NOTE TO ALL READERS

Starting September 8, 2012, anonymous comments -- whether for or against the RH bill -- will no longer be permitted on this blog.
Showing posts with label Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines. Show all posts

Friday, April 20, 2012

If RH bill is for "choice", then why does it endanger freedom of religion?

From CBCP for Life:


MANILA, April 19, 2012—As pro-lifers in the United States gear up for another nationwide rally for religious freedom in June to protest the birth control mandate, numerous Filipinos still need to open their eyes to the fact that one of the Philippine government’s proposed measures violates the freedom of religion.

Atty. Ma. Concepcion Noche, president of the Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines Inc. (ALFI) said that the Reproductive Health (RH) bill, which has divided the nation due to contradictory viewpoints and insufficient understanding of its implications, tramples on the people’s religious freedom, a freedom protected by the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Based on the bill, healthcare workers and medical professionals are forced to provide RH supplies and services or participate in practices that go against their religious convictions — referring patients to others who would provide the services concerned is participation nonetheless. Employers also must either provide RH services to their employees or suffer the consequences as specified by the legislative measure.

“Dangling a criminal penalty of imprisonment and/or fine, believers will find themselves torn between fidelity to God and loyalty to their country. This unjustly limits the right to conscientious objection on the part of health care workers and medical professionals,” Noche explained.

“For the exercise of religious freedom to be truly meaningful, individuals should be allowed to profess and practice their faith by freely seeking and serving God in their hearts, in their lives and in their relationship with others, without fear of persecution or punishment. Only in this way can this right be truly guaranteed,” Noche pointed out.

The current set-up already allows respect for the religious beliefs of everyone, the lawyer said.

“But once a national policy on contraception is legislated, that changes the landscape altogether. Making it a matter of national policy or institutionalizing contraception via RH Bill and allocating billions of our scarce resources, will deprive us of our choice because the government will effectively have made that choice already for the Filipino families,” she explained.

What ‘separation of Church and State’ means

Much as separation of Church and State has been invoked by those who insist that the practice of one’s moral convictions has no place in the public square, this principle has often been misunderstood.

“Under our Constitution, the command against the violation of the separation of the Church and State is directed to the State — not to the Church — which is mandated to steer clear of the religious realm and give utmost respect to the exercise of religion. So, with the RH Bill, is the State poised to breach this wall of separation?” Noche remarked.

“The State exists for persons, as a guarantor and defender of their rights,” she continued. “In the face of ever-changing social conditions that confront us as individuals and as a people, the central question is: What are the requirements that government may reasonably impose upon its citizens and how far should they extend?”

Religious convictions have no place in the political process, some RH bill advocates have said. Noche, on the other hand, disagreed with this notion.

On the contrary, “As demonstrated by St. Thomas More when he defied the sovereign of which he was a “good servant” and chose to serve God first, religion has an important place in the political process. For indeed, it has been proven time and again that for democracy to be stable, it needs a foundation of moral principles based upon faith and religion.” (CBCP for Life)

Saturday, June 20, 2009

(Link) Government Attacks Against the Family

(Link) Government Attacks Against the Family (focusing on the RH Bill and the Magna Carta for Women.) (PDF)

ALFI Key Comments on House Bill 5043

ALFI Key Comments on the House Bill 5043 (with links to PDF files of related anti-RH Bill studies.)

Several very important salient points are conspicuously missing in the article on theproposed Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008 written by Rep. EdcelC. Lagman. We believe that it is only by presenting complete and accurate information aboutthe bill that the readers can have an informed opinion about it.

