From the Ateneo: an academic article on the correlation between abortion and contraception

The article was first published earlier this year and is authored by two distinguished Jesuits with extensive secular professional credentials and a lay professor of the Ateneo De Manila University: Fr. Romeo Intengan (former Provincial Superior of the Philippine Jesuits, co-founder of the Philippine Democratic Socialist Party and a UP-trained Doctor of Medicine), Fr. Daniel J. McNamara SJ (a physicist by training, former Superior and Director of the Manila Observatory) and Dr. Quirino Sugon Jr. (a Theoretical Physicist in Manila Observatory). 

As the abstract states, this article sets out to propose a set of hypotheses for deriving the abortion rate as a function of the intercourse interval in weeks, the number of weeks since the start of first intercourse, the number weeks of pregnancy, the number of weeks of breastfeeding, and the contraceptive failure rate. We also propose risk compensation as feedback: the intercourse interval is proportional to the mth power of the contraceptive failure rate. We show that for different values of m, the abortion rate may become smaller, bigger, or remain the same compared to the case when no contraceptives are used. Thus, one way to settle the RH Bill debate is to determine the correct value of m derived from accurate data on the reproductive health parameters of a large sample of the female population. If this data is not available, it is better not to take risk in approving the bill, because there is a possibility of increasing our national abortion rate through the promotion of contraceptives. Instead, it may be better to use alternative methods to manage our population and reduce our abortion rate to zero by promoting chastity before marriage, late marriages, and breastfeeding—and accepting each child conceived as a gift and not as a burden.

Estimating Abortion Rates From Contraceptive Failure Rates via Risk Compensation: A Mathematical Model

On the eve of voting: the prophecy of Paul VI

From Manila Bulletin:

CASSANDRA PROPHECY
By FR. ROLANDO V. DE LA ROSA, O.P.
August 4, 2012, 8:21pm 

FORTY-FOUR years ago, Pope Paul VI prophesied the horrible effects of contraception to marriage, family, the individual, and society. It was a Cassandra prophecy: Fated to be right, but never heeded. 

In his encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI warned that a contraceptive mentality would lead to the prevalence of divorce, unmitigated premarital sex, the lowering of moral standards among the youth, the phenomenal increase in the number of children born out of wedlock, and rapid decrease of population in countries advocating contraception. He also prophesied that the pervasive use of contraception would diminish our innate sense of responsibility and commitment. Finally, he predicted that contraception would lead to the legalization of abortion. 

Two recent Manila Times editorials on the RH bill

Beware the aging population

26 July 2012 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

****

The President did not endorse the RH bill

28 July 2012 

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

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

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

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

Killing tiny babies in the womb

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responsible Parenthood is not the same as RHB 

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

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

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

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

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

Published by Manila Times on July 1, 2012:

Doctor for Life

EWTN CATHOLIC LIVES 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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’

A call that must be echoed throughout the Philippines

From Journal Online:

Be transparent, RH backers dared

Published : Monday, September 19, 2011 00:00 

Written by : Bernadette E. Tamayo

SENATOR Vicente Sotto III yesterday dared non-governmental organizations engaged in reproductive health services to allow themselves to be subjected to scrutiny to dispel suspicion that they are being used as “channels for abortions.”

He issued the challenge after proponents of the RH bill scored him for suggesting that they are pushing for legalized abortion. “Are non-government organizations being used as conduits to facilitate abortions in the country?,” Sotto asked.

He noted that one of these groups, the Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP) has admitted being a “proud” member of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which supports and pushes abortion.

Likewise, Sotto said that FPOP has admitted that IPPF performs abortions in countries where the termination of life in a woman’s womb is legal. Last year the FPOP got P26 million from IPPF to push its agenda.

Another group, Likhaan, has taken Sotto to task for what it called “a witch hunt” for those advocating the RH bill. Like FPOP, Likhaan has not made any categorical statement denying they are pushing for a legalized abortion in the country.

