For the record: Jemy Gatdula on why "support for the RH Bill is based on blind faith and not on reason or facts"

Contraceptive faith

Jemy Gatdula, Nov. 15, 2012. 

The pro-life crowd (or at least those who stand against the RH Bill, watered down or not) has always been accused of basing their positions on faith rather than on "facts" or science. Which is absurd. And patently untrue. Because if there is anybody actually basing their entire argument on blind faith, in complete disregard of reason, information, or logic, then one has to lay that on the RH Bill advocates themselves.

How else to justify their baffling support for contraception despite overwhelming evidence that such are hazardous to women or newborn babies? Just six days ago, Lori Chaplin reported ("Want to Find a Good Husband and Have a Family? Don’t Use the Pill," National Catholic Register, Nov. 10, 2012; citing a 2009 UK study "Does the Contraceptive Pill Alter Mate Choice in Humans?") that, aside from making women less attractive (due to the contraceptive’s prevention of ovulation, thus interfering with a woman’s "appearance, odor and voice pitch -- to which men are sensitive"), contraceptives also unquestionably cause harm to women’s bodies.

The contraceptive ideology

From the blog of Jemy Gatdula:

It's just sex

is the subject of my Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday (July 27-28, 201 -- CAP) issue of BusinessWorld:

Last June, the Department of Health issued Administrative Order (AO) No. 2012-0009. The declared goal of the AO was to reduce the “unmet need for modern family planning,” specifically the minimization of “maternal mortality.” But the same raises more questions than the answers it attempted to provide. Where is the need to control our population when it’s already unquestioned that it’s precisely that which gives the Philippines superior competitive advantage? Reduce maternal deaths? Then why not provide better medical facilities and services rather than contraception?

The entire thing smacks of mere ideological bias. I don’t think anybody reasonably believes anymore today that the push for contraception is due to economics or female health. Unfortunately, such bias runs on several deeply flawed assumptions. The first is that religious objections find no basis in reason. The second is that institutions are male-imposed creations. The third is that the empowerment of women requires detaching responsibility from sex. The first two are nonsense. It’s the third we shall focus on, not because it has any merit but rather due to the peculiar emotional attraction that underlies it. I would even go so far to say that the only reason this contraception issue has the support it allegedly has is simply because of this myth.

The de-facto legalization of the RH bill?

From CBCP for Life:

DOH order on contraceptives mocks lawmakers, threatens religious freedom

MANILA, July 19, 2012–With RH bill proponents facing imminent defeat in Congress, the Department of Health (DOH) has circumvented the legislative process with the sudden release of an administrative order laying out a nationwide strategy for the distribution of artificial contraceptives.

This was bared by the lawyer heading the legal office of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), who described DOH Administrative Order 2012-0009 as practically the implementing rules of the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill which has yet to pass Congress.

“Its issuance at a time when Congress and the Senate are deliberating on RH bills mocks and disrespects the authority of a co-equal branch of government,” Atty. Jo Aurea Imbong stated in her preliminary critique of the DOH order.

Misleading people with the “unmet need” myth

Moreover, the DOH is peddling the myth of “unmet need” to justify the surprise order, whose strategy of “subtle coercion and undue influence” could impinge on religious freedom, she added.

Citing a 1996 study presented at the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health by Prof. Lant Pritchett, professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Imbong said millions of women may want to delay or avoid pregnancy, but that does not mean they want to use contraception.

“The idea of unmet need for contraception ignores the reasons for unmet need that women express, such as concern about health and other side effects of artificial contraception, incompatibility with religious and ethical beliefs, and the financial cost of contraception,” the study said.

Imbong said that “In the Philippines, non-use of a ‘modern’ family planning method among women does not mean they have an ‘unmet need.’ There are myriads of reasons why women do not use artificial contraceptives.”

“Some women refuse to use a method for reasons of religious conviction. Others refrain because of aversion to the side effects, others for fear of mortal consequences to health from the carcinogenic substances. In these cases, there is refusal, hence, there is no ‘need’ to speak of. And yet, all cases of non-use is routinely interpreted as a gaping ‘need’ to justify a massive family planning program such as this,” she pointed out.

The pill has been labeled by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer as a Group 1 carcinogen along with asbestos, formaldehyde and other harmful substances.

More recently, a large-scale US study found that injectables more than doubled the risk of breast cancer. In the Philippines, breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths.

If there is really an unmet need, Imbong questioned why the order explicitly mandates the Commission on Population (POPCOM) to make sure that there is always “increased demand” for contraceptives.

Strategizing to overturn cultural, religious values

Imbong warned that the new DOH program’s communication plan involves “behavior change,” which means people will be encouraged to turn against their religion.

“The ‘communication’ program described in the Administrative Order is clearly patterned after the WHO strategy of neutralizing and overturning the citizens’ traditional religious, cultural and family values. These are considered by WHO as barriers or obstacles to the population control agenda,” she said.

For instance, DOH teams will go door-to-door to “preach” and exhort couples and individuals in the ethos of contraception in a manner that is person-to-person, “client-centered, life-cycle approach on delivering family planning services at any point of contact.”