A. Access to a full range of contraceptives
The bill gives women the right to choose between natural and artificial methods of birthcontrol and guarantees access to the full range of “(h)ormonal contraceptives, intrauterinedevices, injectables and other allied reproductive health products and supplies.”It has been repeatedly pointed out in medical articles and bulletins, including the pro-contraception and pro-abortion literature from Alan Guttmacher Institute of the PlannedParenthood foundation of the U.S.1 that, contraceptive drugs and devices have two modes ofaction. They may prevent ovulation, or if ovulation takes place because of the phenomenon ofbreakthrough ovulation, they prevent uterine implantation. The use of these contraceptives,including intrauterine devices, renders the endometrium (lining of the uterus) hostile to thefertilized ovum (product of fertilization or ovulation) and prevents its implantation in theendometrium as a consequence. Deprived of shelter, the growing embryo – a precious little,defenseless human being – is thus expelled from the uterus. This is plain and simple abortion!The bill creates what otherwise is a sealed path to abortion by not only advocating, butin fact, mandating, universal access to a full range of family planning methods, techniques,devices, and services, and information thereon. While, as claimed by its proponents, the billdoes not legalize abortion, it does, in fact, promote abortion.
In addition, the bill transgresses the constitutional mandate for the State to “equallyprotect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”
B. Prohibited Acts are criminally penalized
The bill imposes imprisonment and/or fine on:

1. Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall:a. Refuse to provide reproductive health care services to duly DSWD-certified abused pregnant minor on whose case no parental consent is necessary.b. Refuse to perform voluntary ligation and vasectomy and other legal and medically- safe reproductive health care services on any person of legal age on the ground of lack of spousal consent or authorization.c. Knowingly withhold information or impede dissemination thereof and/or intentionally provide incorrect information on reproductive health programs and services.d. Refuse to extend reproductive health care services and information on account of patient’s civil status, gender or sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work: Provided, That all conscientious objections of health care service providers based on religious grounds shall be respected: Provided, further, That the conscientious objector shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health care service provided within the same facility or one which isconveniently accessible.
2. Any public official who prohibits or restricts, personally or through a subordinate, the delivery of legal and medically-safe reproductive health care services, including family planning.

The penal provisions bring to the fore various constitutional concerns.

Firstly, the bill makes a mockery of the “natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character” by granting to abused or pregnant minors the right to avail of “reproductive health care services” which by definition, include sterilization and ligation and a full range of techniques, services, devices, and contraceptives, without need of parental consent.

Secondly, the bill undermines the “sanctity of family life” and violates the constitutionalmandate for the State to “protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous socialinstitution” by allowing the spouse to undergo “voluntary ligation and vasectomy and otherlegal and medically-safe reproductive health care services” without the consent or authorizationof the other spouse.

Thirdly, the bill defies the “free exercise of religion” clause of the Constitution. It hasbeen said that the religion clause of the Constitution is designed to protect the broadest possible liberty of conscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others andwith the common good. It is only the existence of a grave and present danger of a character both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or anyother legitimate public interest compelling enough for the State to intervene that will justifyrestraint on religious freedom. The challenge of the moment is to determine and identify that‘compelling state interest’, if any, that will justify infringement of the religious freedom.

C. Huge budget appropriations
Substantial amounts appropriated in the annual General Appropriations Act for reproductive health and family planning under the DOH and POPCOM, together with tenpercent (10%) of the Gender and Development budgets of all government departments, agencies, bureaus, offices and instrumentalities, and such additional sums as may be necessary, shall be made available for the effective and full implementation of the Act.The appropriation of billions of pesos will contribute to further economic degradation of the nation by diverting the scarce government funds to the implementation and promotion of the population control program, rather than to education and basic social services to improvethe quality of life and promote the well-being of every Filipino.

Other Key Comments in PDF Files:

Why Catholics Must Oppose the Reproductive Health Bill

1. Those of us who believe in the Catholic faith entrusted by Jesus to His Church must ask ourselves: Do we respect its teaching, or do we not? Do we really believe, or do we not? The Church has the authority from God to teach about faith and about morals. If it didn’t, there would be no point in having a church – any church, not just the Catholic Church. If a church does not have its teaching from God, then it is dispensing human wisdom. But we know very well that human wisdom, even human wisdom which seems quite appealing, can be wrong. History is littered with grand ideas that took the lives of millions, often including their strongest proponents. When it comes to questions of morality, we ultimately have nowhere to turn but to God, but He speaks with authority only through His Church. The sinfulness of artificial contraception was infallibly stated by Pope Pius XI in 1930 in his encyclical Casti Connubii, “On Christian Marriage.” The purpose of Pope Paul IV’s much disputed Humanae Vitae “Of Human Life,” was simply to settle the question of whether the contraceptive pill, which had not yet been invented when Casti Connubii was issued, was an artificial contraceptive or not, and also to put to rest any notion that its invention could bring about any change in the Church’s constant teaching through the centuries that artificial contraception is sinful. These facts are documented in the book Humanae Vitae e Infallibilità: il 1.Concilio, Paolo VI e Giovanni Paolo II, by Ermenegildo Lio, O.F.M., published in Vatican City by Libreria Editrice Vaticana, the Vatican Publishing House, in 1986. Fr. Lio received a hand-calligraphed, personally signed note of thanks for this work from Pope John Paul II. Do we really want to substitute human wisdom for the wisdom of God?

