Solving poverty by helping the poor, not eliminating their children

From CBCP for Life: 

If RH pushers want to help the poor, spend P3.7 billion on jobs creation, skills training – speaker

ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE, Dec. 8, 2012—Some 1,500 youth, teachers and residents of the municipality of President Manuel A. Roxas in Zamboanga del Norte joined forces and gathered for the “Walk for Life and Anti-RH Bill Symposium,” marching around the municipality then taking part in a symposium in which economics teacher and law student Jan Louenn Lumanta spoke about the reality of the reproductive health (RH) bill and the country’s real needs.

RH Bill not for the poor

The guest speaker from the Dipolog diocese pointed out that referring to the measure as pro-poor is a misnomer.

No compromise

From CBCP for Life:

Issues on the Revised HB 4244 (RH Bill): A MUST-READ

The amended version of HB 4244 has been circulated in public. The following are some observations and questions on the latest version.

1. Amendments. It would be a misnomer to call the acceptance by the anti-RH camp and the CBCP of the amendments offered by the sponsors as “compromises”. The word “compromise” presumes that opposite sides while having different starting positions share in a desired outcome (peace in Mindanao for example in the case of the Bangsa Moro framework). Given the intrinsically evil nature of contraceptives and contraceptive acts and the adverse consequences on families and society of a contraceptive culture, the anti-RH position can hardly agree with the inevitable outcome of the RH bill for Philippine society. The Aquino administration however seems determined to deliver an RH bill which happens to coincide with the position of Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the MCC, and as manifested by the heavy-handed way in which the period of debates in the Lower House was drastically ended last August. If the pro-RH camp goes ahead and rams the bill through Congress, the proposed amendments may have to be accepted tactically as damage control to reduce some of the “nasty” aspects in the bill, such as the coercive provisions and the distribution of abortifacents.

2. Welfare economics. It seems that the House leadership has bought into the view shared by many proponents of the RH bill that they don’t really mind if the higher income couples do not practice family planning but it’s the poor who should be targeted for the government’s birth control programs. Thus in the name of recognizing reproductive health as “universal basic human right” the key amendment to the revised bill is the free reproductive services and supplies for the poor:

“[THE STATE] SHALL PRIORITIZE THE NEEDS OF POOR WOMEN AND MEN IN MARGINALIZED HOUSEHOLDS … WHO SHALL BE VOLUNTARY BENEFICIARIES OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE, SERVICES AND SUPPLIES FOR FREE”

While this revision finally owns up to the ulterior motive of HB 4244 to discourage the poor from breeding, they immediately raise a lot of welfare economics questions.

a) Is this really the first best, or even second- or third- best way to help the poor? Why prioritize free condoms, IUDs, and pills? Why not free anti-TB, anti-malaria, anti-diarrhea medicines; cheap bottled water; oral rehydration powder, etc. which would be more directed at the leading causes of illness and death among the poor?

b) How will the poor be identified? The revised bill proposes: “… THROUGH THE NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD TARGETING SYSTEM FOR POVERTY REDUCTION (NHTS-PR) AND OTHER GOVERNMENT MEASURES OF IDENTIFYING MARGINALIZATION…” Is this part of the Conditional Cash Transfer apparatus? Will acceptance of contraceptives now be one of the conditions? This NHTS-PR appears about 8 times in the revised bill and will be relied upon for eligibility for pro-bono services, anti-poverty programs, procurement and distribution to LGUs, etc.

In effect the bill contemplates creating a class of poor Filipinos certified as such for the purpose of getting qualified as non-paying recipients of reproductive health services and supplies. This raises more questions:

a. How will they be documented? Will they be given IDs or plastic swipe cards which they can bring to drug stores to get free condoms and pills? (Unless the NHTS-PR is geared up to certify their poverty each time before they want to do the marital act).

b. Will there be one ID per couple? Will they have to show a marriage certificate? Who will keep the ID, the wife or the husband? Shouldn’t the wife be given control of the ID? Will a separate ID be issued to the husband who might then use it for extra- marital pursuits?

c. Will an ID be issued to the other members of the poor marginalized family who have reached reproductive age?

d. What will be the cut-off income? How will the government prevent poor couples from selling in a black market their free pills and condoms to non-poor couples who do not qualify?

e. How will the quality of the free contraceptives be controlled? Will the COA criteria apply to procure least-cost condoms that might however have high failure rates? (This will play into the hands of pro-abortion camp: as cheap condoms fail there will be an increase in unwanted pregnancies among the poor. Before long illegal abortions multiply and there would be political clamor to amend the constitution for the legalization of abortion. This is the same slippery slope that has happened in some Catholic countries that have legalized abortion.)

f. The bill provides that the “(FDA) SHALL DETERMINE THE SAFETY, EFFICACY, AND CLASSIFICATION OF PRODUCTS AND SUPPLIES FOR MODERN FAMILY PLANNING METHODS PRIOR TO THEIR DISTRIBUTION, PROCUREMENT, SALE AND USE.” Many contraceptive pills are classified as first class carcinogenics. Since the bill requires the FDA to ensure the safety of contraceptives, when the incidence of cancer increases from the free pills distributed to the poor, will the government accept the liability and provide free cancer treatment? Or will there be a legal disclaimer at the back of each ID stating that the recipient takes the pill at her own risk and discharges the government of any liability for any harm that the pills could cause?

c) What is the estimated cost of providing free reproductive services and supplies to the poor? Using round numbers 25% of Filipinos are below the poverty line according to NSCB, or 5 million of 20 million families. Assuming 80% acceptance of free contraceptives, and P500/month cost of contraceptive supplies per family, this translates to P24 billion a year. If you use the SWS self-rated 10 million poor families, the number goes up to P48 billion. Of course the P500 can be higher or lower depending on the contraceptives supplied.

a. Following the principle of fiscal responsibility will there be revenue measures identified to fund this new expenditure program? Will the funding come from taxes collected from the general public, including Roman Catholics?

b. Or will the funds come from of grants or loans form the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, USAID, Millenium Challenge Corporation, etc.?

