide whether to have another child now, or not to have another child for the time being or indefinitely. This is one aspect of responsible parenthood, which the Catholic Church has always taught, and which takes into account both the real capacities of individual spouses and the national demographic situation." [WPC 27]

The Catholic Church has always recognized the existence of a "population problem," and the government's intervention in the decision-making of spouses as to the number of children they beget. In recognizing that it is legitimate for the state "to intervene to orient the demography of the population," it immediately adds that, "This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children. In this area, it is not authorized to employ means contrary to the moral law" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2372).

Humanae Vitae (no. 2) describes some changes taking place in 1968. "In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships."

Note that while Humanae Vitae in this point observes that there is the rapid increase in world population, it merely expresses the fear of many, without owning that fear, that world population is going to grow faster than available resources. Today, forty years later, we can see for a fact that while population has grown, food production has grown even more.

Since 1965 to 1994 the population of the world has nearly doubled, but food production has kept well ahead... United Nations figures show there has been a rise of over 30% in the period 1951-92 in food production per capita, that is to say the amount of food which would be available to each person in the world if it were divided equally. This has occurred in spite of the fact that Western farmers are paid millions of dollars a year to keep land out of production. If these European and American farmers were to produce to their capacity, food prices would collapse as a result of the glut (Population Facts and Myths, published on the Internet in 1994 by the National Association of Catholic Families in the UK). The problem then is not food production but proper distribution. Hence the solution should not be to reduce the number of consumers, but social justice.

In recent years, Church documents have focused greatly on the fall of fertility, which, "very significant in almost all parts of the world, is irrefutable and evident from the facts published by specialized organizations. It is, nontheless, frequently disregarded" (Pontifical Council for the Family, The Ethical and Pastoral Dimensions of Population Trends, March 25, 1994). Such fall in fertility is the real "population problem" today.

The Catholic Church is not concerned with the plight of the poor in the country. The Catholic Church dedicates a huge part of its efforts at the service of the poor, helping the government: education, microlending, presence in slum areas and garbage, orphanages, feeding programs, social action projects, calamities, opposition to destructive mining and destructive logging, Pondo ng Pinoy, Caritas, environmental ecology concerns, human ecology, family empowerment.

Whenever the Church talks against graft and corruption, she does so also out of concern for the poor. Poverty will be very quickly eradicated if graft and corruption are eradicated, so that taxpayers' money will go to the poor (especially in terms of education, which is the long-term solution to poverty, and livelihood programs) and not to those rich who steal from the poor.

Each time poverty is blamed on the 'population problem,' its real and root causes are conveniently tolerated or covered up: graft and corruption in the public and private sectors, burden of foreign debt servicing, and bad governance, resulting in failed development programs" (A Manifesto of Filipino Families on July 25, 2008).

Contraceptives should be listed as essential drugs. They should not be listed as essential drugs, but as dangerous drugs and devices. Pills have been shown to cause abortion of a 5-day old baby, cancer, premature hypertension, heart disease, etc. IUD's are abortifacient and may cause intrauterine trauma, pelvic infections and ectopic pregnancy. Condoms have high failure rate even against pregnancy and thus do not guarantee protection against AIDS and other STD's. Tubal ligation and vasectomy (especially targeting the poor) leave couples without the chance to have more children (for example, in case of improved economic situation, or death of their present children) and little or no support in their old age.

Hence, it is the right of the citizens to be forewarned of these, even in the form of government warnings, as in the case of cigarette smoking ("is dangerous for your health"), alcohol ("drink moderately"), and infant milk formulae ("mother's milk is best for babies under two years old")—not out of religious concerns, but as part of consumers' rights.Possible warnings could state: "CONDOMS DO NOT GUARANTEE PROTECTION FROM AIDS AND OTHER STD'S", "PILLS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO CAUSE CANCER AND ABORTION OF 5-DAY OLD BABIES," and, "IUD'S MAY CAUSE TRAUMA OF THE UTERUS AND ABORTION OF 5-DAY OLD BABIES," etc.

(For the medical data on these dangerous drugs and devices, see also John Wilks, A Consumer's Guide to the Pill and Other Drugs, 3rd Ed., National Bookstore, Inc., Manila 2000.)

Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, in denouncing sustematic anti-childbearing campaigns, described posoning the lives of defenseless human beings as similar to a form of "chemical warfare" (Paul VI, Address to the participants of the World Food Conference, Nov. 4, 1974. Pope John Paul II, Centessimus Annus, no. 39).

Condoms have no holes. They provide truly safe sex, as advertised. "'Condom manufacturers in the United States electronically test all condoms for holes and weak spots. In addition, FDA requires manufacturers to use a water test to examine samples from each batch of condoms for leakage. If the test detects a defect rate of more than 4 per 1,000, the entire lot is discarded. The agency also encourages manufacturers to test samples of their products for breakage by using an air burst test in accordance with specifications of the International Standards Organization.' [Mike Kubic, New Ways to Prevent and Treat AIDS, in FDA Consumer, Jan-Feb 1997 (revised May 1997 and Jan 1998; available at http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/197_aids.html).]