“This is a highly unethical and unlawful act of ‘meddling with the private life or family relations’ of spouses and individuals,” the lawyer said.

Imbong also said the DOH’s plan would be a “betrayal of the poor,” who need livelihood more than condoms and pills.

“The incessant targeting by DOH of poor families for contraception and sterilization abuses and exploits the moral dependence, indigence, and other weakness of the poor. This is an open violation of human rights of the poor,” she said.

“If the poor and indigent families have an unmet need, these are for food on their table, medicine for common ailments, nutrition for mothers, infants and children, clean drinking water, electricity, sanitation, education, and means of livelihood.” (Dominic Francisco)

****

The following is an initial critique of DOH Administrative Order 2012-0009

PRELIMINARY CRITIQUE OF DOH ADMIN. ORDER 2012-009 “National Strategy Towards Reducing Unmet Need for ...

Why the RH bill is actually bad for "free choice"

The following letter to the editor was published in PDI on September 19, 2011. It is not "totally anti-RH" but it decries state promotion of contraceptives, which lies at the heart of the RH bill.

Battle not between those for and against RH

There is only one way for one not to see the real score in the “highly controversial,” ever-burning, “difficult” issue of the Reproductive Health bill. And that is to close one’s eyes and insist on something that he deliberately wants to project in darkness or doesn’t want to accept in the light. 

The bill’s proponents are emphatic on sidetracking the discussions and debates by singling out only the good and valid points of the proposed law. While those opposing it “to the end” dwell only on its bad points. Thus, the RH bill has become eternally “complicated” and has dragged Juan de la Cruz to boredom or purgatory.

But heaven sees both sides from both perspectives.

Free choice, yes, but let government have nothing to do with the funding and efforts to promote artificial contraception, otherwise there would no free choice; there would only be pushing the country’s populace (including children) to the brink of a “free fall.”

It is one thing to be confronted by a temptation brought about by unexpected circumstances, and it’s always a struggle to be in such strait. But it’s quite different to be helplessly and unwittingly “set up” by someone to confront temptations every which way you turn to every day.

How unfathomable that condoms and the like would someday be everywhere in every community just as the Gideon Bibles are widely being distributed at no cost. And it’s ominous that the “campaign-push” for the politically and internationally well-funded artificial contraceptives would be encroaching and would be incomparably much more aggressive and unstinting, for sure.

The battle must be drawn, but not between the pro and anti-RH bill.

—RENI M. VALENZUELA, renimvalenzuela@yahoo.com

Enabling irresponsibility

For my explanation of why I choose to post some of Patricio Mangubat's essays despite his unorthodoxy, please see THIS -- CAP.

Why pay for someone else's condom?
By "Patricio Mangubat"

Published in New Philippine Revolution on May 26, 2011

The RH bill seeks to spend close to 3 billion pesos for buying contraceptives and condoms. These condoms will be given freely to those who want it.

Question---how about those with money? Will they be entitled to a condom if they feel the urge to do it with their partner even outside of marriage? According to the bill, yes, the State is mandated to give them free condoms if they feel the urge to do the thing right that moment.

Why the favoritism shown to artificial contraceptives?

From Ambassador Jose V. Romero's column "The Church & P-Noy honeymoon is over?"

We would like to think that P-Noy will not go out of his way to pick a fight with the church on this issue and is still looking for a “matuwid na daan.” We believe that a compromise is possible without compromising the stand of the Church on the subject of human sexuality now endangered by certain provisions of the bill. For example, the government could utilize the vast resources of the parish councils to promote responsible parenthood through the natural birth control methods which in its latest form has been found to be quite effective. 

We know that this will not sit well with the pharmaceutical companies which are now salivating at the thought of raking in huge profits from the sale of billions of rubberized products and contraception pills now rotting in their warehouses. Obviously, this will be opposed by the NGOs and media practitioners who are living off the fat fees provided by international institutions bent on curbing the populations of fast emerging economies with big populations like the BRIC community which is now utilizing their abundant raw materials, like energy and mineral resources, to fuel their own fast- growing economies at the expense of those of former colonizers now battling bravely in the Middle East to insure a steady supply of energy for their home countries. Was this not the rationale for Henry Kissinger’s NSSM 200 in 1974? 

These prophets of doom are the ones that are now edging P-Noy to the brink of breaking relations with the Church for selfish reasons. But P-Noy must realize that pills and condoms are not short- term or even long-term solutions to the problems of poverty in this country. If this were so, and the solution lay simply in adding to the conditional cash transfer a ration of condoms and pills for every poor household, we in the economic profession must have overlooked this simple remedy to poverty alleviation! How simple indeed and how cheap since these would have been financed by our former colonizers, who as we write, are through their co-opted foundations already distributing condoms in the backstreets of Metro Manila with or without the benefit of the RH bill. 

If tomorrow we prevent the poor from reproducing, will the economy grow by our target rates of 7 or 8% –the magic figure that economists claim can mitigate poverty which we have actually already achieved under the last administration? We doubt it.

