Metro Manila is not the Philippines, and MM's overcrowding does not make the Philippines overcrowded too

From the Letters to the Editor section of the PDI:

MM overcrowded but PH not overpopulated

Philippine Daily Inquirer

Monday, August 13th, 2012

“We are not poor because we are plenty; rather we are plenty because we are poor.”

Women do not beget children on their own. So it is unfortunate that throughout the raging controversy over the Reproductive Health bill, no one seems to be paying attention to Filipino men, especially the poor. Virtually all arguments from both sides seem to focus on the protection of women and children alone. But we must get to the root of the problem. Why do husbands continue to force themselves on their wives despite their inability to support large families?

Based on experience from working with the poor, it is due to our individual and collective greed and lust. Our poor menfolk, whom nature designed to be providers for their families, lose their sense of dignity and turn “predatory” when they are jobless or woefully underpaid. Their depressed condition is exacerbated by the vulgarization of sexuality in all forms of mass media.

The RH bill is therefore not a real and lasting solution because it only addresses the symptom of overpopulation among the poor. The end does not justify the means, especially if it is harmful and immoral. Rather, the true and real solution is to promote morality, specifically the virtues of charity and chastity, the values of caring and sharing to overcome greed, and the values of purity and modesty to overcome lust. The late US President Ronald Reagan said it so eloquently, “Economic growth is the best contraceptive.” Metro Manila is overcrowded, but the Philippines is not overpopulated. This is only because we have failed dismally to develop our agricultural sector and provinces, which could have sustained rural families instead of driving them to become illegal settlers in Metro Manila. They are not poor because they are plenty; rather they are plenty because they are poor. Make our poor rich and they will have less time and energy for irresponsible parenthood. Then our rich will only become wealthier because better-paid workers are more productive workers, and they are also more affluent consumers who possess higher purchasing power to buy products and services sold by the rich.

No to Reproductive Health. Yes to Reproductive Wealth, where wealth begets more wealth because the rich help the poor and the poor help themselves through various forms of profit-sharing—not forcible land reform or mandatory wages. Workers who are part-owners will drive revenues, cut costs and conserve cash on their own. And how can we acquire the virtues of charity and chastity? Through personal discipline and self-control (not birth control), and most of all through prayer and sacrifice, because the virtues of charity and generosity, chastity and self-control are fruits of God the Holy Spirit.

Of course, all this must start with the nation’s top leadership. Enough of self-centered leadership. We demand God-centered leadership because we deserve God-centered leadership. Nothing more. Nothing less. P-Noy says “Kayo ang boss ko,” but let us remind him, “ngunit ang Diyos ang boss nating lahat!”

—WILLY ARCILLA,

willyarcilla@yahoo.com

Finding new life unwelcome: a false understanding of responsible parenthood

Defeatist attitude evident in Sona line on parenthood bill

Philippine Daily Inquirer

July 31st, 2012

On the front page of the Inquirer’s July 24 issue, a news article quoted President Aquino as saying: “We are ending the backlogs in the education sector, but the potential for shortages remains as our student population continues to increase…. Perhaps the responsible parenthood bill can help address this.”

As I read this, the implication I deduced was that our student population must stop increasing and that the Responsible Parenthood bill can help stop this increase. Moreover, I gathered from the story that our lawmakers rapturously supported the suggestion.

I felt sad upon reading this news item. Which reflects a culture foreign to ours: one that finds new life unwelcome. Such attitude is the forerunner of the culture of death that overpowered the old world which seems unable to escape its grip. It is also the attitude of the defeated. This is so ironic. The President said, “Last year, I challenged you to fully turn your back on the culture of negativism; to take every chance to uplift your fellow Filipinos. From what we are experiencing today, it is clear: You succeeded.” And yet here are his legislators clapping their hands to show approval of the idea that we cannot educate an increasing population. They are showing defeat even before we have really fought the battle.

The Responsible Parenthood bill in its present form promotes contraception and not responsible parenthood. It is antilife. The term as used in the bill is a misnomer. Responsible parenthood as taught by Pope Paul VI means generously bringing into this world as many children that the parents are able to support and educate. And should they have good reasons not to have them for the time being or for always, then natural family planning is the option which essentially means discipline and respect of the spouses for each other, both of which are also signs of spousal love.

If the Responsible Parenthood bill espouses the original idea of responsible parenthood as taught by Paul VI, then it will be a bill worth supporting.

—FR. CECILIO L. MAGSINO

For the record: Bishop Broderick Pabillo et al in defense of the Church's position towards HIV-AIDS and HIV-AIDS victime

In recent days a variety of articles have appeared in the Philippine media, blaming the Catholic Church for the spread of AIDS! Why? Because, according to these reports, the Church condemns the use of condoms, and thus it can be assumed that this condemnation is obeyed by men who have sexual relations with other men! A patently illogical criticism, as practicing homosexuals are evidently not obeying the Catholic Church in the first place. 