Sotto pointed out that NGOs like FPOP and Likhaan have been receiving foreign funding to push for a national policy on artificial birth control methods, including abortion, as a means of controlling the population.

“Impliedly, a portion of these foreign grants was used to carry out ‘emergency contraception’ and abortion-related services, part of the conditions for the grants,” he said.

Sotto wants to know how many emergency contraceptions –- which he claimed is a euphemism for abortion — have been implemented by these NGOs and whether these are legal in the first place.

He said that abortion, whether safe or unsafe, remains illegal in the Philippines, punishable by six years imprisonment. The Revised Penal Code imposes imprisonment for the woman who underwent the abortion, as well those who helped facilitate the abortion. Article 2, Section 12 of the Constitution mandates the State “to protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”

Sotto said reports on how the funds were spent or disbursed form part of the requirement of the funding agency, and usually before more tranches of grants are given.

He dared the NGOs, which are supposed to be “epitomes” of transparency and accountability, to make their reports public.”

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

From Journal Online:

Missing the point

Bishop Teodoro Bacani

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even politicians must listen to the guidance given by the Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can one be clearer than that?

A doctor's open letter to Pia Cayetano

Open Letter to Cayetano by Rey Echavez, MD

A counselor for pregnant women comes out versus the RH bill

Plea to Filipinos: Defeat the Tyrannous RH Bill

by Fredi D'Alessio

In the following letter, a dear friend and associate warns her fellow Filipinos of what she has witnessed first hand in the West: the breakdown of morality, family and faith due to sex education and contraception. Her letter is in response to “The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011″ (commonly known as the Reproductive Health Act, the RH Act or RH Bill), which is currently being debated in the Philippines.

To My Dear Fellow Filipinos:

The unfolding possibility of the RH Bill’s passing by our government fills me with horror and foreboding because so few understand the impact that such a bill would have on our children, our families, our moral values and the future of our nation. My conscience would never let me rest if I didn’t make a small effort to weigh in with what I have come to discover while living in the United States for almost 23 years.

The birth of my grandchild when my daughter was in crisis led me to get involved with mothers in crisis pregnancies so that they, like my daughter, would choose life for their babies. After 50 million abortions resulting from Roe vs. Wade that legalized abortion in the US, there are millions of women that have suffered its devastating consequences.

In the nearly 22 years I have been actively involved with these women, I began to see so clearly that the ultimate devastating decision to abort came as a direct link to failed contraception or its ensuing contraceptive mentality. There is a tremendous array of “effective” contraceptive drugs, many of them abortifacients, and devices available to women (some as young as 12) promoted through sex education in schools, magazines and the multi-media. Yet they have only served to increase the number of abortions (1.5 million annually) and the number of sexually transmitted diseases from a handful to over 50 strains in just a little over 40 years. Condoms do not prevent the transmission of many of these strains.

I have spoken to and mentored hundreds of teenage girls and young women, not one of whom was told of her unique gifts and dignity as a woman and mother. They were very receptive to messages of abstinence and natural family planning once they understood their true meaning because they have been naturally and divinely wired to believe those truths.

These are statistics and facts, but I have had the unique experience of seeing these young women heartbroken and hurt by this contraceptive culture. Most of them come from broken homes and parents who are also products of this contraceptive age. How is it not possible to see an epidemic of pregnancies among young teenagers (14, 15, and 16 year-olds) with contraception and sex education available to all? (Day care centers are now being built at public high schools.) We see so many at the center where I work. Our modern woman is told she can finally claim her reproductive rights, but she has only become a victim to greater exploitation and worse, having been convinced that destroying her unwanted, unborn child is also her option and right.

Make no mistake; the bitter fruit of contraception is abortion and the devastation of the family. Look at Thailand, the country so successful at controlling her population through a massive condom program – she is now the Aids capital of Asia. Look at its bitter fruit in the West, with its runaway abortion numbers, countless divorces, the threat to legal marriage between a man and a woman and the spread of socially transmitted diseases that are resistant to treatment. Without the building block of healthy families, these nations will soon be ungovernable, if they are not already.