Video: Congresswoman Mitos Magsaysay speaking out versus the RH bill

Questionable promises of prosperity in exchange for certain immorality

Here is the latest blog post of Archbishop Oscar Cruz.


The good archbishop has written a lot versus the RH bill and I've been remiss in my blog duties by not posting any of these. I hope to find the time to collect all his posts and articles versus the RH bill in order to compile these into a single downloadable file.

RH Bill (Once more with pleasure)

Most Rev. Oscar V. Cruz DD

FOR a start, it is good to recall that God Himself gave but Ten Commandments to rule the whole world, the whole of humanity all over the globe. And the Lord Jesus Christ even reduced them into but Two Commandments: Love God. Love others. The first Three Commandments are for the love of God. The other Seven Commandments are for love of others. It requires but these Commandments for all peoples to live in truth, to get justice, to live in peace.

On the other hand, it is worth asking how many thousands of laws have the present and immediately past Legislative Department enacted? Three thousand? Four thousand? As a valid consequential question, it comes to order to ask how many laws have the Executive Department succeeded in having duly implemented? One thousand? Two thousand? And as a logical follow-up question, how many violators of the law has the Judicial Department brought to justice? Answer: Just guess. Such would be enough, given a long existing dysfunctional justice system in the Philippines.

But lo and behold, the present legislature is again poised to enact another law—The Reproductive Health Bill (RH 4244) which in truth is a contra-reproduction and anti-health legislation—preventing conception through the use of chemical pills and injections plus mutilations in terms of vasectomy for men and tubal ligation for women.

For those who want to listen, well and good. For those who do not to, this is their call—their responsibility and accountability.

The RH bill: Promotes promiscuity and praises irresponsibility. Deadens conscience and destroys delicadeza. Cultivates self– rule and selfishness, affirms immorality and ushers in amorality. Causes health hazard if not downright sickness as cancer. Leads to defective births and dangles abortion. Despises pregnant women and hates the birth of children. Impugns the Filipino cultural values of love of children and of the family. Gives big profits to multinational pharmaceuticals manufacturing contraceptives and an erratic government collecting much taxes therefrom.

The RH bill: Ascertains material abundance and economic development. Guarantees the inflow of big capital investments and much employment. Promises the absence of criminality and ascertains the presence of justice in the land. Assures the reign of peace and order. Envisions Philippines as a First World Country.

Ha?

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?

Church critic versus radical anti-Catholic feminist over the RH Bill.

Erstwhile Church critic Herman Tiu Laurel is staunchly against the RH bill, and in one of his most recent articles he skewers Elizabeth Angsioco's inflammatory article Damaso and Ovaries in the following manner:

Angsioco, Damaso and DSK

CRITIC'S CRITIC

Herman Tiu Laurel

5/23-29/2011

The critics commentaries on the RH bill is reaching a crescendo and while new topic, the sexual assault case against IMF’s chief DSK (Dominique Strauss-Kahn) is catching the attention of many newspapers columnists of many newspapers columnists, but most of these opinion writers miss the heart of the issue and fail to enlighten the public.

We’ll start with Elizabeth Angsioco of the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (apparently a branch of Bert Gonzales and Jesuit Archie Intengan’s PDSP) whose twopart article “Damaso and ovaries” appeared in the Manila Standard sometime April and is one of the popular expressions of the pro-RH bill that has come out and appears frequently in Internet discussions.

I commented on Angsioco’s title in a recent OpinYon column of mine pointing out the highly picturesque and effective title she used in her article. But now that the climax of the debate is nearing, I take the opportunity to evaluate the content of her article. I have found it to be vacuous except for the hysterics.

A Maria Clara or a Josephine Bracken?

Angsioco raged against the Damasos for using the pulpit to harangue against the RH bill, the anti-RH ordinances of Barangay Ayala Alabang and seven Bataan barangays, and Mayor of Manila Alfredo Lim’s city programs of family planning that is limited to the natural methods but nothing on the issues that the RH bill itself represents.

At the end of her two-part article she states: “I dressed up as Maria Clara and handed out condoms and he was in a barong. People were more than slightly amused by the idea and started having their pictures taken with us.”

I would be amused too if Maria Clara, the quintessential conservative and traditional Filipino who would use the abaniko as Muslim women use the burqa to hide their “evil” feminine allures, were used as a poster woman for the contraceptives and condoms crusade because that’s totally inappropriate.

Josephine Bracken would have been the only appropriate Philippine historical female to represent women’s liberation.

The woman’s rage of Angsiaco is a shrill and hysterical as the eunuch-y fits and frenzy of the Damasos, with the latter calling pro-RH advocates “terrorists” and the former considering anybody questioning the RH bill as anti-women’s rights bigots.

Women’s Rights

I wonder if Angsioco or many of the other pro-RH advocates, crusaders and lobbyists have even read the many versions of the RH bill.

If they did they’d discover that there is nothing in it that changes any basic women’s right to their own body, as they argue today, or their ovaries.

All Filipino women’s rights are already robustly protected by the Magna Carta for Women passed on August 14, 2009 by the previous Congress.