2.The so-called Reproductive Health bill places technology at the center of human reproduction: the creation of our children, the future members of our society. Catholics believe in God and in His authority over human life and death. It is a violation of this authority to attempt to substitute technology for the human will in the procreation of human life. Yes, technology is a great gift of God – it has allowed us to conquer our environment, and offers the promise of a life without privation, and even material abundance for everyone. Yet it is a two-edged sword. Technology is also what has allowed our forests to be denuded, our fish and wildlife to be depleted, and our air to be polluted by the emissions of the machines which serve us. In other words, it has appropriate uses, and inappropriate uses. Giving it control of the sacred act of the transmission of human life, upon which the continued well-being and even existence of humanity depends, is to apply it to something where it clearly does not belong. We tamper with the creation of life at the peril of our own welfare. The Bible tells us that “my ways are not your ways – it is the Lord who speaks. Yes, the heavens are as high above earth as my ways are above your ways, my thoughts above your thoughts.” If we try to substitute technology for exercise of self control of our own behavior, as this bill will attempt to do if it becomes law, it will, in the natural order of things, come back to harm our people and society grievously, as it has in every other country which has taken this path. Europe, the Anglo countries – except the U.S. with its massive immigration, Japan, China, and even the Latin countries are all on a path to demographic suicide. All because of placing technology between man and woman.

3.The Philippine Legislators Committee for Population and Development received foreign grants of 150,000 U.S. dollars from the Ford Foundation in 2003, 300,000 U.S. dollars from the Packard Foundation also in 2003, and 400,000 U.S. dollars from the Ford Foundation in 2006. If contraception is so important to our Filipino people, why was it necessary for some of our Representatives to obtain such large grants, totaling about forty-two million pesos at the current exchange rate, from U.S. foundations which have been greatly involved in suppressing the birth-rates of non-white peoples for decades, in order to support it? Will this be good for the Philippines, or for those who think that more births in non-European countries are a threat to their lifestyle?

4.We read the following in St. Luke’s account of the Passion of Jesus, as he walked the road to Calvary: “…Jesus turning to them said, ‘Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming when they will say, “Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed!” Then they will begin to say to the mountains, “Fall on us”; and to the hills, “Cover us.” For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?’” This passage has long been a source of mystery as to what events Jesus was referring to. The world has experienced the greatest economic boom in the history of mankind over the past six decades, yet families have far fewer children, and the wealthiest nations have the fewest. Now we are at the start of what we are told will be the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Birth rates fell significantly during the Great Depression.

(Link) RH Bill 5043 is premised on Misconceptions and Half-truths

RH Bill 5043 is premised on Misconceptions and Half-truths


This paper was inspired by a primer was written by Rev. Fr. Gregory D. Gaston, STD 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 http://www.safe.ph/)

Click to download 7 page PDF document exposing RH5043 and giving clarifications.

12 Reasons Why We Oppose HB 5043

12 Reasons Why We at ALLIANCE for the FAMILY Foundation Philippines, Inc. (ALFI) OPPOSE Reproductive Health Bill 5043

1.HB 5043 is based on flawed data on population growth rates and fertility levels. It ignores the negative impact on the economy and society of an ageing population, as experienced in many developed countries. If we spend our scarce resources towards birth control, we would be promoting the undesirable outcome of depopulation.

