Sen. Tito Sotto III explains his vote versus the RH bill (December 17, 2012)

From the Facebook page of Senator Tito Sotto:

EXPLANATION OF VOTE OF SENATOR SOTTO 

Marami pong gumugulo sa kaisipan ko sa ngayon. Pabayaan po ninyong kahit papaano, isa-isa ay mailabas ko iyong mga tumatakbo sa kaisipan ko sa tinatalakay nating panukalang-batas. 

Lumalabas po ngayon, ang gobyerno natin, dahil dito sa RH bill na ito, sunud-sunoran sa mga international organizations. Kakuntsaba pa iyong mga ibang developed countries. Ang hangad lamang nila, pigilan ang pag-asenso at paglawak ng impluwensiya ng third world countries katulad ng ating bansa sa pamamagitan ng pagbabawas ng populasyon natin.

Kung ano pa iyong batas na lubhang humahati sa ating bansa ay siya pa iyong pinaapura ng Malacañang, imbes na inuna sana iyong mga katulad ng hinihingi ng karamihan ng mga kababayan natin na wala namang kumukontra sa atin. Hindi ko maunawaan kung bakit pahihintulutan ng ating Pangulo ang pagkakawatak-watak ng ating bansa para sa isang panukalang-batas na hindi naman tutugon sa suliranin talaga ng ating bansa. Kawawa naman ang Pilipinas. Kung nabubuhay lamang po ang ating yumaong mahal na Pangulong Presidente "Cory" Aquino, ni hindi naka-first base itong batas na ito. 

Ang kailangan natin ay batas na naaayon sa ating natatanging kultura. Mali namang sumunod tayo sa tema ng mga panukala ng ating mga karatig bansa kung salungat naman ito sa ating kinaugalian at paniniwala bilang isang bansang nagpapahalaga sa responsableng pagpapamilya na nakapaloob sa sagradong institution ng kasal. 

To top it all, Mr. President, magsasayang pa tayo ng bilyun-bilyong piso dito sa pagpapatupad ng batas na sisira lamang sa pagkakabuklud-buklod ng ating bansa. Pero isa lamang po ang masasabi ko, pagbutihin sana nila dahil tututukan natin ito. Pirmahan man ng Presidente ito, babantayan natin. Lahat ng--mayroon po akong record dito sa Senado. Mula noong 1992, noong natuntong ako dito hanggang sa ngayon, may mga tatlo hanggang apat na batas ang binutohan ko ng no. Lahat iyong tatlo, apat na iyon, pinagsisihan lahat. 

Una iyong GATT/WTO. Ang daming gumagapang sa akin noon, hindi po ako nagpatinag, binutohan ko ng no dahil alam kong masama sa mga magsasaka. Ano ngayon? Pinagsisisihan nating lahat. Bumuto ako ng no sa EPIRA, tumaas lahat ang kuryente natin. Hindi ba pinagsisisihan din? Ngayon gusto i-repeal. Nilabanan ko rin po iyong Oil Deregulation Law; ngayon gustong ibalik. 

Ito ho, ganoung-ganoon ang pakiramdam ko rito. Malamang pagsisihan po natin ito. Ang malungkot pa, isang parte, ultimo ang ating mga kasama rito, even our colleagues were made to believe the marketing strategy being used by these groups, these organizations from abroad. Iyong pinangangalandakan nilang 11 mothers a day, ultimo sa Uganda, iyon din ang gamit nila, 11 mothers die a day. Hiningan namin ng dokumento, ang Committee nanghingi ng dokumento, walang naibigay sa Committee hanggang ngayon. Ngayon, ang ginawa namin, kami mismo ang nag-research, hindi po ba, binasa ko dito noon iyon. 

Doon sa 2011 na lamang dahil everyday sabi nila mayroong 11 namamatay. Nueva Vizcaya Provincial Hospital, ang namatay dalawa sa loob ng 2011, buong taon. Sa Pangasinan Provincial Hospital ang namatay apat lamang. Sa Batangas Regional Hospital, out of 2,584 births, ang namatay pito. Sa Cavite Naval Hospital, wala. O, hindi ba marketing strategy iyong 11 mothers a day para mapaniwala iyong ating mga kababaihan? Nakakalungkot po talaga. Isipin natin na maraming lugar sa bansa na, lalu na sa Metro Manila, ipinagbabawal na iyong paggamit ng plastik, akalain ninyong isabatas natin iyong condom? [Laughter] Hindi ko maintindihan. Masyado silang marurunong. 