None of the updated RH bills is even attempting to change the present status of the law’s abhorrence of abortion as most pro-RH bill crusaders themselves recoil from the idea of a blanket de-criminalization of abortion which is inherently reprehensible.

Nobody but the Catholic Church issues edicts against the use of birth control devices and pills, but who follows the Church among the women’s flock these days?

Mythical Poverty vs Population

The Malthusian argument that population robustness equals poverty is inane, as a simple comparison easily shows: Japan, with a population of around 130 million (the 10th largest in the world), has a per capita income of $35,500 while the Philippines, with a population of around 94 million (ranking 12th in the world), has a per capita income of only $2,000.

Before the 2010 elections, where the previous lameduck government’s spending-inflated GDP “growth” became the basis for this latest estimate by some economists, ours even hovered lower at around $1,500 to $1,700 per capita.

The point is, the pro-RH proponents’ propaganda, based on an imaginary correlation between poverty and population, is hogwash (as Nobel prizewinning economist Simon Kuznets work demonstrated)--characteristic of the pigsty that is Congress, more so when spewed from the mouths of the usual pro-FVR-Gloria Arroyo porkers. (As I've previously noted on this blog, GMA herself - whatever we might think of her -- is ostensibly anti-RH bill. CAP)

Veiled Pecuniary Interests

The real issue in the RH bill is Big Pharma and political pork barrel feeders’ disguised pecuniary interests: providing subsidies to purchase and distribute for free as “essential” medications and devices such contraceptive and condoms, hundreds of RH supplied “vans” politicos can skim from and put their names on, amounting to at least P3 billion clearly described in the RH bill plus untold billions mandated by the bill that others agencies such as PhilHealth, Presidential Anti-Poverty Commission, Pop- Com, etc. must extend to the RH program which is estimated to top P10 Billion per annum, and that such budgets included in the RH bill when it becomes law “shall be” provided for in succeeding National Budget that is tantamount to “automatic appropriations”.

All these subsidies when there has never even been a specific allocation for real killer diseases such as TB, dengue, and many other illnesses.

And they can’t even have a kind word for MRT/LRT working and wage earning commuters who are seeking a mere P4-5billion fare “subsidy” which come from their VAT and income taxes, anyway.

The Damaso’s and Angsioco’s hysterics do not benefit the public debate, they only obfuscate and obscure allowing the Big Pharma (that’s why Fidel V. Ramos is there, for the Carlyle group with billions investments in contraceptives and condoms) and political porkers to slip their greed past the people’s scrutiny.

(The rest of the article is about other matters.)

Big Pharma and the RH Bill

As noted in a previous post, Herman Tiu Laurel is by no means a supporter of the Church, but this does not prevent him from speaking out versus the RH Bill.

Subsidy for sex, yes; for MRT/LRT or rice, no

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

5/23/2011

As we near the climax — so to speak — of the so-called “Reproductive Health” (RH) debate, the main issue becomes all the more apparent as the excitement of the foreplay fades. One pro-RH columnist wrote in his column last Friday: “What is at the heart of the RH law — and this is what the anti-RH groups strangely underplay — is using government money to subsidize reproductive choices.” Well, lawyer-columnist, I am highlighting it in my column; and I say you and so many other pro-RH supporters are either being taken for a ride or are taking others for a ride on one of the biggest scams in this nation’s history.

It seems that the real reason for the RH bill is not stemming the Malthusian formulation of population robustness equals poverty, or preventing the spread of HIV, or promoting sex education, or upholding the woman’s right to decide on matters relating to her ovaries. The real purpose is “using government money to subsidize” sex choices!

RH bill proponents really have a strange idea of what government money or subsidy should be used for; and that is coincidentally the way Aquino III’s government and his “civil society” cohorts — who are all backing the RH bill to the hilt — think of it, too.

First of all, PeNoy does not look kindly on the subsidy for rice farmers that the National Food Authority has been extending all these decades. His Budget secretary has in fact made the motions of totally slashing the NFA budget several times. Neither does PeNoy view with kindness or understanding the appeal of millions of MRT/LRT commuters to continue with the state’s “subsidy” (if it can be called that) of their fares, which they solely rely on to travel daily from home to work or school, which is as basic a necessity as power and water in modern life. But when it comes to “reproductive choices” — or sex — this they will subsidize to the tune of billions!

The appeal for the MRT/LRT subsidy was met with different tactics of dissuasion by Aquino III to convince commuters that it is such a burden to government. And when the commuting public wasn’t fazed, PeNoy’s spokesmen even attempted to browbeat Metro Manila’s MRT/LRT-riding population into thinking that they’re being unfair, selfish and abusive for demanding this transport subsidy when the rest of the nation’s taxpayers aren’t using the system. Yet what these prevaricators conveniently omit is that these MRT/LRT commuters are precisely the majority that go to work everyday earning subsistence wages from which government exacts its pound of flesh in terms of taxes — taxes that pro-RH proponents would now want to subsidize the sex choices of the beneficiaries of “free contraceptives and condoms,” the poor and unemployed (that is, if these reach them at all, given that macho culture and inebriation are some reasons that condoms are cast to the wind).