RP’s Population Growth Rate has declined since the Year 2000 Census of 2.36%. The correct PGR is lower. UN states it at 1.8%, whilst the NSO reports 1.94% for its 2005-2010 projection. RP’s Total Fertility Rate is not 3.5. It is 2.6 (based on UN) or 3.2 (based on NSO). In a few decades, fertility rate will be at replacement level of 2.1, and will still continue its irreversible decline, leading to impoverishment of the elderly, and economic decline – which history shows will lead to further decline in fertility.

2.HB 5043 places an overwhelming emphasis on contraception at the expense of all other values, including medical care for the sick and the dying. Top 10 causes of Morbidity/Death in the Philippines lists Pneumonia, Bronchitis, Diarrhea, Influenza and Hypertension as the highest ranking causes of death among women. There is a distortion of human values if we prioritize the prevention of procreation over saving lives.

3.HB 5043 promotes abortion. HORMONAL CONTRACEPTIVES ACT AS ABORTIFACIENTS. They do not prevent ovulation 100% of the time and thus, fertilization can still occur. When the fertilized ovum is prevented from implanting in the uterus because of the effect of the pill, this ovum is expelled. This is plain and simple abortion. (Note: Research shows that ovulation still occurs during pill use in 6 out of 210 menstrual cycles. Even among women who observed strict compliance with pill intake, break-through ovulation rate could be as high as 34.28 ovulations for every 100 women taking the pill for one year. Hence, there remains a grave risk of the abortion of undetected pregnancies.)

4.It is not true that widespread use of contraceptives will reduce illegal abortion and help control the spread of HIV/STD. In every single country where contraceptives became widely available, cases of abortion, teenage pregnancies, HIV/STDs increased because of the contraceptive mindset being promoted in society.

5.HB 5043, with its 2-child ideal (Section 16), will result in social stigma and discrimination against large families. The ideal family size is what parents responsibly decide. This is not to be mandated nor encouraged by the State.

6.HB 5043 legislates mandatory reproductive health and sex education from Grade V to 4th year high school (Section 12). This includes the discussion of topics on how to “prevent unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies”, “use and application of natural and modern family planning methods”, “desired family size”, etc. Teaching youth about abstinence and, at the same time, discussing how to avoid pregnancies sends mixed messages that will, in the end, lead to serious consequences for many. It also undermines the right of parents to be the primary educators of their children and “the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood”, as stated in our Constitution.

7.HB 5043 provides that any person who publicly or even privately disagrees with its premises, conclusion or implementation is subject to fine or imprisonment (Section 21.e.). It also imposes a tax burden on taxpayers, who, in the exercise of their religious conviction, are opposed to the RH bill.

8.HB 5043 seeks to classify hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables etc. as “essential medicines” (Section 10) even if they pose health risks to women. The World Health Organization has also concluded that HORMONAL CONTRACEPTIVES CAUSE CANCER, Warning Level 1, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

9.HB 5043 forces all health care service providers, including private doctors, nurses, clinics and hospitals, to make referrals for the provision of abortifacient drugs and devices (Section 21.a.5.). Refusal will be punished by fine and/or imprisonment. This is a violation of a person’s freedom of conscience.

10. HB 5043 violates the Constitutional safeguards for life and family (Article II, Sections 12 & 13; Article XV, Sections 1 & 3). It allows anyone to avail of RH services like vasectomy or ligation without the consent of the spouse (Section 21.a.2.), thereby creating artificial conflicts between spouses and thus effectively destroying the meaning of marriage. Similarly, an abused pregnant minor may also avail of any of the “reproductive health care services” without the need of parental consent (Section 21.a.3.).

11. Poverty and hunger is not caused nor aggravated by overpopulation, but by the wrong economic policies, poor governance and systemic corruption. Numerous economic studies have shown that there is no correlation between population, the incidence of poverty and GDP growth. FAO statistics indicate that food supply in the Philippines has even outpaced population growth rate between the years 1960 to 2002.

12. Finally, HB 5043 ignores the mandate of Section 12, Article II of the Constitution, which provides as follows:

Sec.12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. This provision leaves no room for the State or any of its agencies to get involved in any family planning program that promotes CONTRACEPTIVES that endanger the health of the mother and the life of the unborn from the point of conception.

