A UP Diliman student on why the Reproductive Health Law is unconstitutional and should be abolished

Abolish the Unconstitutional Reproductive Law
Position Paper by Mary Minette M. Geñorga (University of the Philippines)

(Source)

Once a bill is passed and it becomes a law, it does not mean that it cannot be abolished anymore. In the Republic of the Philippines, the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, a law that gives universal access to methods on contraception, fertility control, sex education, maternal care and family planning was approved by President Benigno Aquino III last December 21, 2012. Prior to the passage of the bill, two groups of people emerged to support and to criticize the bill. Different forums, debates, rallies and other demonstrations took place to express the side of both groups. "When does life begin?" and "Are contraceptives abortifacients?" are some of the questions intensely debated about over the bill. Amendments were proposed to respond to certain criticisms. Some of these amendments were approved and some were rejected. After 13 years of revisions and arguments over a law for responsible parenthood and reproductive health, the law was finally approved by the president. Yet, the commotion over the controversial bill did not stop when it was passed into a law. The implementation of the law is still pending. A status quo ante order was issued by the Supreme Court for the magistrates to assess the merits of the 14 petitions that were filed by various groups stating that the law is unconstitutional. According to an article on philstar.com, the voting for the legality of the said law has been rescheduled to April 2014 wherein the Supreme Court‟s annual summer session will be held (Punay).

It is clear that criticisms of the RH law persisted despite the fact that it has already been passed and approved. Its legality is being questioned mainly because it steps over some rights that are stated on our constitution. This violation on constitutional provisions leads to the need for the abrogation of the said law.

What are these constitutional provisions that the RH law violates? An article on inquirer.net from September 28, 2013 reports that Fr. Melvin Castro, the executive secretary of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines Episcopal Commission on Family and Life, asked the Supreme Court to declare the law as unconstitutional following that the Priority Development Assistance Fund or what is commonly known as pork barrel was used to pass the bill through bribery(Uy). The unconstitutionality of the law was again brought up in February 2014. In an article on journal.com.ph, Buhay Hayaang Yumabong party-list Representative Lito Atienza said:

Instead of instilling a contraceptive mentality in our children, our leaders should be cultivating a culture of life as embodied in our Constitution-Article II, Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. (Pacpaco)

Another violation is explained by Aquilino “Nene” Pimentel Jr. in a report on sunstar.com.ph. The former Senate President of the country explains that the said law is unconstitutional as it violates the local and regional autonomy of the local government units. He relayed how Muslims, especially the ones from the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, consider children as their assets and they argued that the central government should not dictate what they will do for the education and health of their people(qtd. in Malalis). The violation of the doctrine of “benevolent neutrality” that is part of the 1987 constitution under the freedom of religion clause is another violation that adds up to the list of unconstitutional provisions of the RH Law which an article on abs-cbnnews.com reports on(Reformina). In relation to this, under the provision in Section five article three, the Constitution says that "[n]o law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (“The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines”). Moreover, under Section 19 of the RH Law it states “The FDA shall issue strict guidelines with respect to the use of contraceptives, taking into consideration the side effects or other harmful effects of their use.” 

(“ Republic Act No. 10354”)

Why would the use of contraceptives be included in a law if it is already known that its use will bring harmful effects?

Along with stepping over the rights of Filipinos, the RH law institutionalizes risks. One of these risks being the health risk that comes with the use of contraceptives. Many arguments have been made against the use of contraceptives. After the revisions, the specific type of contraceptive that is included in the law is the hormonal contraceptive. An article on rappler.com reports that Luisito Liban, an anti-RH lawyer, argues that the government has arbitrarily declared hormonal contraceptives safe by allowing it in the law (Fonbuena). This institutionalizes the hazards that contraceptives will bring to Filipinos. Another risk that is brought about by the RH law is that through increasing contraception availability it increases the population coverage of failure rate in terms of avoiding sexually transmitted illnesses(STI). Manufactured products have inherent defects. An example of a manufactured product is the latex condom which has pores of five to seventy microns. A human sperm cell has a diameter of five microns and the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome or AIDS has a diameter of 0.1 microns. Through the presentation of this numerical data, it can be seen that the use of condoms does not completely prevent the transfer of STIs like AIDS. People tend to think that with the use of contraceptives they are protecting themselves from STIs. This is not true because AIDS is not even the top STI but it is Human papillomavirus or HPV. HPV is acquired or transmitted through skin contact. Its spread cannot be prevented with the use of contraceptives. Because people lack awareness about this kind of information, a false sense of security is established by having the wide distribution of contraceptives. Filipinos are made to think that since these condoms are part of the RH law and it is part of our constitution to protect the well-being of a person, these condoms will not bring any harm to them. Contraceptives will harm people through making them more susceptible to STIs which may even lead to death.

