NOTE TO ALL READERS

Starting September 8, 2012, anonymous comments -- whether for or against the RH bill -- will no longer be permitted on this blog.
Showing posts with label Filipinos for Life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Filipinos for Life. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Solving poverty by helping the poor, not eliminating their children


From CBCP for Life: 


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



RH Bill not for the poor

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

Saturday, December 1, 2012

"Far from empowering us as women, the RH bill promotes our objectification." - Open letter by pro-life women on the RH bill



WE are women who believe that the Reproductive Health bill, in all its past and present forms, is detrimental to us, our sex, our marriages, and our families.

WE are Catholics and non-Catholics. We are women of faith, and we are also women of reason.

WE believe in true women’s health. We believe in respecting our bodies and the natural processes with which we have been gifted.

Far from empowering us as women, the RH bill promotes our objectification. It does not address the causes of exploitation and violence against women at their roots. It does not solve the problem of men seeing us as mere sources of pleasure. It does not promote our inherent dignity as human beings worthy of respect. State-funded, state-guaranteed access to contraception only empowers those who wish to take advantage of us without having to worry about consequences.

WE do not believe in artificial birth control. Birth control does not come free. As taxpayers we will be paying for it, and as women we will be suffering its effects on our bodies. We will not tolerate the deliberate dismissal of scholarly research that shows contraception’s deleterious effects. We will not tolerate the trampling of our Constitution that says life must be protected at all stages from conception to natural death. We will not tolerate the imposition of governmental contraceptive programs meant to control the population and to brainwash our youth. We do not want the long-term effects of the sexual revolution brought about by a contraceptive mentality.

Granting that the secular government is not beholden to the Catholic or Christian faith, attempting to speak for us women via a socialist agenda destroys the very fiber of democratic breath we have as a people. Doing this undermines our freedom to adhere to something Good, Moral and Ethical. Recognizing our “reproductive” rights as women should not include FORCING us to discard our right to freely believe in morality and goodness and if we choose to, our religious tenets and doctrines.

No one speaks for all of us on these issues. We stand with the Catholic bishops and all leaders, religious and otherwise, who recognize the truth of life-affirming teachings with regard to sex, marriage and family. We call on President Aquino and our Representatives in Congress to heed the voice of all Filipino women, not just the loudest ones. We call on all our leaders to continue to allow us to freely witness to our faiths and beliefs in all their fullness.

Please send your name, address and occupation to the person who sent you this message, or to thefilipinos4life@gmail.com or to thefilipinosforlife@gmail.com. Thank you!

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

A full list of the signatories so far can be found HERE

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Filipinos for Life response to Rep. Kimi Cojuangco

From the official website of Filipinos for Life:

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’

For the record: Anthony Perez on the Overpopulation Myth

Anthony Perez is one of the founders and leading officers of Filipinos for Life. He penned the following essay for the "Definitely Filipino" website more than a year ago, but I've neglected to post it on this blog until now. Mea culpa. CAP.

From Definitely Filipino:

Anthony Perez

Yesterday I watched with dismay a video of politicians and known personalities being very vocal about their support for the RH bill. That quote made famous by Professor Charles Xavier came into my mind: “Man fears what he does not understand.”

Amidst this demagogue and clamor for the passage of this bill lies the silent truth: that everything in this bill is based on lies. I intend to shed some light on one particular lie – that the world is overpopulated.

To help us understand better what is at stake here, let us look at the facts.

The origin of the RH bill isn’t even local; it comes from foreign agencies that want to push their own agenda on developing countries like ours. In April of 1974, Henry Kissinger released the NSSM 200 or National Security Study Memo 200 which says that the population growth in the least developed countries or LDCs (the Philippines included) is a threat to the United States’ security and interests. Thus the study promoted population control measures like contraception and education towards the ‘contraceptive’ mentality. This ‘education’ also meant that everyone should be made to believe that the planet is getting more and more crowded and the resources are running out. I shall comment on this later on.

Overpopulation is a concoction of contraceptive pushers and abortion pushers who have banded together in a conglomerate called International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). These are owners of multinational corporations which manufacture infant formulas, contraceptives, condoms, IUDs, sterilization and abortion gadgets like suction machines. They are the same people who control international money lending institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Frankfurt-based Development Loan Corporation and the Asian Development Bank (ADB).