Vital facts overlooked in editorial

Philippine Daily Inquirer

Monday, July 23rd, 2012

This refers to “Overlooked epidemic” (Inquirer, 7/8/12) on the rising number of HIV/AIDS cases in the Philippines. Surprisingly, the editorial failed to focus on where the disease actually is and those most at risk. Without focus, we end up just shooting in the dark. The Church also becomes victim of the haphazard criticism that it “has not been of much help, with its continued opposition to the use of condoms.” This statement overlooks vital facts.

Worldwide, the Catholic Church provides over 25 percent of all health care for those living with HIV/AIDS. In the Philippines, the Catholic bishops have shown concern on the issue as far back as 1993 with its pastoral letter “In the Compassion of Jesus” and “Who is my Neighbor?” in 2011. The Philippine Catholic HIV & AIDS Network (PhilCHAN), under the guidance of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, is engaged in a values-based prevention campaign in schools and parishes; actively promotes voluntary counseling and HIV testing for early diagnosis and treatment, as well as behavior change; provides psycho-spiritual accompaniment to those newly diagnosed with the virus, and has set up a modest fund for livelihood support. The Church is at the frontline of the battle against AIDS, helping—and supported by many NGOs—in government efforts to combat this deadly disease. It may thus be unfair, even a sign of ignorance or prejudice, to claim that the Church has not been of much help.

On condoms, well, it does not support the widespread distribution of condoms because there is no evidence that the strategy is effective at a population-wide level. Dr. Edward Green, former director of the prestigious AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard University, wrote that scientific studies in the Lancet, Science and British Medical Journal confirmed that “condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa.” This can be explained by inconsistent condom use and by the phenomenon of “risk compensation” whereby an individual who thinks he is protected actually takes more risks.

The editorial surprisingly also overlooks the group most at risk of HIV, the so-called MSM, males who have sex with other males. Eighty-five percent of the new cases of HIV in the Philippines this year involve MSM. If we want to target the epidemic, we need to target the most at risk groups. The USAID report from 2001, clearly stated that “the Church is not a hindrance to the high-risk groups…. where the rise in HIV is happening…. Those men probably do not have hesitations about condoms because of their Catholic faith.” It would thus be ludicrous and rather short-sighted to blame the spread of HIV in the MSM group on the Church.

Those who blandly promote condom use as a magic panacea for the MSM group are doing our brothers a great disservice and an injustice.

—BISHOP BRODERICK S. PABILLO, bishop-advisor and CBCP-NASSA national director; DR. JAMES MCTAVISH, FMVD, MD, FRCSed, MA(Bioethics), STL; SR. PILAR VERZOSA, RGS;

JOSEPHINE IGNACIO

Catholics do have brains, Ms. Evangelista.

For the record:

Catholic faithful an intelligent lot

Philippine Daily Inquirer

July 6th, 2012

This is in reaction to Patricia Evangelista’s column titled “Contraceptive morality” (Inquirer, 6/24/12).

There is definitely a Christian and Catholic stand on the issue of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill. The faithful are a thinking, intelligent lot; and, above all, they realize the inherent dignity of man, each of whom is unique in his own way.

Tampering with a wonderfully made body of a woman—through the use of contraceptives to avoid getting pregnant, which is not a disease—is unethical. The integrity of her body deserves respect. Her reproductive organ is made for a good purpose. In line with chastity, only within marriage can the conjugal act be performed. And marriage is the total, permanent, unconditional self-giving of a man and a woman. Sacrifice, through abstinence or the use of natural methods like the Billings method, may be used to space childbirths, for serious reasons. Such sacrifice further enhances the love between a husband and his wife.

It is sad to note that the women-senators are aggressively endorsing the bill. These women were voted into office to take care of the wellbeing of Filipino women. And yet they aggressively seek passage of the RH bill that promotes the use of contraceptives that have been scientifically proven to be abortifacient and to cause cancer in women. What a disservice to womanhood. The senators are duty-bound to uphold the mandate they were sworn to perform.

—CHING D. AUNARIO,

chingauna@yahoo.com

The duty of women senators to fight the RH Bill

A letter to the editor published by Philippine Daily Inquirer on October 12, 2011:

Safest place for babies to become most dangerous

This refers to the news item titled “RH backers warn of Senate plot to derail bill” (Inquirer, 9/25/11), which reported on the views of RH supporters, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, author and principal sponsor of the RH bill, and Sen. Pia Cayetano, co-sponsor and chair of the Senate committee on women, children and the family.