Aside from creating hazards to Filipinos as individuals through contraception, the RH also creates hazards to Filipinos as families. According to the studies of Nobel prize winner, George Akerlof, a contraceptive lifestyle paves the way for more premarital sex, more fatherless children, more single mothers, more poverty, more abortions, a decline of marriage, more crimes, more social pathology and poverty.

The said law does not only create risks to Filipinos but also to the Philippine economy. It is based on wrong economics. It seen as a factor that will help in the economic development of our country but that is not the case. An article on cbcpforlife.com states that “There is no clear correlation between population growth and economic development”, according to Simon Kuznets, Nobel Prize winner in the science of economics (qtd. in “7 Point”). It has been presented in anti-RH arguments that population control is not a factor that is needed for a high economic growth unlike governance, openness to knowledge, stable finances, market allocation, investment and savings. 

The desire to improve the economy brings us back to the people. In an address delivered by Carlos Romulo, secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, before the eighth World Peace Through Law Conference, he reminds the people at the Philippine Convention Center in August 24, 1977 that wherever you may be born and in whatever circumstance, human beings have the right to be treated as human beings. This basic right should be protected so that all the others may be protected as well. Laws are implemented for the good of society. There is no need for a law that does not promote the rights of humans.

The RH Law with its unconstitutional provisions, risks to Filipino individuals and Filipino families and wrong economic basis gives the people something to ponder upon. Is it really just to have this law in our country? Is it even needed in our country? Does it address the top problems faced by the nation? A law that has been long debated upon and now is pending for its implementation, the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, violates constitutional provisions which leads to the necessity of abolishing the law.

Works Cited

“1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.” Chan Robles Virtual Law Library. chanrobles.com, n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2012.

Fonbuena, Carmela. “Chief Justice Takes Up Cudgels for RH Law”. rappler.com. Rappler. 23 Aug 2013. Web. 12 Mar 2014.

Malalis, Abigail. “Nene Pimentel: RH Law 'Unconstitutional'”. sunstar.com.ph. Sun.Star Publishing, Inc. 10 July 2013. Web. 12 Mar 2014.

Pacpaco, Ryan. “Atienza Believes SC will Declare RH Law Unconstitutional”. journal.com.ph. I-Map Websolutions, Inc. 15 Feb 2014. Web. 12 Mar 2014.

Punay, Edu. “SC Resets Vote on RH to April”. philstar.com. Philstar. 5 Mar 2014. Web. 12 Mar 2014.

Reformina, Ina. “SC Consolidates 14th Petition vs RH Law”. abs-cbnnews.com. ABS-CBN Interactive. 02 Aug 2013. Web. 12 Mar 2014. 

“Republic Act No. 10354”. gov.ph. Web. 12 Mar 2014. 

Romulo, Carlos. The Right to Life is the Basic Human Right. Mandaue City:National Media Production Center. 1977. Print.

“7 Point Manifesto Families Against RH Bill”. cbcpforlife.com. CBCP for Life. 10 July 2011. Web. 12 Mar 2014.

Uy, Jocelyn. “SC Asked to Declare RH Law unconstitutional”. inquirer.net. Inquirer.net. 28 Sept 2013. Web. 12 Mar 2014.

Missing the point

As I am posting this, it is being reported that both the Senate and the House of Representatives have passed the RH bill on third reading.

An Act to Destroy the Filipino Family

RH Will Destroy the Filipino Family 30 XI 2012

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.

Professional Ethics and the RH Bill

Truth Telling in Medicalpract2012

"Against the RH Bill" by Howard Go

From the blog of Pauline Cauton, Catholic by Choice: 

Against the RH Bill 

by Howard Go

Part 1: 

A lot of people think the RH Bill is such a practical law, but it isn’t.