The only thing certain is that, once it becomes law, billions will be specifically allocated by the RH bill, whereby its first approved budget “shall be included in the subsequent General Appropriations Act,” i.e. automatically appropriated and/or sponsored — in perpetuity. That budget is certain to reach Big Pharma (including the FVR-linked Carlyle Group), which then also translates to “automatic sales in perpetuity.” Equally certain are the congressmen’s pork barrel allocations for a least one RH van per congressional district (including drugs, condoms, sex education materials, staff and fuel) that will have the congressman’s likeness emblazoned for all to see. Then, all of these monies are sure to come from the nation’s taxpayers, a great majority of whom are Metro Manila commuters who won’t get any subsidy for their essential work-related fares.

Regarding the RH vans, it must stated that there is already a proliferation of barangay health centers with literally hundreds of thousands of health workers all over the country, so why the RH vans for each congressman, over and above the free ambulances? Local governments do have a big say in these health centers’ budgets and supplies, as well as the dispensation of essential drugs; but keep in mind that neither the national or local governments dedicate budgets for free medication for deadly diseases such a tuberculosis and dengue (go to East Avenue Medical Center and see how expensive these are for the poor).

Yet the bleeding hearts of PeNoy’s government as well as many RH bill proponents believe “contraceptives and condoms” deserve a subsidy of at least P3 billion or more (when we factor in other government agencies such as PhilHealth, National Anti-Poverty Commission, etc. being mandated to fund the RH program)?

An important observation was made by one veteran street parliamentarian about the RH bill proponents taking to the streets to picket, rally and demonstrate for this subsidy for the poor’s “reproductive choices.” He noted the brand new tarpaulins, canvasses and cardboards, and the gleaming colors of the streamers and placards used, not to mention the full page ads. These can only mean huge funds flowing into the pro-RH bill campaign.

I’m sure that — despite my opposition to the Church’s many positions — whenever the Roman Catholic Church funds its campaigns, we know where these are coming from; but for those activist groups associated with Etta Rosales and Dinky Soliman, just where do they get their money? I guess we shouldn’t look far.

We know that USAid, as mandated by Henry Kissinger’s 1974 NSSM 200 (which we have no space to elaborate on), has always been for population control; same with Big Pharma. And, lest we forget, these people have the conditional cash transfer funds at their disposal too, which, as of the latest news, has already been increased by P2 billion over the P21 billion originally allocated. Shades of the CodeNGO PeaceBonds again?

(Tune in to Radyo OpinYon, Monday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m., and Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; Talk News TV with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com for our articles plus TV and radio archives)

The real cause of poverty - 2

Why Graft and Corruption is the cause of poverty and not overpopulation 2

By "Cathy" of PINaysaAmerika

Dear insansapinas,

Updated:

Karugtong ito ng una, Siyempre, may una, meron ding pangalawa. roll eyes.

Definition of terms:

Ang corruption, mga kabarangay ay hindi lang ang pagtanggap ng bribery. Kasama rin dito ang pilferage, extortion, fraud, NEPOTISM, theft, embezzlement and`falsification of records.

Graft and Corruption sa Department of Health

Ngayong taon ay itinanggi ng Dept of Health na may mga ghost employees sila. Mga nagmumulto, tumatanggap ng suweldo pero hindi naman pumapasok. Sabagay lahat naman ng sangay ng gobyerno mayroong multo.Hindi ka ba naman papayag magmulto kung kalahati ng sweldo ay ibibigay saiyo at kalahati ay pinaghahati-hatian ng mga buwakanng mga may hawak sa personnel services. Hindi ka naman papsok o kaya pag pumasok ka man ay para lang magbundy clock. Aba kahit hindi ka nurse puwede ka nilang ilagay sa payroll. Bakit nagco0cause ito ng poverty? Kasi yong talagang mga gustong magtrabaho, hindi makatrabaho, dahil puno ang plantilla ng multo. Sa isang tingin lang ba ng Secretary at sa tanung-tanong, malalaman na nga niya pag may "nagmumulto" o wala.

All about money

A new RH bill angle exposed! It's about money!

SHOOTING STRAIGHT By Bobit S. Avila (The Philippine Star) 

Updated May 20, 2011 12:00 AM 

The debate on the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill resumed in Congress this week, where the pros and the antis debate once more on this highly-toxic issue, often with those supporting the RH bill (notice they have dropped their new name Responsible Parenthood and returned to using once again the term Reproductive Health) peddling lies in order to sell their proposed bill. I fully agree with pundits that this controversy has polarized the Filipino people. I would even dare say that something good has come out of this debate because it allowed the Filipino people to totally look at the RH bill from different angles... from the moral, the legal to the economic issue - whether our large population is the cause of our poverty.

Yes, those supporting the RH Bill would dare, misinform, cajole or even lie to the Filipino so that they could have this bill passed, while those that are against the RH bill can only tell you one story... the truth!