It is sad to note that these women-senators themselves are rooting for the bill. They are mothers themselves who know the uncontainable joy of bringing forth a baby into the world! And yet now they want to disregard this and deprive others of the wonderful experience of beholding and cuddling a baby in their arms?

The mother’s womb is the safest place for a baby to live but now, with the women senators and congresswomen eagerly working to pass the RH bill, alas, it will become the most dangerous place for a baby. This is a gross disservice to women, children and the family whom these women-senators and congresswomen have vowed to protect.

These recent findings should be wake-up calls for Filipinos: A recent study of the University of Washington in 181 countries disclosed that maternal mortality rate in the Philippines had dropped by 81 percent from 1980 to 2008. Moreover, the World Health Organization has confirmed anew that oral contraceptives can directly cause cancer.

Our women senators and congresswomen are duty-bound to take the lead in protecting women, children and the family.

—CHING D. AUNARIO

MA. CIEFREL TUBALE, LICHELLE SALENDREZ, MARIA ANA PAULE, CAROL DAVID, MICHELLE EVANGELISTA, JESS HUTALLA, JOYCE DOFELIZ, ELENA MAULLON

Filipinos have dignity and moral values!

A letter to the Philippine Daily Inquirer:

Senator underestimates sensitivity of Filipinos

On TV news last Nov. 25, our very assertive senator dished out sex like she were giving out lollipops to little kids. In that one minute or so coverage, her message must have sunk deep into the nation’s viewing audience.

What was very alarming was her sweeping statement that if you do not like sex, you’ve got to see a doctor because you are abnormal. What for? Because of a brain damage or something? Isn’t she aware that there are many people who opt out of sex for higher dimensions of spirituality? Surely priests and nuns, bishops and cardinals and, above all, the pope are not abnormal people, considering the responsibilities they are holding.

By endorsing a piece of legislation like the RH bill, this senator was expected by the people to do a candid but dignified handling of the topic because controversy over this issue has been raging for months. But no, she seemed to be taking it lightly, somewhat jokingly without regard to the repercussions of her pronouncements.

And to think that it was a lady-senator who could have been our president telling university students to buy condoms if they could no longer suppress their sexual urges. It sounds like she was encouraging the indiscriminate use of condoms. No, madam senator, not that easy, not that fast. You have to be married first and, in a Christian society, we follow rules. Rules that preserve life, and rules that do not kill.

You have overlooked the fact that Filipinos have dignity and moral values. They don’t copulate like dogs by the roadside to satisfy a sexual urge. You underestimate the sensitivity of Filipino society. Please do not bark this way or the big bone will fall from your mouth.

—ESPERANZA M. SAGRA,

retired principal,

Surallah, South Cotabato

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

Once more with feeling: Yes, there are abortifacient contraceptives!

The following letter was written in 2008 in the context of the RH Bill debates at the time, but remains relevant and accurate.

Why pills, injectables, IUDs are abortifacient

Philippine Daily Inquirer

First Posted 01:25:00 08/26/2008

We are a group of friends, all pro-lifers. Some of us are private medical practitioners—all faceless supporters of the stand of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) against artificial contraception. We would like to express our support to the CBCP not by starting another debate but by enlightening readers and, we hope, our legislators as well, regarding this hot topic, from a theoretical standpoint.

Oral contraceptives (more commonly known as pills), hormonal injectables and Intra-Uterine Devices (IUDs) are all artificial contraceptives. Unfortunately, most people are not aware that they are, indeed, abortifacient. A review of the various literatures on these contraceptives will show that each of them has an efficacy rate that is less than 100 percent because fertilization (the meeting of egg cell and sperm cell, which leads to the conceptus) is not absolutely prevented.

For instance, the IUD does not prevent ovulation and so fertilization may occur several times in the span of time the device is in the womb of the woman. However, most of the fetuses will not be able to implant themselves because there is an “appliance” in the womb that prevents them from doing so. This is why the IUD is abortifacient.

In the case of the pill, ovulation and fertilization can still occur and we have seen this in our practice. We have seen patients with abnormal bleeding and positive pregnancy tests despite their taking the pill, which proves that fertilization had indeed occurred. Unfortunately, the pill—whether oral, patch or injectable—renders the uterus hostile to implantation. And this is what makes it abortifacient.

Some people pushing for this reproductive health bill may even want to define that life begins at implantation. But even if we all go back to our Biology in high school, life truly begins at fertilization. Catholic or not, should we not all protect life from the beginning to its very end?

VIRGINIA G. MANZO, M.D., CAROL SANCHEZ, NINA REYES, P. ALVIA, ROSE A. DOMINGUEZ, IRENE B. OCAMPO and 4 other signatories

The RH bill: a divisive, unnecessary and distracting cause.