Is it easy to teach people to use condoms? It seems like the answer is so obvious, but it isn’t. Improper use of condoms was a big problem before and introducing it to communities that have never been able to afford it will mean that it will be a problem for them, too. Check out: http://www.pancap.org/en/news-global/821-improper-condom-use-a-global-health-issue-improper-condom-use-a-global-health-issue.html So, someone might say, we’ll spend more to teach them. But here’s the problem, the RH Bill is not just a distribute-condoms-to-those-in-need-and-teach-them-to-use-it law. It is not just about family planning. It is also about providing better health care to pregnant women in areas with poor hospital services (and this aspect is actually the better part of the law). But, let’s try to see how far family planning as an objective in our country can go; in particular, the artificial contraception way.

For the record: Dissecting the Consolidated RH Bill -- Medical, Public Health, & Bioethical Issues

RH Bill Forum III 2011

Girls defending Life -- Two Open Letters on the RH Bill from Young Filipinas

On July 11, 2011 the Manila Times published on its website an open letter from eight PAREF Woodrose Students (Woodrose students explain why they object to HB 4244). In these past few days my attention has been drawn to two more open letters (see below) that were very recently written and published, I am told, by PAREF Woodrose students. These were originally posted on a Tumblr account (Defending Life, the Truth, and Everything) that is currently dedicated to the defense of the Church's position on the RH bill.

We Defend the Truth - Letter for Life


The Philippines is now in a state of conflict. A rift has been formed between our fellow countrymen and the mature Catholics that reside in this country.

We believe that the government’s insistence on the RH Bill has a story many of us don’t know. The bill itself is vague to begin with; its words sugarcoated to mask the underlying truth of what this will all bring to the country. It’s not enough to read and accept the bill at face value; you have to read between the lines to truly understand what the government is promising.

In fact, the RH Bill is not what the country needs because population is not the problem. We should work on finding ways to give the people proper education and well-paying jobs, instead of decreasing the growth of our population in order to reduce poverty.

Why the underlying principles of the RH bill are inherently flawed

No need for an RH bill, now or ever
By Bernardo Villegas, Evelina Atienza Frank Padilla Anthony Lumicao and 15 others
(Published online by Philippine Daily Inquirer on Sept. 15, 2012)

There is no need for any legislation that guarantees universal access to contraceptives, the so-called reproductive health (RH) care devices, now or ever. Whatever “band-aid” amendments may be proposed by well-intentioned proponents of the RH bill to make it more palatable, the underlying principles behind it are inherently flawed.

Anti-sustainable growth

The first component of sustainable development is a rate of economic growth that is high enough to contribute, together with appropriate economic policies, to the eradication of poverty. High gross domestic product growth is dependent on a growing and young population as has been stated by numerous international economists and top officials.

The just released Global Competitiveness Report 2012 of the World Economic Forum, like the HSBC 2012 Report, had the Philippines jumping several notches up in economic competitiveness because of our large, growing population.

Population control, however, will backfire and cause the acceleration of our falling fertility rate. Many pro-RH proponents harp on the dangers of population explosion. They have not learned from the lessons of the last two centuries of unparalleled economic progress in many countries of the East and the West that have disproved the Malthusian theory of perpetual poverty caused by the so-called geometric growth of population.

New resources

The unlimited capacity of the human mind to discover new resources and technologies has overcome the “limits to growth” that sowed fears in the last century.

Some of the greatest minds of the 20th century such as Nobel laureates Simon Kuznets and Michael Spence; Dr. Mahbub ul Haq, creator of the development index; and resource specialists Colin Clark and Julian Simon have shown through cross-country studies and long-term analyses of the economic experiences of developed countries that population growth was a positive stimulus to economic progress and that it was surpassed by the growth in real income.

Economists who purport to show the opposite have for their sample very few countries. They also have access to data over a relatively short period compared with the studies showing that there is no correlation between population growth and the spread of mass poverty, which is due to erroneous economic policies and failure of good governance.

Even those few countries in which there is some evidence that birth control policies temporarily helped in boosting economic growth in the short run are now regretting their fertility reduction programs. Well-known are the attempts of the leaders of Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Japan to appeal to their women to bear more babies.