NSSM 200 says that the population of the world has increased dramatically from 1950′s onwards, an increase never before seen in human history. This is true, but it was not the result of too many babies… it was the result of better healthcare. More children live beyond their fifth birthdays and fewer women die in childbirth. Sadly, the population scaremongers made it look like the world’s population was expanding simply due to the number of children being born.

But is there enough food and resources to go around? The answer is yes. Food production has been on the rise despite the growing population, and this rise can be attributed to technology. We now have the technology to produce food enough to feed everyone. But why is there still hunger? Attribute that to graft and corruption. Attribute that to lack of opportunities and arable land in some places of the world. The rich countries, on the other hand, have more than enough food to spare. Better yet, they own the technology that enables them to produce food to sustain them.

It is easy to believe that as we grow in numbers, there wouldn’t be enough space and food to go around, and it sounds logical right? Along those lines is the belief that population growth is the primary reason for poverty.

The culprit behind this thinking was Robert Malthus, who said that as the population grows geometrically, production grows arithmetically, therefore resulting in poverty. However, almost 200 years later, Professor Simon Kuznets proved that Malthus was wrong, and said that economic growth is fastest during the time that the population growth was highest. This was validated in Europe during the 100 years industrialization of the European continent. For his efforts in disproving the fallacy, Kuznets was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1971.

And yet our lawmakers (read: lawbreakers) continue the education (read: idiotcation) and brainwashing of the masses that they with their 8 or 9 children are the reason behind the poverty of our country. They disregard facts and still cling to the fallacious Malthusian principle.

If we are so many, then why are we still poor?

The natural and expected result in the equation however did not happen in the Philippines, because purchasing power was removed from the population that grew. People could not buy because they had no money; and they had no money because they had no jobs or income earnings. The earnings that could easily have gone on to the people through industry were siphoned off by payments to a ballooning international and domestic debt, by tremendous tax cuts and tax holidays being given to foreign investments prejudicial to the internal economic growth of the country and most of all by the shameful and rampant corruption in the government. Instead of the people earning, it is the government official and a select few who were making all the money – and can afford to have a $20,000 dinner while the country is hungry.

Is the earth getting more and more crowded? According to basic calculations by area, all six billion people on the earth today would fit within the state of Texas, with each family having a house with a little yard. So, it is not a question of area. The problem is the growing concentration of large numbers of people in certain cities, caused by the deterioration and lack of opportunities in the rural areas.

Today, the world faces a demographic winter with an ageing population (which means the median age of a country is rising). Population control has its good and bad effects – on the good side, it will create a temporary economic bonanza. This is happening to Europe, Japan and Singapore. On the other hand, they have to face the music after that economic boom: with an ageing population that has bred so few children, the burden of having to pay for social security lies on the few, and there is also the question of manpower availability. Fact is that many of these European and Asian countries are now giving incentives to those who can bear 3 or more children. They have realized their folly a little too late.

Does this RH bill support abortion? Not directly. Of course if it blatantly said that the bill does support abortion, it would be shot down faster than you can say “women’s rights”. But it is an open secret that to offer reproductive health care in the name of women’s rights and more importantly, population control, means that abortion is a necessary option as well. Not convinced? Let’s take it directly from NSSM 200:

“No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion.” (http://www.population-security.org/28-APP2B.html#IV-B-1-a)

I can go on with this until this note reaches part nth. I will do whatever it takes to stop this bill from being passed and to honor life from conception. But I guess i would have to end it here, as I really do not want to bore you any further.

I was thinking of a particular quote to end this trilogy with a bang, but can’t think of any. In the end, I thought of quoting from the very first book of the bible, when God told man when He first created him, to “be fruitful and multiply.” It’s strange, but if overpopulation were true, God would have been been a very poor engineer not having the foresight that the world will become overpopulated one day. God gave us this command in order to RESPONSIBLY bear children that will be our joy and comfort when we grow old. Let us embrace life, my friends. It is good to be alive – let us share this with our children and our family.

P.S.

If the rest of the world is growing old, and with our migratory ways and low median age at 23, it isn’t far-fetched that the Filipinos will truly fill the earth and be great as a nation. This is our chance for greatness my friends!