Upon our election as senators of this Republic, my term started in 2010, we took an oath before performing our functions. An oath is a promise to God, we promised among others, to support and defend the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. We promised to support and defend the whole 1987 Constitution, not just the parts we agree to, the parts the suit our temperament, the parts that were convenient. It was a promise that did not have any qualifications. And because we promised to defend the whole Constitution, we must preserve and protect every part thereof. That is only logical and reasonable. Otherwise, we should not have promised if we did not intend to fulfill the import of our promise. Constitutional provisions, binanggit na po natin lahat lagi iyan.

What is left for us? May Almighty God understand this nation after this vote and forgive us if we do not keep our promise. I vote no to the RH bill, I have kept my promise. And if we approve this measure, may I ask God the Father to forgive us for we do not know what we are doing. 

Thank you, Mr. President.

So, who is preventing maternal health from improving in this country?

Blame the unborn!

English translation:

I'm the one who's seen
I'm the one who gets blamed
I'm always the one at fault

I am not an illness.
Pregnancy is not an illness.
NO to the RH bill!

The first three lines come from a song that is very well known in the Philippines.

Congressman Roilo Golez on RH, Maternal Deaths and Child Labor

Update 4/7/12: this press release has been picked up by Sun Star Manila: RH 'not a magic wand' vs child labor, maternal deaths

(For background, see this: Lawmakers attribute rise in child labor to lack of RH law)

From Congressman Roilo Golez:

Press Statement on RH and Child Labor, UNFPA, Maternal Mortality and HIV

The pro RH group is blaming the lack of an RH law on the child labor problem in the Philippines. They claim that with an RH law, the child labor problem will disappear. 

What they don't disclose is that child labor is a major problem worldwide, including in countries with strong RH and abortion laws especially in China, the model for RH of many RH advocates in the Philippines.

In their latest available report, the International Labor Organization (ILO) estimates that "around the world, about 250 million children between the ages of five and fourteen work. Of these 250 million children, 120 million of them work full time, with 61% of them working in Asia, 32% in Africa, and 7% in Latin America . In Asia, with China being a leader in the manufacturing business, it's no surprise that they would house 61% of the 120 million full time child laborers. An article by Ching-Ching Ni of the Los Angeles Times describes how the Chinese government forbids child workers under the age of sixteen, but it is also states that this law isn't enforced very well. It's estimated that as many as 10 million children are working in China 's factories, contributing their part to keep China a low-cost manufacturing powerhouse. The employers of child laborers make as much as they can, for as little as they can, as if a life of a child is considered “little” at all." 

After decades of pro- RH, and one-child policy backed by a strong pro-abortion program and more than ten years of 10% economic growth, China still has more than ten million child workers. With that record in China, how can the pro-RH group call the RH bill a magic wand against child labor?

The pro RH group keeps on quoting reports from the UNFPA which is headed by Executive Director Babatunde Osotimehin who is from Nigeria. Mr. Babatunde was a recent visitor to the Philippines and he lectured us on the "merits" of RH such as maternal mortality and HIV. The UNFPA office in the Philippines is also headed by a Nigerian, Madam Ugochi Florence Daniels and she is one of those vigorously promoting the RH Bill in the Philippines.

Nigeria has a strong RH program.

But how can said UNFPA officials lecture us on RH when Nigeria has a dire record on child labor, maternal mortality and HIV?

Nigeria has a population of around 170 million compared to our 95 million, but per latest United Nations Children Funds (UNICEF) report on Child Labour, Nigeria has "a staggering 15 million children under the age of 14 were working across Nigeria and that many were exposed to long hours of work in dangerous and unhealthy environments. These children, according to the report carried too much responsibility for their age." 

On Maternal Mortality, Nigeria is a very high number 9 in the world while the Philippines 

is a very low no. 76, yet the pro RH group idolizes the UNFPA head who is from Nigeria. 

On HIV, Nigeria has more than 2,000,000 cases, one of the highest in the world while the Philippines is among the lowest. 

Yet, the RH group is listening to the UNFPA executive director and the UNFPA country head for the Philippines, both of whom are from Nigeria where child labor, maternal mortality and HIV rates are severely high and among the highest in the world. RH in Nigeria is apparently a big failure in the fight against child labor, maternal mortality and HIV.

Federico Pascual: why blame the innocent for maternal deaths?

From Federico Pascual's column in the Philippine Star for September 11, 2011:

BIRTH CONTROL: My interest in the Reproductive Health debate has been waning, but I was pumped with adrenalin when no less than Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, with Sen. Vicente Sotto not far behind, stood to oppose passage of birth control measures.

Sponsors of RH bills lose points as they lose their cool when replying to searching questions on the abortive effects of birth control pills that the RH bill wants to propagate to unwitting users at great cost to taxpayers.