Friday, June 19, 2009

Questions about the Reproductive Health Act

From the website of ALFI

Questions about Reproductive Health Act

THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT WILL SEVERELY INJURE FILIPINOS AND FILIPINAS, OUR FAMILIES, SOCIETY AND ECONOMY


The ongoing debate concerning the Reproductive Health bill fails to even consider most of the consequences that would flow from its passage. If passed, this bill will change our Filipino society forever. Contraceptive Societies, such as that which will be created by HB 5043, have characteristics in common. Some of the major ones are described here, along with relevant aspects of the bill itself:

1.The oral contraceptive was introduced in the U.S. – and contraception subsequently became accepted and popular there – in 1960. In the years since then, out of wedlock births there have gone from about 6% per cent of all births to about 37%, a more than 500% increase, and more than one-third of all births. Similar results have occurred in the other countries which have adopted the contraceptive society. What provision will be made for the explosion in the numbers of children who will be born outside of families in our Philippines after this bill becomes law – especially those who will be raised by single mothers who must divide their time between earning income and caring for their children, and will therefore be even more poor than their married peers?

2.During the twenty years following the introduction of the contraceptive world view which came along with the oral contraceptive, the rate of family dissolution in the U.S. reached 250% of what it had been previously, despite having been fairly stable in the preceding decades. Similar results have occurred in other countries which have adopted the contraceptive society. What provision will be made for the vast increase in broken families which will occur here, as it has everywhere else, if this bill becomes law?

3.After the adoption of the contraceptive society in other countries, marriage as a way of life has greatly declined. Britain, for example, now has the lowest rate of marriage since records began there in 1862. Other countries which have adopted the contraceptive society are experiencing similar declines. In the U.S., the number of couples living together without being married increased by 865% in less than 40 years after the introduction of the contraceptive society. Yet numerous scientific studies have proved that women in such relationships are several times more likely to be physically abused than married women, and so are their children. Moreover, the children are not as healthy, do not do as well in school, are more likely to drop out of school, are more likely to be in poverty, and are more likely to commit crimes than children living in married families. What provision will be made to help the many more women and children who will be abused in unmarried relationships, and the children from non-marital families, who will not be able to keep up with their peers from married families, if this bill becomes law?

4.During the thirty years following the introduction of the contraceptive society in the U.S., the rate of violent crime increased by 500%, largely as a result of the destruction of marriages. What provision will be made to deal with the large increase in violent crime that is likely to occur if this bill becomes law? In the U.S., this increase in crime necessitated increasing the prison population by 500%. What provision will be made to construct the many new prisons we are likely to need, since existing prisons are already operating beyond capacity, if this bill becomes law?

5.Countries which adopt the contraceptive model of society eventually legalize abortion, because their people come to believe in its necessity to deal with contraception failures, where a baby is conceived “by mistake,” since all contraceptive methods have a failure rate. This has occurred in almost all contraceptive societies already, and there is strong pressure to legalize it in the remaining ones. Since the sponsors of the bill oppose abortion, how will they keep it illegal once the people support its legalization, as a result of the contraceptive society?

6.Contraceptive societies experience an explosion of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD’s), particularly among young people. This is because no contraceptives provide any protection from STD’s except for the condom, and its protection is significantly limited. As a result, for example, there were almost 400,000 NEW cases of sexually transmitted diseases in Britain in 2007, the highest number since record-keeping began thirty years ago. Despite widespread condom usage in the U.S., which has a population less than four times as large as ours, there are nearly 19 million new STD cases there each year, more than half of them among 15- to 24-year-olds. To take just one of the more than twenty STD’s in circulation, it is estimated by medical authorities that three million new cases of Chlamydia occur in the U.S. each year, 1.2 million of them among teenagers. This is more new cases each year than our Philippines has in the past 100 years put together. But this favorable disparity will disappear if we too adopt the contraceptive mentality. And while the U.S. has the most extensive medical establishment in the world to deal with this serious disease, which can be treated effectively if diagnosed in time, we do not have that advantage, and timely diagnosis is unlikely here — since it is often asymptomatic — let alone treatment. Direct medical costs associated with STD’s in the United States have been estimated at up to 14.7 billion dollars annually. We can expect equally devastating health and financial consequences here if the Reproductive Health act becomes law. What provision will be made to diagnose and treat this explosion of Sexually Transmitted Infections and Diseases, and to pay for the required medical care?