There is a quiet desperation I feel as I watch the country I deeply love go down the path so many others have gone, abandoning their Christian principles and moral roots. The poet George Santayana once said, “Those who have not learned from history are doomed to repeat it”. If we go down the same path, we will lose out greatest assets – our family values and our faith-filled people.

I urge those who have the power to do so, not to pass this bill—and for those that don’t, to pray to a much higher Power that it doesn’t. If it isn’t passed, if we can find the means to control our population the natural way without destroying our values, we will see our country blessed in ways we can never imagine. Our nation once again can show the world that a people that successfully resisted a tyrant can resist the tyranny of outside influences that seek to destroy our families. In 1986, our people fought for democracy; today,we fight for our national soul. If we do succeed, it will make People Power look like a minor miracle.

Patsy M. Sevilla-Gonzalez

Patsy Gonzalez counsels pregnant mothers at Juan Diego Society Women’s Center in San Jose, CA. She also volunteers as an “angel” for The Gabriel Project of the Archdiocese of San Francisco and has extensive experience in sidewalk counseling.

The truth about oral contraceptives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—WALTER L. LARIMORE, MD,

assistant clinical professor,

Department of Community and Family Medicine,

University of Colorado Health Sciences Center

Denver, CO, USA; J

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

Professor, Division of Public Health,

George D. and Esther S.Gross Chair,

Department of Family and Preventive Medicine,

University of Utah,

375 Chipeta Way, Suite A

Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTINUE READING HERE

The link between contraception and abortion

Why contraception leads to abortion

Business and Society

By BERNARDO M. VILLEGAS

June 20, 2011

MANILA, Philippines — Some well meaning individuals support the RH Bill because they contend that a more widespread availability of contraceptives will reduce illegal abortions in the Philippines.

They sincerely bewail the thousand of illegal abortions being performed yearly in the Philippines and they are of the opinion that making pills, condoms and other contraceptive devices more freely available, especially to the poor, will actually reduce these illegal abortions.

Such an opinion is based on pure speculation that is not based on empirical science. On the other hand, there is abundant research in countries where contraceptive devices are freely available in vending machines or the corner drug store demonstrating that abortions tend to increase with the widespread use of contraception.

A model critique of the RH bill

Published yesterday on the Definitely Filipino blog:

A Critique on the Reproductive Health Bill (HB 4244)

by: Ryan F. Barcelo, MPA 

As of this writing, the honorable members of the House of Representatives are debating in the Halls of Congress on the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill (HB 4244). Likewise, Filipinos in the streets, in the plazas, in the market, in the salons/barbershops and elsewhere are contributing their thoughts on this controversial measure. And, I too have something to share in this debate.

Right at the outset, I would like to be clear as to where I stand in this issue: I am AGAINST the RH Bill. Yes, I am a hard core Catholic and at the same time a dutiful servant and Officer of the Government. Since I do not share my faith with the rest of the Filipinos, I am not going to argue against this Bill on the basis of my Catholic Faith. I am going to argue on the grounds of sound reason (though a reason informed by faith) and on established Truths.

I was able to acquire a copy of HB 4244 in one forum sponsored by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) last April and it was participated by Hon. Edcel Lagman, the principal author of the Bill. I read the copy of the Bill several times to see for myself the real intent of this controversial measure. After carefully reading and reflecting on the provisions of this Bill, I present below by observations and most importantly, my objections to it.

CONTINUE READING HERE.