3. State interference in the family. The revised version has the following clause: “THE STATE SHALL ALSO PROMOTE OPENNESS TO LIFE, PROVIDED THAT THE PARENTS BRING FORTH TO THE WORLD ONLY THOSE CHILDREN THAT THEY CAN RAISE IN A TRULY HUMANE WAY.”

a) There is no definition of “TRULY HUMANE WAY”. Who will determine and define this, the State? Will the State set quantitative criteria such as minimum nutritional requirements, square meters of living space per child, ownership of appliances, etc? Will the State use present earning capacity or the expected permanent income of both parents? How will it allow for the possible increase in income of the breadwinner in the future?

b) Based on this clause, will the State then withdraw any support for openness to life if parents bring children whom they cannot raise in a “truly humane way”?

4. Coercion to cooperate in evil. There is an amendment the purports to lessen the coercive nature of the section on “Prohibited acts” in the case of health care providers who may not refuse under penalties to extend family planning services, “Provided that the conscientious objection of a healthcare service provider based on his ethical or religious beliefs shall be respected; however HE/SHE SHALL, WITHOUT IN ANYWAY AGREEING OR ENDORSING THE FAMILY PLANNING SERVICE OR PROCEDURE REQUIRED BY THE PERSON CONCERNED, immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another healthcare provider within the same facility…”

a) How can the State dictate the mental reservations of the health care provider? Conscientious objector na nga, eh.

b) Why is the state requiring the healthcare provider to violate his/her own internal disagreement by requiring him to refer the case to another health care provider?

c) To whom or how will the health care professional report or register her “WITHOUT IN ANYWAY AGREEING OR ENDORSING” the contraceptive or IUD or the sterilization? To her Mother Superior? To her Confessor? At her Particular Judgement after death?

5. Other issues, new or carried over from the previous version. Many of the provisions duplicatethe Magna Carta for Women which is already a law. The issue of penalties for doctors who refuse to treat failed abortions is already be covered by professional medical malpractice regulations and do not require a separate provision in an RH bill.

In sum, while the revised bill has taken out some coercive provisions and tries to de-emphasizeabortifacents, it is a hodgepodge of awkward attempts to make it seemingly acceptable and reasonable. It puts State power behind widespread distribution of morally and medically harmful contraceptives. Unfortunately it now uses questionable welfare economics in the name of supposedly helping the poor.

OTHER CONCERNS

1. What does the Bill say about effectiveness? Does it provide equality to protection of life BOTH for the mother and the unborn child from conception?

2. Once a drug enlisted to be one of the very general term “Modern Family Planning Methods” has established doubtful effectiveness, does the Bill provides mechanism to remove it from free circulation?

3. If the Bill does not promote abortion, then any “abortifacient” or effect to increase likelihood of abortion (chemical or mechanical) within the list of “Modern Family Planning Products” must also be removed. Is there a mechanism for this provided for by the Bill?

4. It is true that in the amended version of the Bill, the “Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is charged with the determination of the safety, efficacy and classification” of the Modern Family Planning products, however the same Bill must place criteria for “safety” and “efficacy”. Moreover, products that are neither “drug” nor “food” such as condoms must also be taken cared of, unless this product is under FDA authority.

5. Once becoming a law, will it automatically revise or amend, the Revised Penal Code? Part of every new law is to amend or change pre-existing laws contrary to it, except the Constitution. If “yes”, then the assumption that abortion is “already” illegal seems to become invalid eventually.

Legislating immorality

From CBCP for Life:

Watching a legislated dictatorship of moral corruption

I am deeply disturbed by how our legislators are deciding on the provisions of the RH bill and most Filipinos are oblivious or indifferent to what is happening there. The consequences of the implementation of the RH Bill would be inimical to the moral health of our people. It would be killing our morals “softly” but surely…  but that makes it even more insidious (which I define as “INSIDe [conscience, morality] poisonOUS”!)

The consequences of the bill would not be as blatant as the extrajudicial killings or the Ampatuan massacre, but it would be killing nonetheless — our morals and not to forget, of course, the many lives that would not see the light of day because of the abortifacients in contraceptives. I am reminded of the passage in the bible (Matthew 10:28): Do not be afraid of what could kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, be afraid of the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell.” The latter applies to the Bill: it would destroy our morality and also literally kill lives in the womb.

It took us 20 years to decide to throw out a dictatorship. They say we Filipinos are long-suffering (matiisin) to a fault. That is something to think about: a virtue is not a virtue when there is a lack of it, but it also ceases to be virtuous when there is an excess.

The RH bill is a form of  dictatorship, a subtle one, but a dictatorship nonetheless. More concretely, it is a legislated dictatorship of moral corruption. Let us not wait and see what would be its effects 20 years from now. We already know its effect: moral corruption.  Pnoy claims that he will stamp out corruption with “daang matuwid” and yet he is promoting moral corruption, which is the root of the other kinds of corruption. 

I have been going to Congress because I do not want to be a mere spectator of events or a free rider — that is, doing nothing and yet I stand to benefit from what the other Pro-lifers would obtain for the good of everyone.

I pray and hope that more people will act on the call to go to Congress!

- Maria Riza Bondal

CBCP-ECFL statement on the voting process for the RH bill

Bp Reyes Statement on RH Voting Procedures



From CBCP for Life:

Demand nominal voting if RH bill put to a vote, says bishop

MANILA, Dec. 3, 2012—Despite the public outcry against the highly controversial population control bill, it looks like Malacanang is doing what it can to influence the legislature and speed up action on House Bill 4244, prompting Antipolo Bishop Gabriel V. Reyes to enjoin Filipinos to demand transparency from legislators should they insist on putting the measure to a vote.

“Let us demand from our Congressmen, specially the leaders of Congress, that the voting be nominal, whenever a vote on a part on the whole of the Substitute Bill of the House Bill 4244 is taken,” the bishop, who heads the CBCP Episcopal Commission on Family and Life (ECFL), said in a recent statement on the voting procedure on the bill.

“It is the right of the people to know how their respective Congressmen voted on this important bill,” Reyes pointed out.