Premarital sex, abortion

Since material well-being is not the only component of human development or happiness, there is another problem that widespread use of contraceptives can unleash. The findings of Nobel laureate George Akerlof who, despite his protestations that he was in favor of abortion and artificial contraception, demonstrated with empirical evidence that the “reproductive technology shock” led to an increase in premarital sex, and due to contraceptive failure, also in unwed mothers, children without fathers and other societal ills.

A 2009 University of Pennsylvania study, titled “Sexual Revolution,” showed that premarital sex in the United States ballooned from 0.06 percent of women in 1900 to 75 percent today as contraception provided the youth the ease of sex without “cost” or responsibility.

False sense of security

This same link with premarital sex was also suggested by the studies by JE Potter in Brazil, and clearly seen by the work of Dr. Edward Green in Africa. Green, former director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard University, affirmed that “condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa,” citing studies at the Lancet, Science and British Medical Journal and explaining that the availability of condoms led to earlier and riskier sex by creating a false sense of security.

As the contraceptive mentality sets in (contra = against; conception = beginning of human beings), a negative view of human beings is promoted. A 2011 study in the scientific journal Contraception showed that the rise in contraceptive use in Spain also saw a jump in abortion rate. This link—both logical and empirical—has been acknowledged by leaders of the abortion industry, such as Malcolm Potts, the first medical director of International Planned Parenthood.

Only five nations in the world still prohibit abortion. A hundred years ago all nations did. It was acceptance of contraception that changed their minds. This will happen here, too, if we accept contraception.

Secularist ideology

Another serious flaw in the RH bill is the sweeping generalization about “unwanted pregnancies.” Scientific studies in the United States, especially those by Lant Pritchett of Harvard University, have seriously questioned the assumption made by pro-RH bill advocates that unwanted pregnancies among married women are rampant. The finding of social scientists is that mothers have the number of children they want.

Surveys in the Philippines that purport to show that there are many mothers among poor households, who regret having given birth to some of their children, are suspect. These surveys are usually funded by international organizations that have a strong bias for population control.

Obama administration

It is no secret that in the Democratic National Convention, the Obama administration made it clear that there will be continuing support for abortion. One does not have to be paranoid to assume that if President Obama wins a second term, he and his Secretary of State will continue to target countries like the Philippines to spread their culture of death.

Besides being part of an ideological interpretation of “women’s rights,” such aggressive campaign to promote reproductive health (which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton averred “includes access to abortion”) continues the US-supported worldwide program that was unleashed by the National Security Study Memorandum 200:  Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests.

Considering the revelations about the participation of foreign interests in lobbying for the RH bill, any version of it will be suspect.

Let us not be naïve. Only last year, Green, through his book “Broken Promises,” exposed in brilliant detail how the West’s AIDS establishment disowned scientific evidence that wide condom use was in fact ineffective in stopping AIDS in Africa, and how those who dominate it—the homosexual ideologues, population controllers and condom suppliers—worsened the epidemic and betrayed the developing world.

Taking away funds for poor

Besides being the antithesis to sustainable economic growth and human development, the RH bill also unwittingly goes against inclusive growth, i.e. economic progress that benefits the poorest among the poor.

It misdiagnoses the reason  households of larger family sizes are poorer than those with fewer children. Studies have shown that households with larger family sizes are poorer not because they have too many children but because their heads are the least educated.  This should lead policymakers not to convince these poor households to have fewer children, but to invest more resources in their education, especially the women, a proposal that is strongly supported by the studies of Economics Nobel laureates Amartya Sen and Gary Becker.

Improve basic education

Government should divert whatever is budgeted for contraceptives to improving the quality of basic education among the poor.  Poor households, especially in the rural areas, choose to have more children because human beings are their only resources, especially considering the failure of the state to provide farmers with infrastructure.

The poor farmers will suffer manpower shortages in their labor-intensive farming if they start imitating the rich in having only one or two children. The same applies to those millions of households that have at least one of its immediate members working abroad. Seducing them to have fewer children could very well leave them even more destitute, as publications of the UN and Asian Development Bank have predicted.

Disseminating a contraceptive mentality among the poor unmasks a condescending and elitist attitude that the poor should not be allowed to multiply. This policy is dangerously close to the eugenics practiced by authoritarian leaders like Adolf Hitler.