We’ve so often quoted the world’s foremost liar, Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Propaganda Minister (who at the end of the German Reich killed his own family and committed suicide) who made this most quoted quotation, “A lie repeated a thousand times, assumes the substance of truth.”

The RH bill has been peddled in Congress since the year 1999 in so many different House Bill numbers, selling us all sorts of lies, like for instance, contraceptives are not abortifacient. The latest that was revealed no less than by the former Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral is that contraceptives can cause breast cancer, though it reduces the risk of cervical cancer.

But one good news out of this debate comes from Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile who expressed his opposition to the RH bill saying, “As far as we are concerned here, I don’t think it is a priority. I’ll be very frank with you. As far as I’m concerned, I am not ready to tinker with anything that is an act of God.” Thank God for Sen. Enrile, but what about Sen. Ed Angara and Sen. Miriam Santiago, who recently attacked the Pacman? Ah, that’s what we shall tackle in our column tomorrow.

Meanwhile, there’s that alleged anomaly that Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III exposed during his privilege speech concerning a P2.6 billion allocation for Family Health Programs during the time of Health Sec. Cabral dubbed the Maternal Neonatal and Child Health and Nutrition (MNCHN) program of the local government units (LGU) which some LGUs say they never got. Sen. Sotto is right in asking for an investigation into this potential mess before the Senate would tackle the RH Bill, which also earmarks a large amount of government funds.

There’s more to the corruption issue now plaguing the RH controversy and it’s about money, money and more money from faceless pharmaceutical lobbyists who no doubt are funding Congressmen and women who support the RH Bill. Here’s a letter that reveals this reality.

“Dear Bobit, I have always wondered why the RH Bill is being pushed through even though with or without it, the consumer is free to purchase contraceptives in the counter. So I made some analysis. Based on National Census Statistics Board data 2000, about 24 percent of the Philippine population is above 20 years old. Based on the same statistics, about 50 percent of that are females.

“Considering we have a total population of about 90 million that means the total population of Filipinos above 20 years old is about 22 million. Half of that would be 11 million females. This is the present target market for contraceptives. If I am not mistaken, based on what I have found out from the internet, the cost of using birth control pills is about P1,000 a month.

“The total potential value of the market in the Philippines is therefore computed to be: 11 million x P1,000 per month x 12 months or a total of P132 billion per year. The problem for the contraceptive manufacturers is that 90 percent of the market belongs to the lower income who cannot afford to spend P1,000 per month. So in order to give this market purchasing power, the RH Bill is now being pushed to enable the government to use taxpayer’s money to subsidize these contraceptives.

“To further expand the market, the 10 to 15 years old will be given sex education in school and they will be allowed to purchase contraceptives even without the consent of their parents. That could mean another 4,000,000 potential users. The value of this additional market is calculated to be another P48 billion. Adding the two markets gives us a whooping valuation of P180 billion per year. Now I understand why the RH Bill is being pushed very hard. God bless! - Bobby Tordesillas.” No bill in Congress has been so thoroughly debated, dissected and discussed by the pros and the cons of various sectors of society. I have read and heard most if not all the comments for and against the RH Bill, but this angle has never been presented in this manner.

* * *

For email responses to this article, write to vsbobita@mozcom.com or vsbobita@gmail.com. His columns can be accessed through www.philstar.com.

Archdiocese of Jaro issues a detailed critique of the RH Bill

The entire text (with illustrations) with a long and very detailed set of criticisms versus the RH Bill can be found on the blog of the Archdiocese of Jaro's Women's Desk:


Rebuttal Against HB 4244



h/t Resty Odon

Anti-Catholic and yet Anti-RH Bill. Yes, it could happen! - 1

RH: Robbery holdup bill

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

05/16/2011

I have not previously commented on the RH or Reproductive Health Bill since I know it is not a highly essential action that will address the poverty of this nation. First off, the Malthusian argument that population robustness equals poverty is inane, as a simple comparison easily shows:

Japan, with a population of around 130 million (the 10th largest in the world), has a per capita income of $35,500 while the Philippines, with a population of around 94 million (ranking 12th in the world), has a per capita income of only $2,000. Before the 2010 elections, where the previous lame-duck government’s spending-inflated GDP “growth” became the basis for this latest estimate by some economists, ours even hovered lower at around $1,500 to $1,700 per capita.

The point is, the pro-RH proponents’ propaganda, based on an imaginary correlation between poverty and population, is hogwash — characteristic of the pigsty that is Congress, more so when spewed from the mouths of the usual pro-FVR-Gloria Arroyo porkers. (NB: Gloria Arroyo herself is anti-RH bill. -- CAP)

Rep. Edcel Lagman, for one, with the help of his allied NGOs and “cost”-oriented groups, has been taking many people for a ride without revealing the highway robbery built into the RH wagon. Few people know that the original bill presented before Congress already contained a list of brands of contraceptives and other birth control paraphernalia that was only subsequently removed when certain quarters began to smell something scandalously foul.

