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.

Even politicians must listen to the guidance given by the Church

From Bishop Teodoro Bacani's column this past Wednesday ("On the RH bill again"):

The El Shaddai DWXI Prayer Partners celebrated their 27th anniversary last August 20-21. August 20 was also the birthday of the founder and servant-leader of the group. It was a mammoth celebration, the biggest after the 10th and 11th anniversary celebrations many years ago. The size of the congregation gathered in the Amvel City compound, San Dionisio, Paranaque, showed clearly the resurgence of the El Shaddai Prayer Partners, which in the past were assailed by attacks and political winds. 

During my homily, the congregation roared loudly its disapproval of the RH bill. That is why I cannot understand what is often reported: that the majority of our people approve of the bill. Why, if this is true, do the votes cast after the public debates on TV show the votes going against the RH bill? In no public debates have they won after the issues have been clarified for the listeners. In all the public fora I have participated in, I could sense the tide going against the RH bill. Certainly, the El Shaddai Prayer Partners, the biggest charismatic group in the Philippines, are massively against the bill. 

That August 21, I was talking to a congressman from a southern Tagalog province. He assured me that the anti-RH congressmen are in the majority, and provided President Aquino does not twist arms, the RH bill would not pass the Lower House. We had with us that evening the new senator, Koko Pimentel, who is also anti-RH. Those who are crowing already of the certain approval of the bill may find themselves in the position of the Texters who found themselves losing to the less favored Petron team in the recent PBA championship game. What we anti-RH people are asking is a free and fair discussion of the issues. We are aware that monetary considerations have been openly dangled before the government by foreign groups. There may be even more baits than those published in the papers or broadcast on radio and TV. 

Catholic congressmen and congresswomen should be aware of the teaching of the Pope and of the Church on this matter. The RH bill proponents keep on saying that they are against abortion and will not countenance it. If this is so, I challenge them to include this amendment to the bill: “No abortifacients will be distributed by government hospitals, agencies, and personnel. By ‘abortifacients are meant any and all means, devices or procedures which prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum or dislodge from the maternal womb the implanted ovum.” 

The reason I propose this amendment is because when RH bill proponents speak of abortion, they do not include the prevention of the fertilized ovum from being implanted in the uterus. Abortion for them occurs only if and when the implanted fertilized ovum is expelled from the womb. 

Let me cite to you here the teaching of the Church as clearly enunciated by Blessed Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter, “The Gospel of Life” : “ . . . the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit. ‘The human being is to be respected and treated as a human person from the moment of conception, and, therefore, from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which, in the first place, is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life.’” (no. 60) 

The Church’s highest teaching authority has given us here authoritative moral guidance, which should guide Catholics—also legislators—in both their private and public actuations. The issue here is not only responsible parenthood or family planning, against which the Church has no complaint. In fact, the Church is an advocate of responsible parenthood and family planning. But the issue of means is also important. You cannot do wrong in order to achieve a desired good; the end does not justify the means. In the choice of means, we should also heed what the Church tells us: “The human being is to be respected and treated as a human person from the moment of conception” and should not be deprived of life. And by conception here is meant “the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence.”

Can one be clearer than that?

Without God

The RH bill’s secularistic mindset
Bishop Teodoro C. Bacani
May 29, 2011

One of the basic objections of the CBCP to the RH bill is the secularistic mindset underlying the bill. What that means is that the bill practically excludes the spiritual and theistic dimension of human beings and disregards moral considerations in its proposals. This is already shown by its proposal to provide “medically safe, legal, accessible, affordable and effective reproductive health care services and supplies” to the people especially the poor and marginalized (Sec. 3, d). Note the absence of the adjective “ethical” to describe the reproductive health care services and supplies to be provided. Ethical considerations are left out, and the only qualities considered are “medically safe, legal, accessible, affordable and effective” The bill is amoral and is not concerned whether the services and supplies it will provide the people are moral or ethical. Now don’t tell me that when it comes to medicine and what are to be supplied to the people as “essential medicines” morality or ethics should in no way be involved.