Considering that the competitive advantage of the Philippines in the global economy is its young, growing population, a really propoor economic strategy should allow the poor to choose to have as many children as they wish and then to generously support them with infrastructure, educational and technical skills training, and microcredit support, among other things, so that they can turn their children into truly productive resources.

Suspect surveys

Those who support the RH bill refer to surveys purporting to show that there is a large demand for free contraceptives among the poor. As mentioned, these surveys are suspect because they are funded by international agencies advocating contraception and abortion. Questionnaires are formulated to influence respondents to give the desired answers.

A recent consumer survey conducted among the C, D and E households (constituting more than 60 percent of households) by SEED Institute, a field research group, came out with more objective data about the demand for contraceptives among mothers in poor households in Metro Manila.

Wish list

The survey was conducted to identify the consumer patterns of the poor with the intention of giving guidelines to profit-making firms and social enterprises about what goods and services could be tailored specifically to the needs of the poor. The respondents (all mothers) were asked to list down the top three goods or services that they most wanted the government to provide for free after they exhausted their resources to meet their most basic needs. Among more than 20 goods or services on their wish lists, there was no mention whatsoever of “free contraceptives.”

The Philippine Medical Association also asserted that the goal of reducing maternal and child deaths “could be attained by improving maternal and child health care without the necessity of distributing contraceptives. The millions of [pesos] intended for contraceptive devices may just well be applied in improving the skills of our health workers.”

Provoking moral crisis

Several religious groups, Muslim, Protestant and Catholic, oppose the RH measure on moral grounds. Belying pro-RH surveys, these groups, together with other people of goodwill, have rallied by the thousands in many cities and towns around the country, and have contributed in winning post-debate polls on national television.

The Imam Council of the Philippines, leaders of our 4.5 million Muslims, pronounced that contraceptives “make us lose morality.” Throughout the centuries, the Catholic Church has taught that contraception is intrinsically evil. Pope John Paul the Great wrote that contraception “leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love.”

It is, therefore, advisable that Congress refrain from passing a law that would oblige citizens who adhere to their religion to fund an item which they consider immoral. Considering the strong arguments against the RH bill based on secular sciences, it would be prudent for the state not to provoke a religious-moral crisis among a large majority of the Filipino population.

Need for virtue

Lastly, two Asian intellectuals spoke of the virtue needed by a nation. Speaking of the “crime” of contraception, Mahatma Gandhi taught: “Even as many people will be untruthful and violent, humanity may not lower its standard, so also, though many, even the majority, may not respond to the message of self-control, we may not lower our standard.”

Jose Rizal wrote: “Only virtue can save! If our country has ever to be free, it will not be through vice and crime, it will not be so by corrupting its sons, deceiving some and bribing others, no! Redemption presupposes virtue, virtue sacrifice and sacrifice love!”

(The 19 authors are Dr. Bernardo Villegas, Ph.D Economics [Harvard University]; Maria Conception Noche, Alliance for the Family; Frank Padilla, CFC-FFL; Rolando de los Reyes, Courage Philippines; Dr. Eleanor Palabyab, Doctors for Life; Alan Dacanay, Families against the RH Bill; Dr. Angelita Aguirre, Family Media Advocacy Foundation; Leonardo Montemayor, Federation of Free Farmers; Evelina Atienza, Kababaihan ng Maynila; Joseph Tesoro, Live Pure Movement; Eric Manalang, Pro-life Philippines; Jemy Gatdula and Felipe Salvosa, Pro-life Professors; Dr. Raul Nidoy, Science and Reason for Human Beings; Maribel Descallar, Teodora: In Defense of the Authentic Woman; Kiboy Tabada, UP for Life; Luis Buenaventura III, YUPamilya; Anthony Lumicao, Youth United for the Philippines; and Anthony Perez, Filipinos for Life.)

Handbooks of Truths Behind the RH Bill

Published online on September 15, 2012.


Handbook of Truths Behind the R.H. Bill v.1

A NonFAQtual FAQ?