Big Pharma all over the world, particularly in the Philippines, is well known to provide lavish commissions and paybacks to its agents, promoters, medical prescribers, as well as to political lobby clients and NGOs. Many of these NGOs beholden to foreign funding, such as those linked with Etta Rosales and other Noynoy “leftists,” are with Lagman’s campaign. Ditto the likes of pro-Big Pharma, anti-natural medicine former Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral and former (so he says) Carlyle Group director Fidel Ramos.

The transnational investment group Carlyle, which makes use not only of corporate but also global political clout in promoting its military-industrial interests, is also into pharmaceuticals in a very big way. William Shannon reports: “The Carlyle Group… manages nearly US$13 billion investments in various pharmaceutical laboratory and telecommunication, waterway transport companies.” He further calls it a “tentacular financial complex” and lists its “four most significant companies” (and their principal activities and periodic turnovers in parentheses) as: 1) Empi, Inc. (medical drugs and products, $73 million for year 2000); 2) MedPointe Inc. (drugs and condoms, $223 million estimated for 2001); 3) United Defense Industries Inc. (manufacture of tanks and armored vehicles, $1.18 billion for 2000); and 4) United States Marine Repair (the largest American company of non-nuclear warships, $400 million for 2000).

Disguised in this RH bill are the interests of Lagman and his ilk in the legislature (egged along by the similarly financially lascivious Big Pharma): automatic appropriation of the budget for their pork barrel plus government’s purchase of birth control “devices and supplies” as stipulated in Section 30 of the final draft of the RH Bill which states, “The amounts appropriated in the current annual General Appropriations Act (GAA) for Family Health and Responsible Parenting under the DoH and PopCom and other concerned agencies shall be allocated and utilized… Such additional sums… shall be included in the subsequent GAA.”

You see, more funds will have to be allocated (taken from PhilHealth), with the PDAF or pork barrel requiring additional allocation to the delight of those porkers in Congress, along with Big Pharma selling these “devices and supplies” while obtaining a declaration of such as “essential drugs,” thereby opening these to “tax free” classification.

Furthermore, according to the draft, each congressional district “shall” be provided with a “mobile health care service unit,” which will, of course, sport the names of the congressmen and maybe the NGOs working with them. Legislators say the bill will only cost P3 billion; but when you add all the other funding sources (including the Anti-Poverty Commission, which will be required to chip in), then it will run to over tens of billions of pesos!

Meanwhile, RH bill spinmasters, both foreign and local, have been very good at framing the issue as an emotional cause for “women’s rights,” as a fight for “their own bodies,” etc., which no one can argue against. However, in some women’s groups’ hysteria, what is being missed is that they, too, are being used to swindle this nation of its much fed-upon budget pie.

The Magna Carta for Women already protects women more than a chastity belt can; and even among them, many recoil from the idea of removing constraints on abortion. Moreover, nobody follows the Church diktat against the use of condoms and contraceptives anymore (except for those who are still fearful or ignorant), so what else is at issue? (It should be obvious that I vehemently disagree with this. -- CAP)

This is perhaps why RH bill spinmasters have thrown in many red herrings, such as the control of HIV — even when a country such as Thailand still leads the world in HIV incidence despite its well known free condoms program. I am told that this is also the case in Bangladesh.

That said, the prevalence of HIV is a problem of values and social education, not sex education. It’s a problem of media culture too. Some young students having their OJT in my radio program have raised an upsetting problem — that of too many young girls (as young as 12) getting pregnant and selling their bodies for sex. But isn’t that a problem of poverty as well — a poverty spawned not by population per se but by a socio-economic system that is exploitative; that concentrates national wealth in an infinitesimal few; and extracts surplus out of the country in the form of unjust debt and taxes, ad nausea?

Ah, but such is the systemic cancer that the RH robbery hold-up gangs and their foreign partners, with their RH debates, would want to distract us from.

|

Why we can't be silent: the dangers of condoms, pills and IUD's

From FILIPINOS FOR LIFE:

Filipino Secularist Blogger to Pro-RH Bill Legislators: How much lobby money did condom companies give you?

This article, first published on March 7, 2011, is from the pen of the blogger, journalist and professor who writes under the pseudonym "Patricio Mangubat". Mr. Mangubat is by no means a Catholic writer, he seems to have no problems with artificial contraception, he has been critical of the Church's preaching against the RH Bill and has exhibited some sympathy for Communism / Radical Socialism (among other things). However, unlike many left-leaning and secularist writers in this country, he is not blind to the pitfalls of the RH Bill. Given Mr. Mangubat's stature in Philippine political discourse, it is good that he has written against a few of the questionable provisions of the RH Bill.

Procurement of condoms and contraceptives should be stricken out of RH bill
by Patricio Mangubat (March 7, 2011)

To our fellow Legislators, let us reason to each other---how much lobby money did condom companies gave you to consider the passage of the RH bill?

I am in favor of controlling the population of this country. I am in favor of free choice. I respect the reproductive rights of the individual.

I am, however, not in favor of allowing government to procure contraceptives for free. Why would government intervene with the inherent right of individuals to choose what contraceptive measure they want to use? Why would government even buy billions of pesos worth of condoms and other contraceptives?