Solons averse to nominal voting?

The apparent lack of transparency in the process of legislation involving the highly controversial reproductive health (RH) bill has been noted twice particularly in the last three months.

The period of interpellations was suddenly halted at the Lower House when, on the afternoon of August 6, majority of the lawmakers voted viva voce for the termination of the debates on the bill, following their meeting with President Benigno Aquino III earlier that day. The vote had originally been scheduled for August 7.

On November 26, the House accepted – again through viva voce voting – individual amendments by way of substitute bill as the new one under consideration. Viva voce (live voice) voting refers to voting by speech – saying “aye” or “nay” (yes or no) instead of by written or printed ballot (nominal voting refers to a scheme in which lawmakers cast their votes one by one and will be allowed to explain their votes on the bill).

Seconds later, after Cebu Representative Pablo Garcia made a motion for nominal voting, ALAGAD Party-List Representative Rodante Marcoleta moved for adjournment.

Deputy Speaker Crispin Remulla hence declared session adjourned till the following day.

Social analysts and pundits have pointed out that highly controversial measures – of which the RH bill has proven to be one – ought to be dealt with in legislative proceedings not by shouting one’s preference, which viva voce essentially involves.

Reyes also issued a statement on December 2, calling on all believers to a day of prayer and fasting today to uphold the sanctity of life, as a meeting in Malacañang between President Benigno Aquino III and his allies in Congress takes place noon, followed by the expected push for the RH bill’s passage at Batasang Pambansa in the afternoon.

Pro-life and pro-family organizations from different parishes and dioceses, as well as life advocates from secular groups are expected to troop to the House of Representatives today to express their anti-RH sentiments and show their support for the anti-RH lawmakers. (CBCP for Life)

Archbishop Palma of Cebu on the RH and Child Labor Issue

(For the background to this article, see this: Lawmakers attribute rise in child labor to lack of RH law)


From CBCP for Life:


Use funds for RH to address child labor problem – bishop

MANILA, July 2, 2012— Spend funds intended for contraceptives to solve the burgeoning problem of child labor, Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) president Archbishop Jose Palma told government officials during a recent interview over Radio Veritas.

The Cebu Archbishop was reacting to an announcement made by the Department of Health (DoH) in June that the agency had allocated some P500 million for the distribution of contraceptives.

Palma made the suggestion following an International Labor Organization (ILO) report during the Batang Malaya campaign for child labor-free Philippines that there were 5.59 million children working in the Philippines.

“Instead of buying condoms, the government must use the funds to provide worthy programs for the employment of the parents of these working children,” Palma said.

The prelate expressed disappointment over the government’s incapacity to solve child labor and suggested that the government focus more on urgent issues instead of trying to appease foreign interests, particularly government funding of contraceptives as part of Millennium Development Goals (MDG).

“We should address urgent issues first rather than providing deficient solutions, which are not really the answer to the problem,” he pointed out.

Palma further questioned the notion of contraceptives as the solution to the problem of child labor.

“Is this really a solution or are we doing this because we are commanded by other countries to do so? Or are we doing this because there is, you know, so much money involved?”

The archbishop advised that instead of pouring funds into contraceptives, the government  create better opportunities for parents to eliminate the need for their children to eke out a living. (CBCP for Life)

That's a whole lot of money!

From CBCP News / CBCP for Life:

P500M for contraceptives ‘a waste of money’

MANILA, June 19, 2012— The government’s allocation of P500 million for birth control supplies supposedly to reduce maternal and child deaths is a waste of taxpayer’s money, a Catholic Church official said.

Fr. Melvin Castro, executive secretary of the CBCP’s Commission on Family and Life said that if the Department of Health really wants to reduce the problem, adequate health care services for pregnant mothers and unborn children is needed.

“They should use that P500 million in improving medical facilities and services instead of wasting that hefty amount on contraceptives,” Castro said.

DOH Secretary Enrique Ona yesterday announced that they would be allocating P500 million for family planning commodities and supplies in community health centers.

The move, he said, is in line with the government’s doubling of efforts to reducing maternal and child deaths in the country as sought by the Millennium Development Goal (MDG).

However, Castro said it is unfortunate that the DOH continues to give “false justifications” in promoting the widespread use of condoms and other artificial family planning methods.

“The contraceptives, by its nature, are population control. So let’s not invoke maternal deaths because they are using the women just to push population control,” he said.

Castro also believes that Filipinos will not support the government’s desire to promote the use of contraceptives in the country.

“I trust our people. Even if they give it free, Filipinos with well-formed conscience will not accept it… their morality will not go down,” he said. [CBCPNews]

An alien bill?

Note: the audio recording of the radio interview on which this article is based can be accessed here: Kape, Balita at Iba pa – May 04, 2012 (Friday)

From CBCP for Life: 

RH bill a foreign concept to Filipinos – US pro-lifer

MANILA, June 14, 2012—Some sectors may praise what they regard as the merits of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill, but another pro-lifer from a nation that is grappling with the consequences of institutionalized contraception, comprehensive sex education and abortion has pointed out that the measure is alien to a culture that is immensely fond of children, such as that of Filipinos.

“The RH bill is not in favor of the Filipino people. It’s a concept that is foreign to the Filipino culture that is very welcoming of children, and loving of children, “said Brian Caulfield, communications specialist at the Knights of Columbus (KC) and vice postulator for the cause for canonization of KC founder Father Michael McGivney.

In an interview over online radio program Kape, Balita at Iba Pa, Caulfield explained that  the bill will have adverse effects especially on a promising developing nation such as the Philippines, pinpointing provisions that are contrary to Filipino values.

“The RH bill may not, like China, limit you but the force of law can be very persuasive in saying that you should limit your family to a number of children, and that there are sanctions if you speak out against this kind of bill. And there’s sex education that will indoctrinate children at a young age to this anti-life mindset,” he stressed.

“I think what the Knights would like to do is have an educational initiative. This is what we really do. We don’t get involved directly in politics—that’s not in our bylaws.  As Knights we are involved in education efforts and we are involved in getting the word out. We are involved in mobilizing the vote.”