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


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

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

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

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

From the website of Pro-Life Philippines:

Top 5 Pro-RH Fallacies

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

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

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

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

2. False: Contraceptives are safe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Infidelity and moral decline

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

- Lost Respect for Women

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

- Abuse of Power

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

- Unlimited Dominion

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

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

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

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

A UP Diliman Professor's Campaign for Life and Against the RH Bill

(NEWER ARTICLES BELOW. THIS ARTICLE WILL STAY HERE UNTIL AUGUST 1)

The Catholic Position on the RH Bill congratulates Dr. Aliza Racelis, Associate Professor in UP Diliman, whose speech at the UP Diliman University Council meeting earlier this month, we are told, dealt a setback to the plans of pro-RH professors to get the Council to issue an official statement supporting the RH Bill. It was sent back to the drafters, and it is not yet clear if it will be issued at all. 

Apparently, during her speech Dr. Racelis focused on the following arguments: 1) the RH bill is anti-women and 2) the lack of moral consciousness exemplified by the RH Bill

The first point was already elaborated by Dr. Racelis on the following webpage:

RH Bill: Hindi Para sa Kababaihan

And the second point in the following:

Comprehensive RH Bill Action Forum

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

Other webpages featured on Dr. Racelis' page that have a bearing on the RH bill are:

On Population and Development: Family, Human Capital and Sustainable Economic Development

Positive Dimensions of Population Growth

Natural Law arguments against the 'RH Bill"

Suggested Modules for RH Bill Orientations

Finally, the Truth about the RH Bill

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

These webpages feature useful slides, data and illustrations. 

For the record: Students Choose Life statement versus the RH bill

Originally published on May 7, 2012Students Choose Life Stand on the Rh Bill

A Summary of the Filipinos for Life talk in Greenbelt Chapel

From the website of Greenbelt Chapel (Sto. Nino de Paz Community):

Going for the RH Bill? Read this...

(This article is based on the talks given by Mr. Anthony Perez and Ms. Anna Cosio on February 15, 2012, on the Reproductive Health Bill. Their talks were part of the 3rd Wednesday series of Talks at the Greenbelt Chapel. The Reproductive Health Bill was chosen as the topic since February was declared as Pro-Life Month.)

With all the news about earthquakes, strong typhoons, and the Corona impeachment, the discussion on House Bill 4244, otherwise known as the Reproductive Health or RH bill, has somewhat waned. It shouldn’t, though. If you think you already know everything that you need to know about the RH bill, please think again. A couple of lay speakers, Bro. Anthony of Filipinos for Life and Sis. Anna Cosio, RN, of Pro-Life Manila, talked about some myths surrounding the RH bill. Below are just a few of these:

If you think the Philippines needs an RH Bill to rally the public to be aware of population control, think again. Sis. Anna stated that the RH Bill is “80% redundant.” In other words, a big part of the RH Bill has already been covered in an existing law, Republic Act 9710, otherwise known as the Magna Carta of Women.

If you think oral contraceptives do not have any critical side effects, think again. Sis. Anna showed studies that the more popular oral contraceptives have been linked to an increased incidence of breast cancer among women.

If you think that the RH Bill does not espouse abortion, since the word “abortion” is not found in the proposed legislation, think again. Bro. Anthony cited organizations, like the Planned Parenthood (which is the largest abortion services provider) as backing the said bill.

If you think there is nothing wrong with children as young as Grade 5 being informed about their “reproductive rights,” think again. Bro. Anthony cited a provision which gives children the right to avail of reproductive health services (i.e., contraceptives) without even consulting or asking permission from their parents since this right is supposed to be protected by the state.

Bro. Anthony cited provisions in the RH Bill to demonstrate to the audience that the well-meaning intentions of the bill may lead to negative consequences. One of these, is an increase in the incidence of abortion. He cited a study that showed many women having resorted to abortion because other forms of contraceptives have failed. With the provisions he cited, Bro. Anthony has declared that the RH Bill is “the pathway for the legalization of abortion.”

Bro. Anthony also mentioned that the RH bill goes against the natural law on marriage. Marriage, he said, has two functions: unitive, which is to bring couples together in love; and, procreative, which is to engage in the sex act so as to procreate. The RH bill goes against these two functions.

Sis. Anna also cited the medical aspects of the RH bill, particularly the side effects of oral contraceptives. She referred to studies which linked oral contraceptives to an increased incidence in cancer. As an alternative, Sis. Anna mentioned the use of the Billings Ovulation Method, which is a natural method for family planning.