If four leaking condoms are allowed in every batch of 1,000, there could be hundreds of thousands or even millions of leaking condoms circulating all over the world, either sold or distributed for free, and most probably contributing to the spread of HIV/AIDS and STD's. Does the public know this? Does the public know that the risks increase the more often and the more promiscuously one is exposed, considering the cumulative risk factor, as explained earlier?"[from Family Values Versus Safe Sex. A Reflection by His Eminence, Alfonso Cardinal López Trujillo (then President of the Pontifical Council for the Family), December 1, 2003. Note that the first paragraph above came from the US Food and Drug Administration website.]

Condoms are effective in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS in a country. "In Thailand and in the Philippines, the first HIV/AIDS cases were reported in 1984; by 1987, Thailand had 112 cases, while the Philippines had more, with 135 cases. Today, in the year 2003, there are around 750,000 cases in Thailand, where the 100% Condom Use Program had relatively great success. On the other hand, there are only 1,935 cases in the Philippines - and this, considering that the Philippines' population is around 30% greater than Thailand's! Relatively low rates of condom use by the people in general, and staunch opposition from the Church and a good number of government leaders against the condom program and sexual promiscuity, are well-known facts in the Philippines."[from Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo (then President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, Vatican), Family Values Versus Safe Sex, December 1, 2003. The quoted text cites the following references: Rene Josef Bullecer (Director of AIDS-Free Philippines), Telling the Truth: AIDS Rates for Thailand and the Philippines; Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines, Pastoral Letter on AIDS: In the Compassion of Jesus, January 23, 1993; and Jaime L. Cardinal Sin, Pastoral Letter on Subtle Attacks against Family and Life, July 9, 2001.]

The Catholic Church teaches that contraceptives, including condoms, cause abortion. Abortion is the termination (killing) of life, not simply of pregnancy. Life begins at conception when the sperm and the egg meet. Killing the new life at any moment after this, and before it is born, is considered abortion. The new life develops as it goes down the fallopian tube, and implants onto the mother's womb when the tiny baby is around five days old.

Condoms do not directly cause abortion because they prevent conception—if there is no conception, there is nothing to kill in the first place. But they can lead to abortion if, because of high condom failure a woman gets pregnant, she decides to kill the baby in her womb.

Pills and IUD's make the womb's lining unhabitable for the new baby. ; hence, in case they fail in their contraceptive actions, the five-day old baby will be unable to attach to his or her mother's womb. This has to be called "abortion," for the five-day old baby dies in the process, and such action of pills and IUD's is called "abortifacient.

Natural methods are not effective. The modern natural methods (e.g., Billings, Sympto-Thermal, Basal Body Temperature) can be more effective than contraceptives, if they are learned and practiced as a way of life and not as "natural contraceptives." Hence, communication, love, respect, self-discipline, and formation in the values are necessary for the natural methods to work—values that are not exclusively religious, but very human and natural as well, and values that are not necessary in the use of contraceptives.

The obsolete calendar and the rhythm methods, and their modern repackagings, should not be taught (including by the DOH) because of their high failure rates. Withdrawal is not a natural method, and has extremely high failure rates. It is sad that many doctors (including Ob-Gyn's) are not even familiar with many of the facts regarding benefits of the natural methods and the medical ills of contraceptives.

The Catholic Church teaches that in each sexual act, the couple should aim for a new child. No. Rather, the Catholic Church teaches no action, whether before, during or after the sexual act, should close the possibility of new life or kill the new life that arises.

Hence, in the woman's infertile periods, or if one of the spouses is sterile, the couple may still perform the sexual act since they do not do anything to prevent the possibility of, or kill, new life.

The Reproductive Health bill does not promote or pave the way to abortion, since it even states that abortion remains illegal in the Philippines. The bill does not legalize surgical abortion, but it does PROMOTE all types of abortion, and DOES LEGALIZE abortion of 5-day old babies.

SEC. 4. Definition of Terms.h. Reproductive Health Education – is the process of acquiring complete, accurate and relevant information on all matters relating to the reproductive system, its functions and processes and human sexuality; and forming attitudes and beliefs about sex, sexual identity, interpersonal relationships, affection, intimacy and gender roles. It also includes developing the necessary skills to be able to distinguish between facts and myths on sex and sexuality; and critically evaluate and discuss the moral, religious, social and cultural dimensions of related sensitive issues such as contraception and abortion.

To "critically evaluate and discuss the moral, religious, social and cultural dimensions of related sensitive issues such as contraception and abortion" paves the way to abortion because it will present abortion as a hypothetical (hypothetical as of now in the Philippines, while practical in other countries) solution to an unplanned pregnancy. The next step will be to push for safe and legal abortion.