Filipinos must be educated about the dangers of the RH bill, he said. Citing the example of the Knights of Columbus as an organization, Caulfield said, “We involve ourselves in things of education about issues and about citizen and civic issues where we support the democratic process. I think it is important that all Knights become educated about this [RH Bill] issue, that they talk about it within their families, that they spread the word in their parishes, that politely and with charity they may engage those who may disagree.”

“This is how democracy is pushed forward,” he continued, “and Filipinos really live in a very vibrant culture that discusses these things and hopefully comes to an understanding of the issue really that the RH bill is not in favor of the Filipino people.”

Caulfield in a Catholic News Agency article titled ‘A bill to nowhere’ in May wrote an extensive view of the bill in parallel of the controversial US Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate, which also coerces religious institutions to provide birth  control services even if contrary to their moral convictions. (CBCP for Life)

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

From CBCP for Life:

RH bill denies freedom of religion, choice – lawyer

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)

A show of force on the Day of the Unborn

This article is noteworthy for explicitly identifying Mayor Alfredo Lim as being anti-RH, and for extensively quoting Cong. Mitos Magsaysay's speech versus the bill:

From CBCP for Life:

Tens of thousands join K of C’s Walk for Life, reiterate RH bill rejection 

MANILA, March 25, 2012–An estimated 30,000-50,000 members of the Knights of Columbus and their families trekked from Intramuros to the Rajah Sulayman park on Roxas Blvd. yesterday to carry out the annual Walk for Life to manifest the group’s pro-life stand and demonstrate its strong opposition to the Reproductive Health (RH) bill. 

Dubbed with the theme “We Value Life” this year, the activity started with a 6:00 a.m. Eucharistic celebration at San Agustin Church, Intramuros, with Luzon State Chaplain and Cubao Bishop Honesto Ongtioco as main celebrant. 

After the mass, participants from different Knights of Columbus Councils and other organizations assembled in front of the church then walked to Roxas Blvd., carrying streamers and placards identifying their group, and bearing life-affirming messages as well as expressions of anti-RH bill sentiments. 

“Give us a chance to breathe because life is a wonderful gift,”” No to RH bill, We value life,” “Defend life,” “We fight for the Culture of Life, Against the Culture of Death,” “Ang buhay na isang regalo huwag sayangin, pahalagahan ito” and “Take my hand, not my life” read some of the placards that dotted the kilometric line of participants of varied ages, from a handful of preschool children and numerous elementary school and high school kids, to adults and quite a few seniors who were upbeat during most of the way to Rajah Sulayman where a program was held. 

Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim commended the supposed concern of the RH bill’s proponents for caring for the women’s health issues but pointed out that the measure’s name can be deceiving.  

“Ang hindi ko ho maintindihan, ang title ng proposed bill na ito, ‘reproductive health bill’. Ang sinasabi ng mga proponents nito, ay pinangangalagaan daw nila ‘yung kalusugan ng mga ina na manganganak dahil maaari daw mamatay sa panganganak at meron silang mga statistics na nagsasabi kung ilan ang namamatay sa panganganak,” Lim said. “Sa biglang pandinig, napakagandang pakinggan — inaalagaan ang kalusugan ng mga ina natin.” 

He segued into a personal testimony of living a welcoming attitude toward life and being contraceptives-free with his first wife of 44 years before she died and with whom he has eight children, and with his second wife with whom he has four children. 

Zambales Representative Ma. Milagros “Mitos” Magsaysay, known for her firm opposition to the RH bill as well as her prowess in discussing it in plenary debates, explained what makes the measure unnecessary and thereby unworthy of support. 

Some 80 percent of the provisions in the RH bill, she said, are contained in the Magna Carta of Women which was signed into law in 2009. 

“Nakalagay po sa proposed RH bill that we should provide pre-natal and post-natal care sa lahat ng mga babae dito sa Pilipinas. Iyang provision na ‘yan nasa Magna Carta na eh. Kapag sinabi niyo pong ‘access to all kinds of family planning methods,’ nasa Magna Carta na rin ‘yan. Kapag sinabi mong ‘the right to space your children,’ nasa Magna Carta ‘yan.” 

“Kapag sinabi mong dapat mag-provide ng birthing facilities ang mga health centers nationwide, nasa Magna Carta na rin ‘yan. At ‘pag sinabi mong dapat magkaroon ng midwife, nurse at duktor ang mga health centers nationwide, nasa Magna Carta na rin ‘yan,” Magsaysay continued. 

“So bakit pa natin kailangang ipasa ang RH bill? Eh dapat ngayon pinapatupad na po namin sa pamahalaan ‘yung provisions ng Magna Carta.” 

The congresswoman also delved on the concept of essential medicines and how she regards the attempt to categorize birth control drugs and devices as “essential medicines” as senseless. 

“Anong sakit ba ang ginagamot ng contraceptives? Ang pagbubuntis ba ay isang sakit?” she recalled asking RH bill sponsors in plenary debates, to which the latter replied in the negative. 

“Ang alam ko sa ‘essential medicine,’ ‘yan ay iniinom ng isang tao sapagkat siya ay may sakit, at kung sakaling inumin niya yung gamot, gagaling siya. Kung hindi naman pala sakit ang pregnancy, ibig sabihin walang sakit, so hindi mo pwedeng i-consider na ‘essential medicine’ ang condoms at contraceptives,” the solon explained. 

The bigger picture that could explain the bill’s proponents’ motivation was revealed by Magsaysay. 

“Ang sabi kasi nila, sa DoH, mas mabilis ang priority sa pagbili ng gamot kapag ‘essential medicine’ ang classification. Kaya gusto nilang lokohin tayong lahat at sabihin ang contraceptives ay dapat gawing ‘essential medicine,’ she said. 

The Zambales congresswoman also mentioned that she would rather that students were taught values formation rather than sex education, as the youth need to learn to know and value their self-worth, understand principles such as integrity and focus on character building in general. 