We know how government officials conduct themselves during biddings. Definitely, this will eventually result to another bidding anomaly. Why would government buy these contraceptives and give it for free?

Yes, this is a right enshrined in our constitution. But, this does not mean that this right does not have a corresponding responsibility. If you want to exercise a right, you must be responsible for that exercise, including its costs.

If the problem is the high costs of contraceptives, which many see as a reason for government to procure them wholesale, then, the solution is asking these condom companies to lower their prices.

Rights are definitely not free. Rights are linked to responsibilities.

Its even like this...

You want to exercise your right to free expression? Then, you must be responsible for its consequences.

You want to exercise your right to reproduce, then, be responsible for its exercise. If you want to control the number of your children, then, you must at least think of the means by which you need to feed and sustain your family.

A Filipino Secularist and Church Critic on Suspicious Provisions in the RH Bill

This article, first published on October 2, 2010, is from the pen of the blogger, journalist and professor who writes under the pseudonym "Patricio Mangubat". Mr. Mangubat is by no means a Catholic writer, he seems to have no problems with artificial contraception, he has been critical of the Church's preaching against the RH Bill and has exhibited some sympathy for Communism / Radical Socialism (among other things) -- see this, for instance. However, unlike many left-leaning and secularist writers in this country, he is not blind to the pitfalls of the RH Bill. Given Mr. Mangubat's stature in Philippine political discourse, it is good that he has written against a few of the questionable provisions of the RH Bill.


House Bill 96 or the Reproductive Health Bill and some suspicious provisions

I read House Bill 96 or "An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population and Development and for other purposes" filed by Congressman Edcel Lagman. The bill's rationale is note-worthy of support. The bill, it seems, is all about informed choice.

What I find rather suspicious is the provision on Section 7 which provides for all accredited health facilities to provide a full range of modern family planning methods. While the bill seeks to promote rights and an enabling environment to exercise those rights, why propose that government buy these "modern family planning methods" only and not include natural family planning methods? This I find a provision also expressed in Section 9 to be that of the benefit of manufacturers of contraceptives. These provisions should not be included in the bill because though government has the right to inform, it should not provide these contraceptives for free.

The government should probably encourage manufacturers of contraceptives to lower their prices instead of the State using its funds to procure all contraceptives or modern family planning methods from these manufacturers. This will be a clear source of an anomaly since as we all know, bidding processes in our country clearly involve graft and corrupt practices.

Section 10 is also highly suspicious. Why distribute contraceptives when it is clear in the bill that its use should only be "when needed" or "when selected or chosen by the couple. The State does not need to distribute these contraceptives to the general population.

These contraceptives should only be given when asked by a couple, or a parent or anybody who wants to plan or rather prevent a pregnancy.

Again, Section 10 is highly suspicious because it caters to the needs of manufacturers of contraceptives.

The contentious Section 13, which mandates the compulsory teaching of sex education from Grades 5 to High school has been revised, finally. This I think, is really important.

Another highly contentious provision though, Section 18, requires that companies with more than 200 workers shall provide reproductive health services to its workers. Or, for companies with lower than 200 workers, coordinate with clinics and hospitals.

Again, the bill's core promise is simply respect the reproductive rights of Filipinos and provide for an enabling environment for its exercise. Why would companies provide for these reproductive health services? If its a right, then those who want to exercise such rights, should know their responsibilities of exercising those rights and one of them is clearly, being financially responsible.

If the State wants to create an enabling environment, let these natural and modern family planning methods be distributed at lesser cost. Meaning, ask manufacturers of contraceptives to lower their prices, instead of the government procuring their products and using public money to buy all of them.

I oppose the use of public money to buy contraceptives.

I oppose using public money to distribute contraceptives. If the bill is really about rights, then, it should likewise recognize that every right has its corresponding responsibility. If the couple or person intends to exercise his reproductive health right, then, he should be aware that the exercise of such rights entails cost, albeit, minimalized.

Why is there no howl about this among RH bill supporters? It is quite evident that we are not being made aware of such provisions in the bill. That, the bill's proponents actually do not want to discuss these provisions simply because these are the provisions which contraceptive lobbyists inserted for their benefit.

Commercial interests are really behind the passage of this bill because this bill will surely jack up the profits of manufacturers of contraceptives.

• Global sales of contraceptives in 2008 were $9.9 billion and, with 2% growth, sales reached $10.1 billion in 2009. This market is expected to rise at a CAGR of 4.8% and reach $13.5 billion by 2015.
• The contraceptive market is led by hormonal contraceptives with more than a 78% share. This segment was worth $7.9 billion in 2009 and is expected to increase to $8.2 billion in 2010 and $9.4 billion by 2015, a compound annual growth rate of (CAGR) of 2.8%
• Barrier contraceptives have a smaller market share than hormonal contraceptives but are expected to grow at a higher rate. This segment was worth $2 billion in 2009 and is expected to be valued at $2.3 billion in 2010 and $3.5 billion in 2015, an 8.5% compound annual growth rate (CAGR).

If the proponent of the bill is really dead serious in his advocacy for reproductive health rights, then, let these provisions be stricken out of the bill immediately.