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

A Summary of the Filipinos for Life talk in Greenbelt Chapel

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, December 3, 2011

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

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

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

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

Early this year, the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network (RHAN) received P4.4 million from the United Nations Population Fund to push for the passage of the RH bill before the end of 2011. Dr. Junice Melgar, RHAN secretary general, admitted that her group solicited the amount because it “has no ongoing funding.” 
Based on RHAN’s budget proposal, the amount was to be spent on activities such as “education and mobilization” program. One item worth P2,837,500 was to go to organize “two nationally coordinated (and) high-profile mobs.” 
The group scheduled the “peak” of its pro-RH rally for September and set aside P1,750,000 to organize a rally of “at least 5,000 people.” Each participant was supposed to receive P350

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

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


***

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


Documents bare millions of dollars in funding for RH lobbyists 
MANILA, Dec. 2, 2011–Pro-abortion groups have been showering “reproductive health” (RH) lobbyists with millions of dollars in funding for years to promote the Western agenda of contraception and population control, documents showed. 
Funders include Planned Parenthood and its international arm, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Marie Stopes International, the Packard Foundation, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. 
In a statement, the group Filipinos for Life (F4L) said the paper trail of multimillion-dollar lobby funds reveal the hand of foreign interest groups out to dictate what policy the Philippine government should follow. 
“Nearly a decade ago, lawmakers condemned the presence of the American lobby group AGILE in Congress. This time, however, the RH lobby is apparently succeeding, thanks to a formidable war chest from pro-abortion groups,” it said. 
Documents revealed the following financial grants for RH lobby groups: 
* $90,000 to the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network (RHAN) for promotion, from the UN Population Fund or UNFPA (2011);
* $6.6 million to Planned Parenthood arm Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP) from UNFPA (2009);
* $1.6 million to FPOP from IPPF for the years 2005, 2009, and 2010;
* $1.2 million to PSPI from Marie Stopes (2009);
* $39,000 to Likhaan from Planned Parenthood (2007);
* $88,000 to FPOP in 2009 from Marie Stopes for RH kits; and
* $75,000 to “Catholics” for Choice to promote RH, from the Wallace Global Fund (2009). 
This was aside from $6.8 million from the Packard Foundation for the years 2006-2008; $18.4 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation from 1997 to 2008; $8.86 million from the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2004 for a “social acceptance” project; and $239.5 million from the World Bank for 2010-2012.These amounts could have better been used for direct poverty alleviation programs, F4L said. 
F4L said pro-RH lobbyists cannot deny the overt abortion agenda of most of their financial backers, notably Planned Parenthood, the world’s largest abortion provider, and UNFPA, which has been condemned for its coercive abortion programs. 
“Abortion was not legalized in the US overnight. It started with the birth control movement founded by Margaret Sanger, which today is called Planned Parenthood,” F4L pointed out. 
Where are the millions going? 
Meanwhile, the Philippine Daily Inquirer today ran a story containing a more detailed breakdown of RHAN’s budget earmarked for a more aggressive push for RH. According to the article, the millions in pesos provided by the UNFPA were to be spent on “education and mobilization.” Based on the same document, nearly P3 million was allocated for “two nationally coordinated (and) high-profile mobs.” 
“The group scheduled the ‘peak’ of its pro-RH rally for September and set aside P1,750,000 to organize a rally of ‘at least 5,000 people.’ Each participant was supposed to receive P350,” the article further stated. 
F4L called on lawmakers to examine further the lobby groups behind the RH bill, saying interpellations should be exhausted to unmask the real intentions of those promoting it. 
“Pro-RH groups and Malacañang spokesmen are being irresponsible by calling for a vote and an abrupt end to debates,” the group said. (CBCP for Life)

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Dubious abortion statistics, courtesy of RH bill supporters

From Filipinos for Life:



AFTER BEING caught using old data on maternal deaths, pro-RH lobbyists have again been found playing loose with statistics, this time with the number of abortions.

The group Filipinos For Life (F4L), in a statement, welcomed Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s recent admission that the figure 570,000 abortions mentioned in her sponsorship speech for the Reproductive Health (RH) bill was merely an “extrapolation.”