7.In 1991, Thailand had a total of 642 reported cases of AIDS which had been contracted since the epidemic reached there in 1984. In that year, its government embarked upon a nationwide campaign for 100% condom use to prevent transmission of AIDS. This program was widely accepted and implemented by the people of Thailand. Nevertheless, by the end of 2003, Thailand had 570,000 people infected by HIV, the virus which causes AIDS, and 58,000 of its people died from AIDS that year alone. The Philippines, which had a comparable number of AIDS cases in 1991, but did not institute a condom campaign, by 2003 had only 9,000 people infected, and 500 deaths. The HIV infection rate of Thailand was 8,000% higher than ours by that year. With a national campaign to encourage condom use under this bill, we can expect to make rapid and substantial progress to catching up with Thailand in HIV infections and AIDS deaths. What provision will be made to care for the many people who will be infected, and the survivors of those who die from the disease if this bill is enacted into law?

8.In 1960, the average number of children per Filipina in her lifetime was seven. By 1980, it was five. By the millennium year 2000, it was 3.5. By two years from now, in 2010, it is projected by the NSO to be 2.05. This is below the level required to replace population, and therefore our population is already destined to eventually fall. However, the number of children per Filipina will itself continue to fall after 2010 – it is projected to be about 1.7, on average, by 2020, further exacerbating this trend toward a declining population. All this will occur WITHOUT passage of the Reproductive Health bill. With passage, it will happen sooner, and to a somewhat greater degree. While some observers will welcome the prospect of a declining population, it is obviously very difficult to maintain economic growth with declining population, the more so in a less-developed and non-industrial economy. Thus, Philippine business faces a long-term prospect of fewer customers for its products and services: fewer cell-phone customers, reduced bank deposits, lower foot-traffic in malls, fewer motor vehicles purchased, and so on. The fact that this will not happen until decades from now doesn’t mean that we can pretend it won’t happen at all – and if we care about the future of our country and our people, we must take it into account. Once our population passes below replacement fertility, long before it begins to actually fall, the process becomes irreversible – nothing short of massive immigration can prevent it from falling eventually and indefinitely – this has been the experience of all the countries which are facing this predicament. The question becomes, are we willing to accept massive immigration? We must make that decision now, since we will very soon be below replacement fertility. What is the position of the bill’s authors concerning eventual massive immigration to sustain economic growth? And from what countries will immigrants be expected, if the decision is in favor of massive immigration to sustain economic growth?

9.A long-term consequence of enacting Reproductive Health will be the impoverishment of our elderly, particularly women. As family ties become weaker, and fewer children are born, there will be many elderly with no one to support them. Given the state of our public finances, the government will not be able to assume this role, as it does in some countries. (In fact, most of the developed countries, with their own contraceptive societies, are already facing severe difficulties in funding their pension systems, for the same reason.) Both the Asian Development Bank, in its 2002 annual report entitled Population And Human Resource Trends and Challenges, where the authors state that the bank’s “Developing Member Countries are aging faster than they are developing,” and the United Nations, for example in a press release by UN ESCAP News Services dated May 15, 2002, where it states “The combination of a declining birth rate, and lack of adequate provision for senior citizens in many Asian and Pacific countries, could result in future destitution for many people, especially women,” have essentially admitted this, What provision will be made for the elderly, particularly women – who make up a disproportionate share of the elderly, because they live substantially longer than men – who have no children, and no pension, or one that is inadequate to live on?

10.The contraceptive society and sex education have produced a culture of promiscuity and sexual libertinism in the developed world. In the U.S., during a typical week according to an authoritative polling firm, 38 per cent of adults younger than 25 engage in sex outside of marriage, and 33 per cent view pornography. Over half of all babies born to girls younger than 18 in the U.S. are fathered by adult men. The situation is similar in Britain and in other countries. How will promiscuity and sexual libertinism be dealt with here, in view of the fact that the bill mandates universal sex education in the contraceptive society which it will create?