The talk on the RH Bill was a very timely wake-up call for the Greenbelt Community to ponder on. To really be pro-life, we must see children as joy and blessing – and not as burden.

Atty. Jose Sison reminds Congressmen why the RH bill should not be passed

Equally important

By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) 

January 27, 2012 

The time, effort, and attention given, and public money used by both chambers of Congress to prosecute and try the impeachment charges against the Chief Justice of a co-equal branch of government are definitely taking its toll on their main job of legislation. Our Congressmen and Senators should be reminded that this impeachment business is just a special and extraordinary task imposed upon them by the Constitution and that their primary job is still the enactment of laws. Hence they should continue devoting the same kind if not more attention, deliberation and study, as they have been doing before, on pending bills. They should guard against reported moves to fast track some controversial legislation like the RH bill while public attention is focused on this impeachment thing.

The latest parody on "Downfall": Hitler's mad that the RH Bill won't be passed this year!

Wikipedia notes regarding Der Untergang (Downfall) that One scene in the film, in which Hitler launches into a furious tirade upon finally realizing that the war is truly lost, has become a staple of internet videos. In these videos, the original audio of Ganz's voice is retained, but new subtitles are added so that he now seems to be reacting instead to some setback in present-day politics, sports, popular culture, or everyday life. Other scenes from various portions of the film have been parodied in the same manner, notably the scenes where Hitler orders Otto Günsche to find Gruppenfuhrer Hermann Fegelein, and where Hitler discusses a counterattack against advancing Soviet forces with his generals. By 2010, there were thousands of such parodies, including many in which a self-aware Hitler is incensed that people keep making Downfall parodies.

A group of young pro-lifers recently made the latest of these parodies. Enjoy!

For those who think that the claims made in this video are exaggerated, please read the following:


Fact References:

1. 350 pesos per hakot -- see Inquirer article: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/103857/no-delay-but-rh-bill-won%E2%80%99t-be-pas... -- 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.

2. More Pro-life People than Anti-Life -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_Health_Bill#Rallies

3. RH Bill can be defeated at Senate: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/109363/hasty-vote-will-kill-rh-bill%E2%80%94enrile

4. Million of dollars of funding -- http://cbcpforlife.com/?p=5141

5. Pro-RH Groups back abortion -- http://cbcpforlife.com/?p=3477

6. Cabral admitted that pills cause breast cancer - http://opinion.inquirer.net/5067/chant-the-rh-mantras

7. TV Debates won by Pro-life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_Health_Bill#Opinion_polls_and_TV_debates


8. Pro RH stats are wrong (maternal death, abortion) -http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/49029/studies-show-maternal-deaths-in-philippines-in-decline / http://cbcpforlife.com/?p=3512

9. Non-existent lobby groups (not registered or revoked) getting massive funding -- http://cbcpforlife.com/?p=5178

10. Pro-Life Victory of 2011 - http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/local-news/2011/12/11/anti-rh-groups-declare-victory-over-lobby-money-195246

11. Population Control connection with Hitler- http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleid=399988 / http://newworldorderuniversity.com/?p=3930

The facts about the RH bill that our citizens need to know

Truths and beliefs

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) 

Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)

November 07, 2011 

Every time I express my stand against the RH bill I only state the established facts and the laws applicable to those sets of facts.

For instance, as I have repeatedly stressed, the most basic established facts proven by science are: (1) that life begins from the moment of conception or the fertilization of the ovum by the sperm to form a new, unborn baby; and (2) that there are certain chemical products or the so called birth control pills like “morning after pill” and RU 486, and vaccines like “depoprovera” and “norplant”, as well as the intrauterine device (IUD) which impede the implantation of the unborn baby in the uterine wall thus causing abortion or the expulsion and death of the baby.

Based on these established facts, I have likewise pointed out time and again that the laws applicable to these facts clearly provide that the State “shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception (Section 12, Article II, Constitution) and that therefore abortion is a crime punishable by law (Articles 256 and 257 Revised Penal Code).

In view of these established facts and applicable laws, I have thus repeatedly contended that the RH bill violates our Constitution and the Revised Penal Code because it appropriates 3 billion pesos simply to afford women another choice aside from the natural family planning method which cost nothing, by making available to them the entire range of artificial contraceptives including the above mentioned pills, vaccines and IUD that cause abortion.