This reflects the mentality presented in some sex education modules, which could very well go this way:

"Ang pagkontrol sa kakayahang mag-anak ay isang karapatang makabago para sa kababaihan... May dalawang uri ng batas na nagkakaroon ng impluwensiya sa gawaing ito. Ang una ay may kinalaman sa paggamit ng kontraseptibo, kusang-loob na pag-papa-opera upang hindi magkaanak at paglalaglag ng sanggol. Ang ilegal na paglalaglag ng sanggol ay ipinagbabawal ng batas sapagkat hindi makabubuti sa kalusugan ng ina. Ang pangalawa ay nagbibigay ng karapatan sa kababaihan sa pagpaplano ng pamilya.

Note than in such a formulation, illegal abortion is considered wrong because it is bad for the woman's health. The child being killed is insignificant. The solution insinuated is to legalize abortion so that it could become "safe"--safe for the mother (they claim, though abortion is always traumatic for her), but not for the baby.

Some candidly say that if legislators and teachers insist on asking their student to discuss the pros and cons of abortion, then parents should also insist on discussing the pros and cons of killing legislators and teachers (for example, if they are inefficient, involved in graft and corruption, etc.).

The Reproductive Health bill does not promote sexual promiscuity.

SEC. 4. Definition of Terms
c. Reproductive Health – the state of physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. This implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life, that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so, provided that these are not against the law.

The law will guarantee children and teenagers (since they are "people") the right to have a satisfying and safe sex life with anyone, and to decide if, when and how often to reproduce. Hence children have the right to have information and access to contraceptives, and to learn all possible options in case they get pregnant--including abortion, which "unfortunately" (as they will be made to feel), is still illegal.

Parents who object to this "right" act against the law, a law which of course goes against the parents' inherent right to educate their children.

The Reproductive Health bill will strengthen parental rights in forming and educating their children. SEC. 3. Guiding Principles.L. Respect for, protection and fulfillment of reproductive health rights seek to promote not only the rights and welfare of adult individuals and couples but those of adolescents' and children's as well...

SEC. 4. Definition of Terms

d. Reproductive Health Rights – the rights of individuals and couples to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children; to make other decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence; to have the information and means to carry out their decisions; and to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health.

In the Bill, children and adolescents have the right to have a "satisfying and safe sex life," and "to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children." In such a case parents (and teachers, public authorities, priests, etc.) who do not want children to have sex with classmates will be going against the children's rights, and hence they can be considered as "coercing" the children to stay away from sex. Earlier bills have even proposed fines and/or imprisonment for similar acts; this is indicative of their real intentions.

In some countries, school clinics are prohibited from informing parents if their child seeks or has undergone abortion, whereas they are required to do so for treatment of a minor wound.

Reproductive health rights will therefore weaken parental authority and rights over the upbringing of their children. Children are brainwashed into this promiscuous, anti- parent, and anti-authority mentality through Value-free sex education modules.

The Reproductive Health bill is an original idea of Filipino Congressmen. Reproductive Health bills are pushed by the PLCPD (Philippine Legislators' Committee for Population and Development), a foreign funded NGO with offices questionably located in Congress, precisely where our laws are made. This is in complete violation of our national sovereignty and our pro-family and pro-life Constitution. PLCPD has access to formidable financial resources (including the P2 billion budget this year), and is backed by a powerful conglomerate of NGO's (see A Manifesto of Filipino Families on July 25, 2008).

The Reproductive Health bill promotes health. "We would rather call them the 'reproductive death' bills. They are totally silent on the aforementioned ills which will bring DEATH not only to the body, but to the person, family and society as well: D-ivorce E-uthanasia A-bortion T-yrannical population control H-omosexual unions" (A Manifesto of Filipino Families on July 25, 2008).

Filipino families cannot do anything to stop the Reproductive Death bills.

A Call to Defend the Filipino Family against the Reproductive 'Health' Bills

We call on all Filipino Families to defend ourselves by defending life. We have so far succeeded in foiling many of the attempts of our lawmakers to enact reproductive health statutes. We believe they are being enticed by monetary and other compensations, but we hope that they will see the grim reality behind reproductive 'health'. But now could be our last chance. Many countries have fallen into the subtle and the blatant attacks against their families. It is time to organize ourselves better and pressure our leaders to come up with pro-family and pro-life legislation and programs.

We call on all men and women of good will, of all creeds, social standing, and political affiliations, to further promote the family. Let us patronize family-safe establishments, and complain to our civil authorities against those offering drugs, gambling, pornography and prostitution, especially those surrounding our homes and our children's schools. Let us boycott products and services that degrade sex and women in their advertisements. Let us review the textbooks used by our children for promiscuous and anti-parental content. Let us make the TV stations know that we want wholesome family entertainment.

Recovering the Family's True Nature.

We hope that in the end, children may see their parents as role models of family warmth and citizenship, and that parents and grandparents may experience the appreciation and respect of their children whom they have truly loved and guided. Humanae Vitae prophetically warned that we could lose our values if we go against God's design on the responsible transmission of life within the family.

May the Filipino Family, which is the sanctuary of life and love, rediscover and reclaim the peace and joy that rightly belong to us.

(A Manifesto of Filipino Families on July 25, 2008).