Maternal deaths and poverty cannot justify killing a helpless fertilized ovum (already a human being as recognized by the Constitution no less) desperately trying to cling for life in the womb’s lining made inhospitable by abortifacient pills.

If a mother could die in childbirth — a possibility even in normal cases — why blame in advance an innocent fetus and execute it?

Why blame the unborn (that did not ask to be produced in the first place) if his family is poor because of government failure to provide opportunities for jobs, education, health care and the decent amenities of normal life?

* * *

MALDISTRIBUTION: Some people drive by a squatter area and see grimy kids in the streets. They conclude that there are just too many of us and that still unborn Filipinos should not be allowed to come into the world.

The problem is actually mainly of population distribution. The population density shows that there is still ample room and resources for more people.

The problem is traceable to the government’s failure to create and spread opportunities and services so people do not flock to urban centers on the mistaken notion that only the cities can provide for life’s necessities.

Taking the line of least resistance, or because it does not know any better, the Aquino administration goes along with the multibillion-peso lobby and pushes the RH bills — in an immoral and criminal bid to kill unborn Filipinos fidgeting in their mothers’ wombs.

* * *

FALSE CLAIMS: Proponents of the RH bill claim that our population growth rate will increase exponentially without a birth control law.

This is simply not true. Data of the government itself show that the projected average annual population growth rate actually has been declining even without an RH law.

Based on the trend as analyzed in 2007 by the National Statistics Office, the growth rate was and is projected to be 1.81 percent from 2010 to 2015, 1.64 percent from 2015 to 2020, and 1.46 percent for 2020 to 2025.

The same NSO study debunks the other claim that the average Filipino household size is 10 or more and will increase without an RH law.

Data show that the average household size has been declining even without an RH law. The household size in 2007 was 4.8 persons, lower than the average household size of 5.0 persons in 2000. The National Capital Region had the lowest average household size of 4.4 persons.

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:

OFFICIAL STATEMENT: Stop Using Outdated Data to Mislead Lawmakers!

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. 

The RH bill is NOT necessary to the campaign to lower maternal deaths

This article is the study referenced in the GMA News article US study: From 1980-2008, PHL maternal deaths dropped by 81%.

Philippines Sees Maternal Mortality Decline Without Abortion

Steven Ertelt, Life News

While some backers of the RH bill in the Philippines say it is needed to reduce maternal mortality, studies show the nation that has experienced success in dropping its maternal mortality rates without resorting to legalizing abortion.

Researchers from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation of the University of Washington in Seattle examined maternal mortality rates in 181 countries and found the rate (the number of women’s deaths per 100,000) dropped by 81 percent in the Philippines between 1980 and 2008. The decrease comes as the largely Catholic nation has resister efforts to legalize abortions, even though the United Nations and pro-abortion groups claim women will supposedly die in illegal abortions and increase the maternal mortality rate if abortion is prohibited.

The 2010 study, published in Lancet, shows the Philippines outpaced first-world nations like Germany, Russia and Israel — where abortions are legal — in cutting maternal mortality rates.

Meanwhile, the National Statistical Coordination Board in the Philippines, according to Spero Forum, has shown the same results. From 1990-2010, the daily maternal mortality rate dropped 21 percent, its figures indicated. The World Health Organization also found that the Filipino maternal mortality rate dropped 48 percent from 1990 to 2008.

Spero indicates abortion backers have relied on a 2004 study from the World Health Organization and UNICEF to make the claim that a short-term increase in maternal mortality in the Philippines meant abortions should be legalized, but the study also includes an important disclaimer: “The margins of uncertainty associated with the estimated MMRs are very large, and the estimates should not, therefore, be used to monitor trends in the short term. In addition, cross country comparisons should be treated with considerable circumspection because different strategies have been used to derive the estimates for different countries, making it difficult to draw comparisons.”

The various new reports on the Philippines make it clear that the rates have dropped long-term.

Last month, a study released by Human Rights Watch, entitled “Stop Making Excuses: Accountability for Maternal Health Care in South Africa,” highlights nearly the same notion. Human Rights Watch is confirming what we have long known: Good quality health care, and not abortion, is what will decrease maternal mortality rates for the populace. The Human Rights Watch 66-page report details situations in which pregnant women were actually abused by the very medical staff from which they sought help.

“When government officials and health care advocates spend their days pushing abortion on women, you are going to get more abortions,” said MCCL GO Executive Director Scott Fischbach. “If they change focus and push quality health care, women and babies can live. It’s pretty simple.”