I have likewise stressed that even if the purpose of the bill is to enable couples especially the poor ones to plan the size of their family so that they can properly raise their children within their means purportedly in the exercise of “responsible parenthood”, such purpose cannot justify or be used as a disguise to hide the unconstitutionality and illegality of the bill.

Unfortunately however, despite sticking only to those facts and applicable laws, supporters of the bill resort to personal attacks against me and my Catholic faith. They always drag the Catholic Church into the controversy to refute my stand. They insist that I am just expressing my belief in the teachings of the Church against contraceptives, which, they say, no person or institution can impose on others with different beliefs especially in a pluralistic society such as ours.

This stance implies that truth depends on the beliefs of particular sects or religions rather than on established facts and applicable laws; and that there are as many truths as there are religions. Apparently this is a dangerous stance that has rendered the bill as controversial as to cause a deep division in the nation; why the bill divides rather than unites us.

Now that the debate on the RH bill has resumed, all sides to the controversy should see to it that they stick to the real issues, meet them squarely and refrain from using diversionary tactics. This is the only way that the people can be properly informed of the true nature and purpose of the bill and why it should or should not be passed. This is the only way to remove the harmful discord besetting the nation because of this bill.

The citizenry will therefore be better informed and united in their search for answers to the issues surrounding the RH bill if:

First, they are not repeatedly told that the bill does not legalize abortion when it has provision appropriating billions of pesos for the acquisition of contraceptives including those already proven to cause abortion, just to give women an alternative choice in the exercise of their reproductive health rights and in planning the size of their family;

Second, they are not misled into believing that contraceptives in general have no harmful effects on the overall health of the women and children when there are already many incidents of serious ailments including cancer arising out of their use.

Third, they are adequately informed that based on what is happening in other countries which allows the use of contraceptives, the contraceptive lifestyle necessarily ensuing with the passage of the bill, weakens marriages and destroys families;

Third, they are not continuously intimidated to favor the bill because of the alleged world population that has reportedly reached 7 billion already. Instead they should be properly advised that the country’s poverty problem is not due to our growing population but mainly to the inequitable distribution of the country’s wealth and resources because of poor governance, graft, greed and lack of adequate education especially of the poor families;

Fourth, it is sufficiently explained to them that while our population is still growing our population growth rate is already declining as will eventually bring us to the same situation of countries that adopted population control where the population is aging and dwindling prompting a complete reversal of their population policy from population control to population promotion; and

Fifth, it is fully disclosed to them that the RH bill is really backed up and supported by foreign countries and international organizations to control the population of developing countries like the Philippines even to the extent of promoting abortion under the guise of reproductive health, for their own economic interest and security; that lobby money in millions of dollars have been put up to pressure our Congress into passing this bill.

As Congress therefore resumes debate on the RH bill, Filipinos should know more about this incontrovertible information which can be considered more as “truths” than mere “beliefs”.

Promoting a contraceptive culture

Contraceptive Culture Vis a Vis Other Issues Related to RH Bill

by Hans Marasigan, I Oppose the RH Bill Facebook page member.

This controversial bill has been a subject of many debates for almost a year. It created several instances of fraction in different religious or secular sectors of our society. Some would even end mocking each other, using offensive alias as their counter argument or protest to those parties that have an opposing views from them, and sad to say, these do not excuse Catholic Christians. At some point, both opposing parties have been showing creativity to assert their dispute in a convincing manner, even to the point of spreading lies and controversy that might affect the reputation of the other. This kind of tactic is very common in Philippine political set up, to gain support one has to destroy the credibility of the opposing party, which is not the proper way of discussing things as delicate as this propose bill. Despite some differences on view regarding the said issue, one has to act in norms of civility.

I will divide my writings into two parts, the legality and morality issues concerning the bill. The controversial bill raised many good points on how to answer and give solutions to some of the current issues that our country is facing, especially maternal and clinical services for poor mothers and access to education. However, there are provisions in the bill that are questionable and subjected to further revisions. After listening to some of the arguments presented by the proponents of the bill, I was able to distinguish some of the important points often times exploited against the Catholic Church that needs clarification.