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

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

Breathtaking infatuation for RH bill

Philippine Daily Inquirer

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

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

A cold shower of scientific findings might help.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—RAUL NIDOY,

ranidoy@gmail.com

The RH Bill: Interference with Philippine sovereignty

How Western agencies are using billions to foist their population agenda on Flipinos

BY DR. LIGAYA ACOSTA

Monday, Jun 06, 2011

Dr. Ligaya Acosta

Co-authored with Stephen Phelan

June 6, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Many Catholics around the world have become aware of the goings-on in the Philippines, perhaps the most Catholic and pro-life country in the world. Thanks primarily to the strong and united leadership of our faithful bishops, Filipinos have been successful in fighting off a sustained assault from the West in the form of a “Reproductive Health (RH)” bill that threatens the families and future of the Philippines. But the bill’s proponents seem undaunted and incredibly well-funded, so we wanted to help Catholics around the world understand the situation on the ground, and ask for your prayers and support.

The Philippines does not need and does not want the RH bill. It is a foreign imposition, the contents of which are alien to Filipino values and culture.

The vast majority of Filipinos oppose the bill, as proven by the many huge rallies over the country – the biggest of which saw almost 500,000 gather in Manila last March. The same bill has been filed and re-filed since 1998’s 11th Congress (it is now the 15th), but as we have seen, its Western promoters have no intention of taking ‘no’ for an answer this time around.

Why, one might ask, does it keep reappearing, sometimes with different names or slightly revised content, if the people of the Philippines have so clearly rejected it? It reappears because it is fueled by mind-boggling amounts of money from international population control organizations, including the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), who have long expressed their concern that there are too many poor Filipinos for their comfort. Most recently, the European Union added to the pot, promising 35 million euros as a further enticement for the Philippines to embrace the desired “health reforms.” These groups have essentially bottomless bank accounts, and will not stop until they have reduced Filipino fertility to levels that they are comfortable with.

A Response to Rina Jimenez-David on Abortion

The following letter to the PDI editor was originally published on Phil. Daily Inquirer on May 26, 2011. It is not clearly anti-RH, but it certainly is a strong rejoinder to Rina Jimenez-David's column of May 8, 2011 entitled "What a mom wants".

Why abortion is not a mother’s prerogative

Mary Joan Angeles

RINA DAVID stated in her May 8 column (“What a mom wants”): “I still support a woman’s right to have options including the option of abortion. Motherhood is a choice, and given the challenges, we shouldn’t be forcing women to be mothers when they don’t think they’ll be good at it—or good mothers to so many children.” While I respect her personal opinion, I do not think there is a clamor from many mothers to allow abortion as an option to resolve an unwanted pregnancy or to limit the number of their children. Usually, it is first-time, unwed mothers, afraid of the shame and condemnation, who find abortion as a convenient way of resolving such problem. The advocacy to allow abortion only gives people who are against the bill more reason to believe that even without clearly advocating it, the bill actually sanctions abortion in so many words. What I understand about the bill is, it mainly seeks to establish a system and network for the dissemination of information on how to prevent rather than terminate unwanted pregnancies, the latter being what abortion is. I believe that abortion remains a heinous crime against humanity perpetuated on the unborn who is made to suffer the consequences of his/her parents’ decision not to use a condom to avoid pregnancy. The self-absorbed attitude, in today’s age, is sex has become only one of so many sources for instant gratification, and abortion is an easy way out of responsible parenthood.

The RH Bill and Poverty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * 

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

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

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

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

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

* * * 

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

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

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

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

* * * 

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

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

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

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

* * * 

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

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

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

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

Angsioco: letting the cat out of the bag

Angsioco versus unborn

Willy Jose

With prominent RH bill proponent Elizabeth Angsioco's latest tirade entitled "Unborn versus mother", one is convincingly left without any iota of a doubt as to the main agenda of the RH bill: it is all about Abortion with a capital A. Unless the RH bill proponents disown Angsioco's statements, her astonishing message reveals the strikingly clear motive. The title of her opinionated (and grossly erroneous) piece is in itself a dead giveaway. Why, is there an inherent war between ''Unborn vs Mother"? Does Angsioco herself feel that her mother is at war with her from the moment of her conception up to every breathing moment of her life? I suppose not, for even Elizabeth Angsioco herself should probably make a convincing case for the timeless adage "only a mother can love''.