Allen Paolo Guballa, State Chief Squire, also spoke as part of the program, which ended with the release of white balloons as the song “Habang May Buhay” was played. 

The Walk for Life took place a day before the Day of the Unborn, a special day officially designated in several countries including the Philippines for celebrating the sacredness of the lives of babies before birth. Besides the Philippines, March 25 is marked with a pro-life theme in El Salvador, Argentina, Guatemala, Chile, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Uruguay, Peru, Panama, Paraguay, Slovakia, Cuba, Austria and Romania. (CBCP for Life)

Filipinos for Life response to Rep. Kimi Cojuangco

From the official website of Filipinos for Life:

Official Statement: Setting the record straight 

March 21, 2012  

During interpellations Monday on the privilege speech given by Pangasinan Rep. Kimi Cojuangco, who is among the sponsors of House Bill 4244 which seeks to establish a taxpayer-funded contraceptive welfare program and mandatory sex education, the congresswoman went into a diatribe on the Catholic Church. Cojuangco was within her rights to try to convince her colleagues to vote for the measure. But the attack, which contained utter falsehoods, was uncalled for. 

Cojuangco needs a fact-checker. First of all, no massive rally has been called for March 25 to mark the “Day of the Unborn,” an international celebration promoting the dignity of human life. Rather, it was suggested by Pro-Life Philippines that pro-life groups hold “candle-lighting activities for the unborn; prayer meetings to spread the message of life and love; poster-designing contests revolving around the pro-life theme; seminars and exhibits related to pro-life issues; printing and distribution of leaflets and other information materials to encourage awareness of culture of life issues; and rallies or small public meetings to propagate the pro-life message.” 

Cojuangco accuses Catholic bishops of being a stumbling block, claiming the Philippines was still in the “dark ages.” But the bill is 80% redundant, as many provisions are already found in the 2009 Magna Carta for Women and other regulations. We do not need this bill. 

The congresswoman herself appears to be in the dark about the ill effects of artificial contraceptives which she wants to distribute to women at the expense of taxpayers. Oral contraceptive pills are classified by a WHO research unit as Group 1 carcinogens along with asbestos, arsenic, formaldehyde, and plutonium. 

Cojuangco should get her facts straight and carefully study the Church’s position on the RH bill, instead of engaging in juvenile attacks unbecoming of a legislator. 

The Church is opposed to chemical pills because these can lead to very early abortions. Medical literature have documented that aside from suppressing ovulation and thickening the cervical mucus to prevent sperm from fertilizing an egg, chemical agents in the pill have a third mechanism – terminating life by making the endometrial lining of the ovary hostile to a newly formed human being in cases where the first two mechanisms fail. 

It’s irresponsible for a lawmaker to recommend chemical contraception without disclosing its dangerous side effects and without considering the ethical and moral implications. Women deserve to know the truth about the pill. 

Cojuangco makes the erroneous and misleading claim that the family planning method accepted by the Church does not work, “Period.” 

German researcher Dr. Petra Frank-Herrmann found in 2007 that the Symptothermal Method’s effectiveness is “comparable to the effectiveness of modern contraceptive methods such as oral contraceptives, and is an effective and acceptable method of family planning. The Symptothermal Method involves monitoring fertility signs such as body temperature and cervical mucus secretions. It is a modern method of natural family planning endorsed by the Church, along with the Billings Ovulation Method and the Basal Body Temperature Method. 

On the contrary, artificial contraceptives, which are so widespread in countries like the US, have not reduced abortion because of significant failure rates. Cojuangco should be informed that in the US, half of women who had abortions used contraceptives in the month when they became pregnant. 

For Rep. Kimi Cojuangco to accuse the Church of meddling in state affairs is deceptive. The RH bill will trample upon individual and religious rights by forcing Catholic hospitals and doctors to provide contraceptives and sterilization services and mandating Catholic schools to teach contraception to students. Worse, Catholic taxpayers will foot the bill. 

The proponents of the bill are in fact the ones seeking to impose their own views, using taxpayers’ money, and with the coercive force of law. We call for more legislative debates on the bill, so Cojuangco and her allies would see the light.

CBCP for Life has published a report on this statement: Rep. Cojuangco told: ‘Get your facts straight’

Michael Voris versus the RH bill: Round 2

Last year, renowned lay Catholic speaker and commentator Michael Voris visited the Philippines and came up with two videos attacking the RH bill (Thrilla' in Manila and Liberal Tyrants).

This past February he came back to the Philippines for an extended tour and filmed the following videos, all of which touch on the RH bill one way or another:

Obama and the Philippines




Obama's Gay Ambassador




Even in the Philippines




The Church is Right!




Bishop Chat

The following article from the CBCP for Life website summarizes Voris' exhortations to his Filipino listeners to defend the Catholic faith and its stance on matters of doctrine and morals:

Int’l speaker urges Catholics to understand pro-life issues

MANILA, Feb. 22, 2012—Catholics should see to it that they translate their faith into concrete everyday actions instead of merely paying lip service and staying on the level of being a “Sunday Catholic,” an international speaker said during his recent visit to the Philippines.

“One can’t say ‘I’m a Catholic, I love Jesus,’ then goes home and pretends that none of the other stuff matters. There are threats against the true, good and beautiful so intense that this demands a certain response from us. Everything we do needs to be dedicated to the advancement of the Faith, whether we’re evangelizing someone we know, carrying out a devotion, fighting abortion in the Philippines, the RH bill… Whatever it is, we simply don’t escape,” Michael Voris of RealCatholicTv.com reminded the crowd at St. Francis of Assisi Parish during a recent talk he gave as part of activities being conducted by Pro-Life Philippines for Respect and Care for Life Month.

Voris, known for his online episodes of The Vortex which delves on various issues pertaining to culture and the Catholic faith, emphasized the call to every Catholic to deepen his understanding of the Faith and urged all to be pro-active in defending the Church especially nowadays.

Not to be timid about Catholicism

“You cannot be… quiet, afraid, timid, shy about Catholicism. The Church is under attack from every possible avenue you can imagine,” he said.