The Lancet study also found maternal morality numbers are declining worldwide even though more nations around the world are not legalizing abortions. The Lancet reports 526,300 maternal deaths worldwide in 1980 and 342,900 deaths in 2008, a reduction of 35 percent. A total of 60,000 of the 2008 deaths were pregnant women in eastern Africa who died from AIDS, not any pregnancy complications.

Ireland, a country with pro-life laws in place, has the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world, and Nepal, a country with abortion on demand, has one of the highest maternal mortality rates at 830 deaths per 100,000 live births. According to the study, maternal mortality increased in the United States by 42 percent from 1980 to 2008. Abortion was legal in the U.S. throughout all nine months of pregnancy during this 28-year period.

Is there a sinister motive behind the RH bill?

Dubious means
By Jose C. Sison

Questionable indeed are the styles used in pushing for the passage of the RH bill. Right now, the glaring ones are the apparent lack of transparency or attempts to conceal or misrepresent its real nature and purpose, and the use of incorrect and outdated statistics.

It is really quite ominous that up to now, there is still a lack of transparency about the bill’s real purpose. Its authors and backers still would not admit categorically that it is designed to impose on our country the population control policy of developed countries, particularly the USA as bared in the declassified National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200, or the 1974 Kissinger Report which is currently implemented by a foreign assistance program dubbed as the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). This is the same policy backed up and funded by private foundations of American billionaires Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ted Turner and Packard as well as private NGOs particularly the International Planned Parenthood Federation of known abortionist Margaret Sanger, through which the USAID and other UN agencies funnel most of their funds.

Actually the RH bill itself uses the terminology “population management” instead of “population control” to dissimulate or feign its abovementioned purpose. Its authors also realize that population control is no longer necessary as the population growth rate has been steadily declining since the ’70s. But unfortunately in a rare moment of truth, one of its sponsors, Congresswoman Kimi Cojuangco of Pangasinan, nevertheless categorically admitted during an interpellation by Congresswoman Mitos Magsaysay, that the bill is indeed a means of population control, much to the chagrin of her co-authors. While she subsequently tried to play on words and claimed that the bill is not for population control but a “population measure”, its real purpose is now out in the open.

Another aspect of the RH bill where there is utter lack of transparency and obvious duplicity is its link to abortion. While the bill itself categorically provides that abortion is illegal, it is making available all sorts of contraceptives which cannot be totally dissociated with abortion. In fact some of the birth control pills have already been shown to directly cause abortion as they prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs or live embryo into the uterus.

Yet in an apparent attempt to justify the use of contraceptives, Senators Cayetano and Santiago, the sponsors of the RH bill in the Senate, have again revived the issue of when life begins. They are once more advancing the theory that life begins at the implantation of the fertilized egg into the uterus and not from the moment of conception or the fertilization of the egg by the sperm. They claim that this notion of life beginning at the moment of conception is one of religious belief only especially by the Catholic Church which is opposing the use of contraceptives.

Sad to say again that in this controversy, the RH bill proponents always end up dragging the Church and accusing it of trying to impose its rights and beliefs in a pluralistic society like ours. This issue however has nothing to do at all with religion. It is purely legal and has long been settled when the framers of the Constitution themselves accepted the scientific findings that life begins at conception, thus incorporating in our Charter a provision mandating the State to protect the life of the unborn child from the moment of conception (Article II Section 12). It is really unfortunate that Senators Cayetano and Santiago conveniently ignored or (deliberately?) veered away from this constitutional provision in their sponsorship of the RH bill promoting contraception.

For the nth time it has to be pointed out that no less than the US Supreme Court has acknowledged the link between contraception and abortion, not only because certain birth control pills and devices directly cause abortion, but also because the use of any kind of contraceptives invariably leads to or ends up in abortion. In fact, the Obama administration has openly admitted through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a US Congressional hearing that the terms “reproductive health, reproductive services and reproductive health rights” which are used in the RH bill, “include abortion or access to abortion”.

Most unfortunate however is the recent move of Malacanang changing the title of the bill to “Responsible Parenthood” Act, apparently to remove the taint of abortion associated with the term “Reproductive Health” and thus make it still look good. The title however is not as important as the contents. If the contents nevertheless provides for the use of contraceptives, then it is still about abortion. “Responsible parenthood” in its real sense does not involve the use of contraceptives.

Likewise dubious is the use of wrong and old statistics in pushing for bill’s passage. Its sponsors and backers repeatedly cite its importance in reducing the maternal mortality rate. They cite statistics showing that an average of 11 mothers die each day while giving birth. These figures however came out last 2004 yet. The latest ones show that only around four to eight women die daily while giving birth. In fact, the WHO statistics even show an average of only 4.6 maternal deaths each day. Moreover, the maternal mortality rate can be reduced by simply improving maternal and child health care which is the function of the DOH. There is no need for an RH bill to achieve this.