Angsioco takes umbrage at the various bills pending in Congress that seek to put teeth into the Constitutional provision requiring the State to ''equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception". While she acknowledges the provision, in the same breath she claims:

''A child is someone who is born into this world, a complete human person like you and me. A child is a citizen, and therefore, has human rights. Calling the unborn a child to me is going beyond what the Constitution provides."

So according to Angsiocotic philosophy, the unborn is not a complete person until it is "born into this world". If the unborn is not a "complete person'', what is it then? A half-person? A quarter-person? Semi-person? A clump of inhuman cells? She bolsters her argument by referring to the Constitution but I do not see anything in there that says the unborn is a partial human person. What I do see in there, is that the unborn is accorded by the State a presumptive personality from the moment of conception. A presumed person that merits protection by the State. Why, because the Constitutional Commission precisely said so. If the state presumes the personhood of the unborn it does not consider it as an incomplete human unworthy of protection. She harps about the right of the mother (the unfettered right to abort, if that is not clear enough) and completely turns a blind eye to the right of the unborn. The records of the 1986 Commission flatly rejects her imaginations:

"Whats being affirmed in this formulation is the moral right as well as the constitutional right of the unborn child to life, If this should entail the granting of presumptive personality to the unborn befinning at the moment of the conception, then so be it. Xxx Respect for the rights of the woman with child and respect for the rights of the child in her womb are by nature intimately linked such that any deliberate harm that should come upon one will doubtless effect a corresponbding harm to the other. Conflicts of rights is fictitious. Xxx The conflict is only apparent. It is easily resolved by applying the following principle: When two rights come in conflict, the more basic right and/or the right concerning the graver matter takes precedence over rights involving the less basic or less serious matter. It is clear that the right to life is more basic than the right to privacy or any other posterior rights. Therefore, since removal of the fetus would most certainly result in violation of its right to life, the woman has no right to evict the temporary resident of her private womb.”

(Bernas, J.. The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers (1995), p. 119.)

Not only does Angsioco twist legalities, she also manages to twist mathematics as well. EQUAL Protection means, well, EQUAL Protection. The right of the mother for protection is EQUAL to the right of the unborn for protection. Not GREATER THAN nor LESS THAN. Of course there are exceptional cases where the medical treatment of the mother might result to a NOT DIRECTLY INTENDED harm to the unborn. Angsioco apparently, is not capable of acknowledging the nuanced distinction whatsoever. She is clearly all for the 'rights' of the mother to abort the unborn regardless. After all according to her, the unborn has no rights whatsoever until it is born. Well, she has a right to her opinion, however twisted it may be. The State guarantees EQUAL protection of freedom of speech to the erroneous person as well as to the factual person. I presume her mother would love her in spite of that. As to the rest of the pro-RH bill advocates, I presume they would love to gag her from now on. She just let the screaming cat out of the bag.

The real purpose of the RH bill

Long lasting impact

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away)
By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)
Updated June 03, 2011 12:00 AM

Undoubtedly, since the introduction of the foreign sponsored and foreign crafted RH bill, a serious rift and deep division has been created in our nation. Never before have there been such heated discussions and sharp differences among Filipinos on several issues of fact and of law regarding this bill. Before it was introduced, we seemed to be traversing only one and the same road towards a peaceful, just and progressive country. But the bill has distracted us by creating a fork in the said road and dividing us in reaching our goals. (I think this is exaggerated. We've certainly been a bitterly divided nation several times in the past 25 years. - CAP)

Presently, as P-Noy recently asserted, the State is against abortion and does not dictate the number of children a couple must have. It has not imposed birth control methods on anyone but “gives couples a choice of what option to take”. Indeed, there is already a law penalizing abortion as a crime and right now couples are free to plan the size of their family and to choose the method of controlling births. Under the present setup therefore, there is no more need for an RH bill. So why are we really still fussing over the said RH bill? Should we not just forget about it and move on looking for other solutions alleviating the life of our poor people?