The Catholic Church is being criticized for its unwavering position on contraception and abortion, and Church officials and groups have been leading the opposition to anti-life legislation, such as the Reproductive Health (RH) bill. Lately, however, Filipinos of various persuasions and religious affiliations have become more vocal in rejecting the population control measure.

Voris pointed out the need to understand issues regarding the culture of life and know how to explain their stand on matters like the RH bill, even when talking with self-proclaimed “independent thinkers.”

“Oftentimes Catholics do sound uninformed, uneducated, just like we’re parroting back some party line, some script to read, that we don’t understand. That’s wrong; that has to change, the 50-year-old speaker observed.

“And for some it’s ‘I’m gonna vote against the RH if it comes up’ or ‘I’m gonna oppose it and I’m gonna go out in the streets and protest against it because the bishop told me to.’ You sound like a total moron to somebody who doesn’t understand what the Church teaches. You need to be able to say, ‘I’m protesting this because… blah blah. And I’m happy that the Church and I are in agreement on this because this is the truth, and I live according to the truth.’ That’s how you’re going to have to answer that,” he urged.

Genuine love leads to studying the Faith

Voris, who went on a week-long tour speaking to groups in Manila, Bacolod, Cebu and Davao accompanied by Pro-Life Philippines’ officers, explained that the desire to know more is a natural consequence of a genuine love for Christ and his Bride, the Church. And if there is genuine love, a Catholic would want to understand the Church’s teachings and position regarding life issues.

“In order for Catholics to really, really love the faith, and love all the teachings that come out of it, not just the theological, dogmatic or sacramental teachings but also moral teachings, you’ve got to know the faith. There’s a basic principle of philosophy — you can’t love what you don’t know. And the opposite of that is true also: Why would you not want to know everything that you can possibly know about something that you love, or someone that you love?” the speaker stressed.

Voris is known for his direct and sometimes scathing approach to tackling issues, and here he minced no words in getting his points across to jolt his audiences into a more dynamic practice of the Catholic faith.

“When Catholics are accused of being like mindless sheep and can’t think for themselves, that argument against Catholics has a little bit of truth in it… Why? Because Catholics don’t know their faith enough.”

For a Catholic not to know his faith means he doesn’t love it enough, he said, but enthused that authentic love for God and the Church he established will change that.

“The faith… always comes down to a simple relationship between me and my God. Now do I love this God the way I should? And if I don’t then shame on me,” Voris continued.

“When you love somebody you want to know everything about them that you can possibly know. You wanna know everything about the person. You ask a lot of questions. Why? Because you love them or think about them and you wanna know everything about them. “

Earlier in the day, Voris paid a visit to Adamson University to speak with the students as part of his Manila itinerary. He visibly captivated his young audience, driving home the message about the need for young people to seek friends, and eventually a future spouse, who will bring them closer to God first and foremost. He also underscored the importance of finding someone whom they can be proud to call as the father or mother of their children. He concluded by urging the young students to be true to their calling to live a Catholic way of life and to be true to their identities as Catholics.

(...)

The poisoned roots of Kinseyan 'sex education' and its implications for the RH bill

From CBCP for Life:

Comprehensive sex ed based on debunked studies by ‘psychopath’ scientist – media expert

MANILA, Jan. 31, 2012–The concept of comprehensive sex education, which has been carried out in many Western countries and is being proposed as part of the reproductive health (RH) bill — is based on the fraudulent claims of a psychopath scientist who, in turn, based his data on pedophiles and sex offenders in jail, divulged media forensics expert Judith Reisman, Ph.D.

Speaking to a crowd of hundreds at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC) Forum Tent in Pasay City Saturday, the Jewish American researcher, 76, held the audience’s attention with slide upon slide of an entire timeline detailing the profound changes in society after the so-called “father of sexology,” American entomologist and zoologist Dr. Alfred Kinsey, released in 1948 and 1953 bogus scientific research studies on human sexuality.

Looking back at the struggle for life and against the RH bill in 2011

I recommend the following articles:

Filipinos Close 2011 with Huge Pro-Life Caravan and Legislative Victories -- by Dr. Ligaya Acosta

Year-ender report. The crusade for a culture of life. Part 1. Part 2. -- CBCP for Life

What we've been saying all along: foreign money funds pro-RH activities

A pro-lifer's speculation on what the people in this anti-Catholic protest might actually have been thinking. 

An article published on December 2 of this year by Philippine Daily Inquirer brought to a wider audience some of the details of a state of affairs that has been known for a long time to the pro-life movement, and which many activists of the "pro-RH camp" have been denying without success. I am, of course, referring to the continued infusion into our country of money from foreign countries and institutions, earmarked for the propagation of the RH Bill and of other similar bills that espouse the Culture of Death and the anti-values of sexual anarchy.

In particular, the Inquirer article "No delay but RH bill won't be passed this year - Enrile" showed that the pro-RH camp has been practicing the age-old tactic of corrupt politicians: the "hakot" (paid) crowd:

Early this year, the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network (RHAN) received P4.4 million from the United Nations Population Fund to push for the passage of the RH bill before the end of 2011. Dr. Junice Melgar, RHAN secretary general, admitted that her group solicited the amount because it “has no ongoing funding.” 

Based on RHAN’s budget proposal, the amount was to be spent on activities such as “education and mobilization” program. One item worth P2,837,500 was to go to organize “two nationally coordinated (and) high-profile mobs.” 

The group scheduled the “peak” of its pro-RH rally for September and set aside P1,750,000 to organize a rally of “at least 5,000 people.” Each participant was supposed to receive P350

In response to this report, Filipinos for Life has published an official statement delving in greater detail and with many proofs into the foreign funding that has been propping up numerous anti-life initiatives in the Philippines:

Official Statement: Documents bare millions of dollars in funding for RH lobbyists

***

CBCP for Life also published the following article regarding the Filipinos for Life statement linked above:

Documents bare millions of dollars in funding for RH lobbyists 

MANILA, Dec. 2, 2011–Pro-abortion groups have been showering “reproductive health” (RH) lobbyists with millions of dollars in funding for years to promote the Western agenda of contraception and population control, documents showed. 