These dubious means of pushing for the RH bill’s passage somehow gives validity to the observation that there is some sinister motive behind it. Junking it therefore is the better move on the part of our legislators.

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

FILIPINOS FOR LIFE’S OFFICIAL STATEMENT: Akbayan’s tirade vs. Sotto unfair, out of context, narrow-minded

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)

How to eliminate maternal deaths

From I Oppose the RH Bill Facebook page:

Wrong Priority

Is the Church to blame for maternal deaths?

From Willy Jose's Random Thoughts and Musings:

The major cause of maternal deaths, really.

Group to bishops: Deal maternal deaths issue 

MANILA, Philippines – A women’s group backing the controversial reproductive health (RH) bill called on the Catholic bishops to deal on the issue of maternal deaths in the wake of their opposition in the hotly-debated bill.

In a statement, the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (DSWP) hit the Catholic bishops for issuing statements protesting the bill but none on arresting maternal deaths. 

“Our group alone have lost quite a number of poor women due to lack of access to reproductive health services,” said DSWP Chairwoman Elizabeth Angsioco.

“The nation loses if we do nothing and allow the death of 11 mothers every day, due to pregnancy and pregnancy-related complications,” she added.

“The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines’ (CBCP) stubborn rejection of the RH bill is a major reason why women die,” she pointed out.

The statement came after the CBCP vowed to relentlessly fight against the passage of the measure, even urging President Benigno Aquino III to veto the bill if it pass in Congress.

/

“The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines’ (CBCP) stubborn rejection of the RH bill is a major reason why women die”.

Really?? What a preposterous claim. This kind of sneaky argument has been going around for a quite a while and I guess there must be a law penalizing "malicious disinformation", irony intended.

Official DOH figures (here) shows that the leading cause of maternal mortality is post-partum hemorrhage, followed by retained placenta, eclampsia, etc. Nowhere in the top 10 causes does it even remotely say that the CBCP's stubborn rejection of the RH bill is the major reason (!)

Ah, I see. Direct inference. IF contraceptives were freely available, then these mortality deaths WILL BE avoided (GUARANTEED!) because ALL those who suffered maternal deaths, in the first place, had unwanted pregnancies (yes, all of them) AND they sought out absolutely EFFECTIVE and SAFE contraceptives which were inaccessible, AND the root causal and direct culprit being the CBCP's stubborn opposition to the RH bill. It is giving me a migraine just trying to wrap my head around this convoluted cause-and-effect analysis.

A pregnancy happens because two people engage in sex, irresponsible or otherwise. The AFP, NBI, KofC, CWL, and CBCP for that matter, is not a causal that these people decide to engage in sex. Health complications arise out of pregnancy simply because of a lack of professional medical care. The DFA, DOH, AirForce, DSWP, and CBCP for that matter, is not a direct causal if there is a lack of maternal care. Wait...maybe the DOH is. Maternal and Child health is already an existing mandate of the DOH, and it must see to it to the best of its ability that there are accredited medical professionals that provides care to pregnant women.

In relation to this, there is this study made by NCSB-NSO (circa 2002) investigating the "Factors Affecting Maternal Health Utilization in the Philippines". According to NSO statisticians Elaine B. Rogan and Virginia R. Olveña:

"The use of professional assistance during delivery is generally low for the Philippines. Only sixty percent of women who delivered in the last five years preceding the survey were assisted by a health professional for their most recent pregnancy while seventy percent of women received postnatal care. Utilization of maternal care is lowest in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) with only eighty-five percent for prenatal care, twenty-one percent received professional delivery assistance and forty-eight percent obtained postnatal care. Meanwhile, the National Capital Region (NCR) accounts for the highest percentage of maternal health utilization with ninety-seven percent for both prenatal and delivery care and seventy-six percent for postnatal services..."

The study concludes in part:

"The quality of health care remains wanting in many areas. Some health facilities have deteriorated and poor quality services exists. Low quality drugs and medicines are present in the market. These have been attributed partly to the weak enforcement of health regulations..."

So it appears there is severe lack of accredited health professionals, and that utilization of maternal health services is very, very low (only at an average of 60%). It means 40% of pregnant women were not attended to during their deliveries, the high figure attributable to the rural areas.

And that, my dear DSWP Chairwoman Elizabeth Angsioco, is what should get your goat when you say "our group alone have lost quite a number of poor women due to lack of access to reproductive health services". Eksakto yun. If there was a law right now which penalizes "Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation...", you could be in trouble...