11.The contraceptive society has fostered the growth of the commercial sex industry, which is at unprecedented levels the world over. The largest growth area of the commercial sex industry has been child prostitution, which, like the adult version, is based on coercion and abuse. One small but telling illustration of this is a U.S. Department of Justice joint report that about 240 underage girls are transported into the Kansas City metro area every month to be prostituted. Kansas City is in one of the most conservative areas of the U.S., and it is not even in the top twenty-five largest U.S. cities. What provision will be made to assist the underage girls and boys who will be forced into, or who will be at risk of being forced into, prostitution, in the climate of promiscuity and sexual libertinism that results from a contraceptive society with universal sex education?

12.According to Lant H. Pritchett, writing in the authoritative academic journal, Population and Development Review – which is published on behalf of the Population Council, one of the foremost advocates of artificial contraception in the world – government contraceptive/reproductive health programs do not play a very important role in fertility reduction, accounting for only 10% of the massive reduction in fertility that occurred in the 20th century. This same finding was reached by Grant Miller, a strong supporter of contraception, writing about the effect of contraception on the demographic transition in the nation of Colombia for the National Bureau of Economic Research in the U.S. Much more important than contraception are urbanization, education and employment for women, and later age of marriage related to these. Other social scientists have found the same. But although contraceptive programs are not very effective at lowering fertility, they are extremely effective at breaking up families and societies, as has been noted. In view of this small effect, but high costs in money and damage to society, why should we invest the people’s money in contraceptives, rather than in economic development projects such as microfinance which can actually provide additional income to the poor, which this bill will not? After all, no family has ever contracepted its way out of poverty – it takes additional income get out of poverty.

13.A recent study in the UK revealed three leading potential “triggers” for serious mental health problems in girls, the first being premature sexualization. The report reveals a loss of childhood innocence and says girls today experience high levels of “stress, anxiety and unhappiness.” Sexual advances from boys, pressure to wear clothes that make them look too old and magazines and websites directly targeting younger girls to lose weight or consider plastic surgery were identified as taking a particular toll. Two-fifths of the 10 to 14 year old Girl Guides surveyed know someone who has self-harmed, a third had a friend who suffered from an eating disorder and almost two in five know someone who had experienced panic attacks. Many feel strongly that self-harm could be within the spectrum of “typical teenage behavior,” Providing contraceptives and sex education to our children, as this bill does, will bring the same consequences here that it has in other contraceptive societies. What provision will be made to mitigate this, and to help the girls who are harmed in this way by sexualization?

14. The bill mandates a full range of contraceptives, many of which cause very early abortions by preventing implantation of the zygote, a developing human being, into the endometrium of the uterus. On the other hand, the bill affirmatively maintains the existing prohibition on abortion. These conflicting provisions cannot be reconciled, unless the sponsors deny the existence of these abortions, which are described in the standard textbooks on embryology. The bill mandates prison and/or fines for persons disseminating disinformation concerning the contents of the bill. Will these penalties apply to persons who point out the fact that abortions occur when using many types of contraceptives?

15.Will these same penalties apply, once the bill takes effect, to persons who continue to point out the various harmful consequences that will result to individuals and society from its implementation? If they will, what happens to the freedom of speech guaranteed by out constitution?

16. Religion, especially the Christian religions, withers in a contraceptive society. The developed world has seen observance of religion diminish almost to a point of insignificance in society. Today, for example, 16 per cent, 14 per cent, and 13 per cent, respectively, of the British, French and Germans consider religion as very important. Researchers estimate that the percentage of adults in the U.S. who actually attend religious services during the previous weekend dropped from 42% in 1965 to 26% in 1994, a period roughly beginning with the introduction of the contraceptive society there. But all morality ultimately stems from religious belief. As George Washington, John Adams and James Madison, among the leading founders of modern democracy, all observed, it is essential to the success of democratic government. What provision will be made to deal with the loss of practical religious faith in the contraceptive society which this bill will establish?

17. A typical child born today in Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan or the largest cities of China has no brothers, no sisters, no cousins, no aunts and no uncles. This is the future of the contraceptive society. Not to mention that such typical child does have four grandparents whom it must eventually support through taxes, or directly – unless grandpa and grandma are euthanized to eliminate the burden they impose. What will happen to the Filipino family, the crown jewel of our culture, in this society of the future?