Funders include Planned Parenthood and its international arm, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Marie Stopes International, the Packard Foundation, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. 

In a statement, the group Filipinos for Life (F4L) said the paper trail of multimillion-dollar lobby funds reveal the hand of foreign interest groups out to dictate what policy the Philippine government should follow. 

“Nearly a decade ago, lawmakers condemned the presence of the American lobby group AGILE in Congress. This time, however, the RH lobby is apparently succeeding, thanks to a formidable war chest from pro-abortion groups,” it said. 

Documents revealed the following financial grants for RH lobby groups: 

* $90,000 to the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network (RHAN) for promotion, from the UN Population Fund or UNFPA (2011);

* $6.6 million to Planned Parenthood arm Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP) from UNFPA (2009);

* $1.6 million to FPOP from IPPF for the years 2005, 2009, and 2010;

* $1.2 million to PSPI from Marie Stopes (2009);

* $39,000 to Likhaan from Planned Parenthood (2007);

* $88,000 to FPOP in 2009 from Marie Stopes for RH kits; and

* $75,000 to “Catholics” for Choice to promote RH, from the Wallace Global Fund (2009). 

This was aside from $6.8 million from the Packard Foundation for the years 2006-2008; $18.4 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation from 1997 to 2008; $8.86 million from the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2004 for a “social acceptance” project; and $239.5 million from the World Bank for 2010-2012.These amounts could have better been used for direct poverty alleviation programs, F4L said. 

F4L said pro-RH lobbyists cannot deny the overt abortion agenda of most of their financial backers, notably Planned Parenthood, the world’s largest abortion provider, and UNFPA, which has been condemned for its coercive abortion programs. 

“Abortion was not legalized in the US overnight. It started with the birth control movement founded by Margaret Sanger, which today is called Planned Parenthood,” F4L pointed out. 

Where are the millions going? 

Meanwhile, the Philippine Daily Inquirer today ran a story containing a more detailed breakdown of RHAN’s budget earmarked for a more aggressive push for RH. According to the article, the millions in pesos provided by the UNFPA were to be spent on “education and mobilization.” Based on the same document, nearly P3 million was allocated for “two nationally coordinated (and) high-profile mobs.” 

“The group scheduled the ‘peak’ of its pro-RH rally for September and set aside P1,750,000 to organize a rally of ‘at least 5,000 people.’ Each participant was supposed to receive P350,” the article further stated. 

F4L called on lawmakers to examine further the lobby groups behind the RH bill, saying interpellations should be exhausted to unmask the real intentions of those promoting it. 

“Pro-RH groups and Malacañang spokesmen are being irresponsible by calling for a vote and an abrupt end to debates,” the group said. (CBCP for Life)

Sen. Pia Cayetano: "Pregnancy is a burden".

Thank you for your candor, Senator Cayetano. Thank you for unmasking the real thinking of the supporters of the RH Bill.

From CBCP for Life:

RH bill sponsors questioned on birth control supplies as “essential medicines”

MANILA, September 14, 2011–If contraceptives are only meant for birth control, then why are they tagged as “essential medicines” under the RH bill?

Senate President Juan Ponce-Enrile asked this and other questions as the Senate resumed the period of interpellation for the controversial “reproductive health” (RH) bill Tuesday.

Enrile cited Section 9 of Senate Bill No. 2865 titled “An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health and Population and Development,” which orders the inclusion of hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables, and “other safe, legal and effective family planning products and supplies” in the National Drug Formulary.

“These products and supplies shall also be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national and local hospitals, provincial, city, and municipal health offices, including rural health units,” the Senate version of the RH bill states.

The section is titled “Family Planning Supplies as Essential Medicines.”

Interpellating one of the RH bill sponsors, Sen. Pia Cayetano, Enrile noted that condoms do not cure anything while pills, injectables, and intrauterine devices work to prevent fertilization.

Enrile reiterated his belief that the RH bill is a population control measure disguised as a health measure, since “You cannot reduce the size of the family without reducing the population of the country.”

“There is no coercion but the result is population control,” he said.

Aiding Cayetano, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, also an RH sponsor, said birth control, the supposed aim of the bill, was different from population control. The former allows women to control the number of children while in the latter, the State uses its power to reduce the population, particularly those of the unfit.

Enrile, however, pointed out that the RH bill is particularly aimed at the poor.

“This is a law where the state itself intervenes in the size o the family. It is cleverly devised and disguised as a health measure. It is not health, it’s reproductive health, a very specific kind of health,” he said.

He asked: “Why zero in on reproductive health? How many people have died of dengue, malaria, cancer of the breast, cancer of the cervix, cancer of the uterus, hypertension, stroke, tuberculosis, cholera, typhoid, dysentery?”

Explaining why the poor was being targeted by the RH bill, Cayetano claimed they are being discriminated against when it comes to access to contraceptives.

Families should be allowed to space births, she said, as “pregnancy is a burden,” a “physical, emotional, financial burden.” (Dominic Francisco)

More proof of the pro-abortion agenda behind the RH bill

From CBCP for Life:

Exposed: Three pro-RH groups backing legalized abortion

MANILA, September 5, 2011–At least three non-government organizations have been found to be espousing the legalization of abortion in the Philippines, as senators resumed floor debates on the controversial “reproductive health” (RH) bill Monday.

One of the sponsors of Senate Bill No. 2865, Sen. Pia Cayetano, did not deny that groups such as the Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP), the Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights (WGNRR), and Likhaan have been campaigning for legalized abortion, under interpellation by Sen. Vicente Sotto III.

Sotto pointed out that FPOP got US$617,000 (P26 million) in funding from the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) – the world’s largest abortion provider – last year.

FPOP’s website carries a document titled “Medical and Service Delivery Guidelines for Sexual and Reproductive Health Services,” which describes medical and surgical methods for inducing abortion.

“[E]fforts should be made to inform the public that abortion is safest when performed early, and women who seek abortion should be encouraged to attend as early in the pregnancy as possible,” the document on the FPOP website states.