“Fresh from their debacle on the debunked ‘11 maternal deaths a day’ statistic, pro-RH groups should now come clean on how they came up with their dubious abortion figures,” F4L said.

F4L bared that the methodology used by the pro-RH lobby involves a “magic multiplier,” the basis of which is “doubtful, at best” – small, non-random surveys and anecdotal evidence or “personal knowledge.”

“This is hardly empirical,” F4L said.

The methodology, developed by New York-based Guttmacher Institute and the UP Population Institute, simply multiplies the number of women hospitalized for complications due to abortion by 6 or 7, based on multiple assumptions that cannot be validated.

Santiago’s figure comes from the 2009 Guttmacher-UP study “Meeting Women’s Contraceptive Needs in the Philippines” that estimated 3.371 million pregnancies in 2008. Out of this, 17% (573,000) supposedly ended up in “induced abortions.”

There were 90,000 hospital admissions due to induced abortions in 2008, the study claimed, which meant that the multiplier used was between 6 and 7 to produce an inflated figure of 573,000 induced abortions.

‎The study’s authors themselves stated that “available information does not permit estimation of regional-level multipliers.” F4L asked: “Why was the non-empirically derived multiplier used to create a national guesstimate?”

F4L pointed out that Guttmacher-UP’s methodology did not change since an earlier study that used data for the year 2000, and no efforts were exerted to get more reliable counts.

In the older study “The Incidence of Induced Abortion in the Philippines: Current Level and Recent Trends,” published in 2005, Guttmacher-UP claimed 78,901 women were hospitalized due to abortion complications in the country in the year 2000. It inflated the figure to arrive at 473,408 induced abortions in 2000, using a multiplier of 6.

Even the hospital numbers are highly questionable, F4L said. For more than a thousand hospitals, the study simply assumed that the number of abortion-related hospitalizations would be one-half of the number of the top 10th cause of hospital admission, whatever it was.

For hospitals with incomplete records, the number of patients was simply adjusted to follow the proportions based on the number of months reported. “Mathematical equations, meanwhile, produced around 6,000 abortions in hospitals with no records at all,” F4L noted.

F4L said fudging data was the same tactic used by lobbyists to legalize abortion in the United States, pointing to the testimony of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) who later turned his back on the pro-choice movement and produced the anti-abortion documentary “The Silent Scream.”

“At NARAL, one of our favorite tactics was to distort and magnify statistics. We would say, for instance, that there were one million illegal abortions and that 10,000 women died in the United States [because of these illegal abortions], when actual studies would show something like 200,000 illegal abortions and only 200-300 died,” Nathanson said in a 2002 story published in a local magazine.

Monday, September 5, 2011

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

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

From Filipinos for Life:

September 4, 2011

Stop using outdated data to mislead lawmakers!

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

The August 24 news item cited by the pro-RH lobby clearly says: “F4L (Filipinos For Life) clarified that it does not downplay the problem of maternal deaths, stating that ‘it is a problem that needs concrete solutions, like more birthing centers and midwives. But we should guard against the excessive emotional use of the outdated statistic to influence Philippine government policy.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Friday, August 26, 2011

What forces are behind the RH bill? The public must know!

Posted today on CBCP for Life:


MANILA, August 26, 2011–A lawmaker interpellating the Senate sponsors of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill is on the right track by asking for the identities of the powerful lobbyists behind the controversial measure.

In a statement, Filipinos For Life (F4L) agreed with Sen. Vicente Sotto III on the need to unmask the foreign hand behind the RH bill.

Sotto had pointed out that one of the bill’s proponents, the Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP), is a member of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the worldwide organization founded by known eugenicist Margaret Sanger.

F4L took exception to a statement by former partylist lawmaker Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel that “Only 3% of IPPF’s services worldwide are abortion-related.”

“That may be IPPF’s spin on its public identity, but the truth is Planned Parenthood is the largest single provider of abortions in the US,” said F4L.

“IPPF is a pro-choice organization. In the US, pro-choice is synonymous with pro-abortion.”

A check on the Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s website shows the group openly offers abortion services.

“Thinking about abortion? Find a health center,” the website states.

“There are two kinds of abortion in the U.S. — in-clinic abortion and the abortion pill. Abortions are very common. In fact, more than 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old,” the website states.

F4L noted that a vocal supporter of the RH bill, with a long history of interfering in the national policies of different countries, is the Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights (WGNRR).

On its website, WGNRR says it “places a particular focus on access to safe and legal abortion, access to contraceptives, sexual rights and the special unmet demands of young people.”

“Lawmakers should be wary of the language used in the RH bill. In international usage, the term ‘reproductive rights,’ as well as ‘reproductive health’ as publicly stated by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, includes access to abortion,” F4L added. (CBCP for Life)

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Filipinos for Life in defense of Senator Tito Sotto (and more on the maternal deaths issue)

Posted on 24 August 2011

FILIPINOS FOR LIFE OFFICIAL STATEMENT:

Akbayan’s tirade vs. Sotto unfair, out of context, narrow-minded

FILIPINOS FOR LIFE (F4L) strongly condemns Akbayan Citizens’ Action Party for unfairly and maliciously accusing Senator Tito Sotto of ignoring the plight of women.

The statement by Akbayan’s youth leader is at best narrow-minded and out of context.

Sotto was merely questioning the basis of the oft-repeated statistic of 11 maternal deaths a day, in the context of a legislative debate on a bill that seeks to establish a wide-ranging national policy. It is therefore fair to examine the basis of this bill. THERE IS NOTHING TO APOLOGIZE FOR.

In the first place, there was no derogatory statement on women, and the sarcasm, if at all, is directed at foreign lobby groups, some of them pro-abortion, that routinely peddle this statistic. The supposed offense is in the creative, nay, malicious imagination of Akbayan’s propagandists.

Based on our own estimates, the correct figure is 4.8 maternal deaths a day, based on 2008 data from the National Statistics Office and the National Statistical Coordination Board. This assumes a maternal mortality ratio (MMR) of 99 per 100,000 live births and 1.784 million live births in 2008. Assuming a high MMR of 169 per 100,000 live births, the figure is 8.3.

We do not downplay the problem of maternal deaths. Indeed, it is a problem that needs concrete solutions, like more birthing centers and midwives. But we should guard against the excessive emotional use of the outdated statistic to influence Philippine government policy.

If Akbayan is really pro-women, it should tell its women constituents that contraceptive pills that would be distributed for free under the RH bill are considered by a WHO agency as a Level 1 carcinogen. Pills, according to reputable literature produced by entities such as the US National Cancer Institute and the Mayo Clinic increase the risk of breast and other cancers.

If Akbayan really is pro-women, it should tell mothers that the pills it wants them to ingest daily could expel a fertilized ovum, which is already a human being. It should inform women that pills don’t always prevent ovulation. In case the pills do not prevent ovulation and fertilization occurs, the pills have been proven to create an environment that is hostile to the beginning of life. Akbayan’s lawmakers should be reminded of what the Constitution says about the protection of the unborn.

Likewise, may we remind former Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel to elevate the level of the debate on RH. Her repeated references in social networks to an incident decades ago involving a dead movie starlet are uncalled for and below the belt.
###
Contact: Anthony Perez (f4vita@gmail.com)

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Another response to Angsioco on the rights of the unborn

By "TruthSayer" of Filipinos for Life

Unborn vs. Mother. That’s the title of Ms. Elizabeth Angsioco’s latest opinion piece. Given that the RH bill makes no mention of protecting the unborn, and in fact when talking about “post-abortion complications” totally ignores the existence of the aborted, it is rather interesting that Ms. Angsioco views these bills as pitting unborn vs. mother.

It is an issue raised by those who choose to take the perspective that protecting one incontrovertibly means apathy towards the other. For pro-lifers everywhere, nothing could be farther from the truth. For us who defend life, mother and child are always equally important and worthy of protection. That this notion of unborn vs. mother even enters the discussion is a clear indication of just how far the pro-choice agenda has taken us. We are now debating whether an unborn child is human or not. Even Fr. Bernas tells us that our constitution provides for EQUAL protection of both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn FROM CONCEPTION. Since when, in the history of the Philippines, have we as Filipinos ever doubted the reality of human life in the womb? If the unborn isn’t human, what is it? And if the unborn doesn’t have rights, how does any one of us have rights?

CONTINUE READING HERE