Issue is not the RH Bill but good governance

Philippine Daily Inquirer

7:28 pm | Tuesday, May 24th, 2011

THROUGH THE years, the Philippine Daily Inquirer has admirably chronicled the highs and lows of our country, as well as the successes and travails of our fellow Filipinos. Its frank account of the latest news (seen through the eyes of a Filipino), and the incisive opinions of its columnists helped shape the opinion of our policy-makers and of the public itself. Indeed, I for one admit that I look forward to grabbing my copy of PDI every morning, half-expecting a new controversy to wail about, or some trivial news to lighten my day. There is some good-natured, naughty aptness to the moniker attached to PDI by readers as The Philippine Daily Intriguer. I do my best to read up on the latest opinions of Solita Monsod, retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and former UP College of Law dean Raul Pangalangan, among others. It is difficult to imagine a weekday without PDI.

Lately, PDI has been more and more vocal about the public’s frustration with corruption, anomalies and injustice. Our awareness has been the keener for that. PDI must speak out by all means because unless it does, we Filipinos will forget, ignore and neglect democratic governance in this country. Pity a populace that gropes for the truth, that labored under past governments that cared little for its welfare, that has been deceived by its leaders for too long.

I sincerely hope for an end to the self-pity to which our people have been accustomed. We cannot complain and wail endlessly, surely, without hoping that our government will wage a war for good governance. It makes little sense for our leaders to express vexation or disappointment at the recent turn of events, or find endless justifications for the present state of governance. This is precisely why the present administration should reconsider its view that anti-corruption and governance laws are already in place, and as such, there is no need to enact new laws addressing the two maladies.

The inconvenient truth is that the same laws have allowed public officials and bureaucrats to evade responsibility or go scot-free to the embarrassment of our nation. The same laws continue to provide the basis for bureaucrats to protect and favor certain vested interests with impunity. The same laws, in other words, have failed to promote transparent and accountable government since time immemorial.

If good governance was the battle cry in the last elections, let that be the focus of the government’s energies in the coming years. That is why all the attention on the so-called Reproductive Health (RH) Bill, among others, is counterproductive. The RH Bill should not be an issue that this government should be dying for. The fight for good governance is the one big issue we—government, citizens, the private sector and civil society—should all be discussing in public forums. Rather than divide us, it will certainly unite us as no other issue has been able to do.

I just hope that PDI is with me on this.

—ROMEO C. SANTOS,

rrcs_law@yahoo.com

"We do not need to 'create' rights that forsake our health"

Letter to the Philippine Daily Inquirer by Prof. Sherla Najera

RH Bill about rights, not health

Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 05:18:00 11/15/2010

WE ARE interested in our rights. We are all interested in our health. Reproductive health is about rights. The explanatory note of House Bill 96 titled “An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development, and for other purposes” describes the bill as “rights-based.” Reproductive health originated from the term “reproductive rights,” a phrase designed by some women of the International Conference of Women in Beijing in September 1995, and defined as the right of women over their reproductive system. This was used to protect the women from the “slavery and anguish” of pregnancy and child-bearing. This principle upholds that women have the right to prevent or terminate their pregnancy (or abort their baby) in any way they want. In other words, women have a right to have sex and abandon its consequence, to engage in sexual activity without obligation. Indeed, birth control is, as GK Chesterton wittingly put it, “less birth, no control.”

After eating and drinking, one urinates or defecates to remove organic wastes that are toxic for the body. Sex is not like that. The male semen and female ova are not “wastes.” From them, human life is formed. What the RH bill does is to redefine sex and make Filipinos believe that regulating the sexual drive is impossible, that we need to pour out billions to produce condoms, IUDs, injectables, etc. to protect us from our unruly sexual drives.

HB 96 proposes to institutionalize the access and use of artificial methods (see Sec. 7 of the RH bill on PhilHealth use) which it labels as “essential medicines” (Sec. 9).

I have been doing social work for several years. I have experienced consoling a mother who availed of Depo-Provera (medroxyprogesterone acetate) and suffered numbness and swollen thighs. Another lady experienced dizziness and a feeling of fatigue. Still another mother died of IUD (Intra-Uterine Device) infection and severe bleeding. Some other mothers taking hormonal pills complained of nausea, blood spotting and dim eyesight. Are these what the RH bill proponents call essential medicines? Yes, RH bill is about “rights,” but not about health.

We do not need to create “rights” that forsake our health. As humans, we have inherent rights. Unfortunately, HB 96 does not uphold the universal human right to live. This explains why various individuals, from both religious and secular sectors, institutions and communities question the RH bill, a bill that diverts people’s money to means that destroy the woman’s body and corrupt human sexuality.

—PROF. SHERLA NAJERA,

University of the Philippines,

Diliman, Quezon City

manajera@up.edu.ph