FPOP is also on the listing of “Sexual Health Services and abortion clinics Worldwide” by the Dutch abortion group Women on Waves (WoW). WoW takes women aboard hired ships to undergo abortions in international waters, to escape national laws banning abortion.

WoW states on its website: “If you live in a country where there is no access to safe abortion services and you would like to obtain a medical abortion with Mifepristone and Misoprostol, please go to Women on Web. This is an online medical abortion help service that refers to a doctor who can provide you with a medical abortion.”

Mifepristone and Misoprostol are abortion drugs, and both are not legal in the Philippines.

Providing how-to instructions for abortion

Likhaan, meanwhile, published last year a Filipino translation of the book “Where Women Have No Doctor,” Chapter 15 of which has a section titled “Mga Ligtas na Paraan ng Pagpapalaglag.” The book is available to the public on the Likhaan website.

“Tinatanggal ang binubuntis sa pamamagitan ng paghigop, gamit ang ispesyal na tubo (cannula) na pinapadaan sa puwerta at cervix pa-pasok sa matris. Puwedeng gawin ito na hindi pinapatulog ang babae, pero minsan, iniiniksyunan ng gamot sa cervix para makatulong sa sakit. Sa manu-manong proseso (manual vacuum aspiration o MVA), tinatanggal ang binubuntis sa pamamagitan ng ispesyal na heringgilya (syringe). Kung hindi, gumagamit ng maliit na makinang de-kuryente,” the book states.

“Mayroon na ngayong mga gamot na nagagamit ang mga doktor at health worker para magpalaglag. Pinapaimpis ng mga gamot ang matris at pinipiga palabas ang binubuntis. Ang ilang gamot ay nilalagay sa loob ng puwerta … ang ilan ay iniinom, at ang ilan ay iniiniksyon. Kung tama ang gagamiting gamot o kumbinasyon ng mga gamot, ligtas at mabisang paraan ito,” it adds.

Pushing abortion acceptance despite being unlawful

The Manila- and Amsterdam-based WGNRR, headed by UP professor Dr. Sylvia Claudio, talks about its “Abortion Rights Advocacy” on its website:

“Throughout its almost 30 year history, WGNRR has made abortion advocacy a priority.”

The Claudio-led group’s “specific goals” include the investigation of “ways to improve access despite the law,” sharing of “experiences and strategies about how to confront religious fundamentalists,” and finding the “best practices for linking abortion rights to other social justice and human rights campaigns.”

Sotto pointed out that the RH bill provides an “open door” to abortion – Section 3 paragraph i. The provision states: “While this Act does not amend the penal law on abortion, 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.”

“People and organizations behind it, as far as I’m concerned, are the difficulties I am encountering [in this bill],” Sotto said.

“IPPF has lobbied worldwide for the legalization and repeal of all laws preventing legal access to abortion,” he added.

In reply, Cayetano said: “The fact that an organization has made statements inconsistent with public policy does not prevent them from making statements consistent [with public policy].”

Using a poor analogy, the pro-RH senator said that even if Osama bin Laden supported policies against climate change, environmentalist Sen. Loren Legarda wouldn’t want to be associated with the brains behind the 9/11 attacks.

Sotto, however, retorted: “Climate change – everybody will agree to that. Eh ito contraception and abortion eh!” (Dominic Francisco)

Official Statement of Filipinos for Life on the "11-Maternal-Deaths-A-Day" Issue

See also the following article from CBCP for Life: Akbayan told to stop using outdated data

From Filipinos for Life:

OFFICIAL STATEMENT: Stop Using Outdated Data to Mislead Lawmakers!

September 4, 2011

Stop using outdated data to mislead lawmakers!

This is a rejoinder to the statement by pro-RH groups RHAN, Likhaan, and DSWP in which they accused those questioning the “11 a day” statistic of “belittling” maternal deaths. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The August 24 news item cited by the pro-RH lobby clearly says: “F4L (Filipinos For Life) clarified that it does not downplay the problem of maternal deaths, stating that ‘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.”

Questioning the data peddled by RHAN-Likhaan-DSWP is far from belittling the problem of maternal deaths.

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

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

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

At any rate, it now appears that the range of daily maternal deaths is a wide one – anywhere from 6.5 to 11.1. It can be six, it can be 11 (a nice, double-digit figure for PR purposes, especially). But lawmakers should have been informed ahead of floor debates that the numbers have changed significantly. Thanks to poor research by the RH lobby, they were caught using old data.

In finally allowing the public to examine what went into the pudding, RHAN-Likhaan-DSWP produced a bloated estimate of live births. The population projections, it should be noted, came from a census conducted 11 years ago.

We suggest using the latest available data. The UN Population Division’s estimates were released just recently, and should be more reliable. The UN data is “estimated to be consistent with the latest census” (2007).

Combining the female reproductive age population with age-specific fertility rates, we estimated live births for 2010 of 2,276,171 (See Annex). To check, we used the UN’s crude birth rate and arrived at 2,284,895.

With the higher figure for 2010 births, nowhere does 11 appear in the range of estimates for daily maternal deaths using maternal mortality ratios or MMRs (deaths per 100,000 live births) from three sources: the National Statistical Coordination Board; the WHO, UNFPA and other agencies; and the 2010 study in The Lancet by Hogan, et. al.

MMRs from The Lancet yielded 3-8 deaths a day; the WHO MMRs yielded 4-8 a day. The Lancet article was published in April 2010; RH bill author Rep. Edcel Lagman should have been informed of the new study before he filed the bill on July 1, 2010. The least that RHAN-Likhaan-DSWP could do is apologize to our lawmakers for the disservice.

RHAN-Likhaan-DSWP’s solution to the problem of maternal deaths defies logic: prevent pregnancies.

We believe the problem of maternal deaths can be solved by improving health care, such as by putting up more birthing centers and hiring more midwives (which can be done without the RH bill). The truth is, maternal deaths have gone down significantly even without the highly objectionable and divisive RH bill. 

CBCP for Life Q&A on the RH Bill

Part 1:



Part 2:


Part 3:


Part 4: