Dr. Rey Echavez MD: Two summaries of reasons why the RH Law must be junked

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

Contraceptive faith

Jemy Gatdula, Nov. 15, 2012. 

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

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

Wellness expert comes out versus the RH Bill

Dr. Christine E. Gonzalez of the Wellness Institute (which advertises itself as a "a holistic natural health center registered in California, USA and in the Philippines") has just come out with a paper taking a "deeper look" at the RH bill.

For more on Dr. Gonzalez's work, see this and this.

RHBill - A Deeper Look at ...

For the record: Dissecting the Consolidated RH Bill -- Medical, Public Health, & Bioethical Issues

RH Bill Forum III 2011

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

Published by Manila Times on July 1, 2012:

Doctor for Life

EWTN CATHOLIC LIVES 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filipinos for Life responds to vasectomy campaign in Tondo

More on Congressman Aumentado's opposition to the RH bill

From the Sunday (June 24, 2012) edition of The Bohol Standard Online:

Aumentado slams RH bill

By: JUNE S. BLANCO

UNCONSTITUTIONAL, redundant, unnecessary and just enriches multinationals.

Thus Rep. Erico Aumentado (2nd District, Bohol) describes the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill.

Aumentado is among the speakers of the anti-RH Bill rally slated in the Diocese of Talibon under Bishop Christian Vicente Noel. All towns within the diocese will be sending delegations to the event – up to Jagna to the east, Tubigon to the west and Carmen in the interior.

Filipinos for Life on why IUD's and contraceptive pills are harmful

From Filipinos for Life (see this and this):

Videos of the RH Bill Forum in St. Peter's Church, Fairview (May 7, 2012)

Talk by Dr. Rene Bullecer:


Talk by Anna Cosio, a registered nurse:

 

 Talk by Atty. Marwil Llasos Ll.M, legal expert and Catholic apologist:

 

The testimony of a former contraceptive pill user

From the "Letters to the Editor" section of the Philippine Daily Inquirer:

How contraceptive methods turn women into liars 
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Monday, June 4th,

The Mother’s Day editorial (“For mothers and their kids,” Inquirer, 5/13/12), using a “CNN hero” to call for the swift passage of the Reproductive Health bill, must have been written under a certain spell. Our Magna Carta for Women, which just needs to be implemented, more than covers all our needs. 

Turning his back on an election promise that he would “not promote” contraceptives, the only new thing in President Aquino’s RH bill is a P3 billion yearly budget for contraceptives—found by the most reliable science to be harmful.

I always felt sick every time I used the pill. Now I know why. The 2010 study of the prestigious Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention concluded that “Current use of oral contraceptives carries an excess risk of breast cancer” and that “Previous studies convincingly showed an increase in risk of breast cancer associated with current or recent use of oral contraceptives from the 1960s to 1980s.” 

We also have three separate meta-analyses: (1) the Stroke Journal—Pill confers “risk of first ischemic stroke”; (2) The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism of 2005—“current use of low-dose OCs significantly increases the risk of both cardiac and vascular arterial events”; and (3) Archives of Family Medicine—the Pill works after fertilization; and thus aborts a 100-cell embryonic human. 

Plus many other serious studies showing that contraception increases promiscuity, leading to more AIDS cases, more single mothers, more fatherless children, more female poverty. 

As the Philippine Medical Association itself said:  Contraception turns women into liars. “I give myself to you entirely,” I tell my husband, “but I don’t give you a key part of me: my fertility!” 

I tell you: when my husband was using a condom, I could feel na ginagamit niya lang ako. I’ve told him so; and he has been so good as to change his behavior. 

Is the Inquirer really pro-women? Or has the Inquirer just been victimized and fallen under the spell of the materialistic, animalistic, amoral and atheistic brainwashing of the powerful media of the degenerate West? 

—YVONNE CHAN-DE LOS REYES

Is the RH bill opposed to free speech and religious freedom? An Evangelical pro-lifer's view

Coercion and the RH Bill :The State and RH Indoctrination

by Melissa A. Poblete 

January 16, 2012

You have probably heard the RH supporters’ claims that the RH bill will give “informed choice” to the public, that it is for “women’s health” and for “obstetric care”. However behind this benign rhetoric is the heavy hand of the State in RH indoctrination. Section 16 is all about mandatory sex education for ALL students (both private or public schools, regardless of religious affiliation) – from grade 5 to 4th year high school. Section 24 ensures a nationwide RH “mass indoctrination” by “a heightened nationwide multi-media campaign to raise the level of public awareness of the protection and promotion of reproductive health and rights including family planning and population and development.” Far from offering the public informed choice, it actually sets up an RH indoctrination platform, where no one is allowed to express disagreement nor speak their opinions on the intent of the bill under pain of imprisonment.

You see, the RH bill is coercive. Why is it coercive? It punishes those who object to its provisions. It punishes those who will teach something different from its provisions.

How can it be coercive? Look at Section 28, “Prohibited Acts”

1. The RH bill punishes local government officials, regardless of their religious beliefs, budgets, and provinces’ health needs, if they do not implement the RH bill in their local government unit.

2. The RH bill punishes health professionals who withhold information on RH services, and it especially targets those who will do so because of religious convictions. If a pro-life, Catholic nurse or obstetrician chooses to only teach natural family planning to a patient, it is her right to do so and no law should force her to recommend artificial contraception.

3. The RH bill punishes health professionals who refuse to give RH services. And the religious objectors are required to refer. Why should someone who is objecting be forced to refer , against his own conscience, by a law?

4. The RH bill punishes anyone who “will engage in malicious disinformation” about the intents and provisions of the bill. The RH bill dissenters who have different opinions than those who crafted the RH bill are the targets here. Obviously, it will not apply to RH supporters and advocates.

Besides, who determines what it the “correct” information and what is “incorrect” (to determine what is“disinformation”)? The RH sponsors, lobbyists, advocates and their resource persons. YET, in the present RH bill debates in Congress and the social media, RH bill advocates, lobbyists, supporters are ALREADY denying RECENT(dated May 2011) unbiased evidence-based scientific information (from the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer , no less) that states that “combined oral contraceptives are group 1 CARCINOGENS” and that “there is SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE on the carcinogenicity of combined oral contraceptives”. If these people who wrote the RH bill and are lobbying for it are denying medical facts NOW, how can they be trusted to determine correct information? Medical science is ever-changing, and new researches reveal causes, effects and correlations that were not known before. In this example, carcinogenicity of combined oral contraceptives is established by new findings. How can a proposed law punish “disinformation”, in the ever-changing field of medical science?

Moreover, RH advocates are also denying basic scientific facts like the beginning of life. From high school we are taught that a new human life begins at fertilization, at the moment of zygote formation. We have RH advocates who call the unborn as “not human” or “not persons” and those who arbitrarily, but absurdly, move the beginning of life from the moment of fertilization to implantation. With these absurd unscientific assertions of RH advocates, how can the RH bill determine what is “incorrect” or what is “disinformation” when they themselves deny plain-as-day scientific facts and findings?

To be truly fair, RH advocates denying scientific facts and downplaying cancer risks from oral contraceptives must also be punished because these are all medical disinformation. But if it is ONLY these RH consultants/advocates who will determine what is “correct”, then ONLY pro-life advocates will be punished. This is highly discriminatory and truly biased.

The RH bill is like a giant indoctrination and coercion machine. It violates the principles of free speech, and the freedom to practice one’s religion. These are just more reasons to say NO to the RH bill.

A prolife nurse refutes a pro-RH nurse

A Response To RN For RH Bill

Isahel N. Alfonso

A friend of mine a fellow nurse and a Pro-life pointed out to me the website entitled Filipino Nurses in which it has become a bastion and safe haven for Nurses who are in favor of the so called RH Bill. I am now writing not only as a Catholic apologist but also as a health professional. I am invoking my authority as a licensed nurse and an educator to correct the erring opinion of nurses who choose to betray their oath and support the RH Bill. It is my obligation both as a Catholic apologist and as a nurse to oppose error and to expose it because failure to do so would imply that we are tolerating erring opinions. As what St. Pope Felix III said,

Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend the truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than encourage them.

Continue reading HERE

The facts about the RH bill that our citizens need to know

Truths and beliefs

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) 

Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)

November 07, 2011 

Every time I express my stand against the RH bill I only state the established facts and the laws applicable to those sets of facts.

For instance, as I have repeatedly stressed, the most basic established facts proven by science are: (1) that life begins from the moment of conception or the fertilization of the ovum by the sperm to form a new, unborn baby; and (2) that there are certain chemical products or the so called birth control pills like “morning after pill” and RU 486, and vaccines like “depoprovera” and “norplant”, as well as the intrauterine device (IUD) which impede the implantation of the unborn baby in the uterine wall thus causing abortion or the expulsion and death of the baby.

Based on these established facts, I have likewise pointed out time and again that the laws applicable to these facts clearly provide that the State “shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception (Section 12, Article II, Constitution) and that therefore abortion is a crime punishable by law (Articles 256 and 257 Revised Penal Code).

In view of these established facts and applicable laws, I have thus repeatedly contended that the RH bill violates our Constitution and the Revised Penal Code because it appropriates 3 billion pesos simply to afford women another choice aside from the natural family planning method which cost nothing, by making available to them the entire range of artificial contraceptives including the above mentioned pills, vaccines and IUD that cause abortion.

I have likewise stressed that even if the purpose of the bill is to enable couples especially the poor ones to plan the size of their family so that they can properly raise their children within their means purportedly in the exercise of “responsible parenthood”, such purpose cannot justify or be used as a disguise to hide the unconstitutionality and illegality of the bill.

Unfortunately however, despite sticking only to those facts and applicable laws, supporters of the bill resort to personal attacks against me and my Catholic faith. They always drag the Catholic Church into the controversy to refute my stand. They insist that I am just expressing my belief in the teachings of the Church against contraceptives, which, they say, no person or institution can impose on others with different beliefs especially in a pluralistic society such as ours.

This stance implies that truth depends on the beliefs of particular sects or religions rather than on established facts and applicable laws; and that there are as many truths as there are religions. Apparently this is a dangerous stance that has rendered the bill as controversial as to cause a deep division in the nation; why the bill divides rather than unites us.

Now that the debate on the RH bill has resumed, all sides to the controversy should see to it that they stick to the real issues, meet them squarely and refrain from using diversionary tactics. This is the only way that the people can be properly informed of the true nature and purpose of the bill and why it should or should not be passed. This is the only way to remove the harmful discord besetting the nation because of this bill.

The citizenry will therefore be better informed and united in their search for answers to the issues surrounding the RH bill if:

First, they are not repeatedly told that the bill does not legalize abortion when it has provision appropriating billions of pesos for the acquisition of contraceptives including those already proven to cause abortion, just to give women an alternative choice in the exercise of their reproductive health rights and in planning the size of their family;

Second, they are not misled into believing that contraceptives in general have no harmful effects on the overall health of the women and children when there are already many incidents of serious ailments including cancer arising out of their use.

Third, they are adequately informed that based on what is happening in other countries which allows the use of contraceptives, the contraceptive lifestyle necessarily ensuing with the passage of the bill, weakens marriages and destroys families;

Third, they are not continuously intimidated to favor the bill because of the alleged world population that has reportedly reached 7 billion already. Instead they should be properly advised that the country’s poverty problem is not due to our growing population but mainly to the inequitable distribution of the country’s wealth and resources because of poor governance, graft, greed and lack of adequate education especially of the poor families;

Fourth, it is sufficiently explained to them that while our population is still growing our population growth rate is already declining as will eventually bring us to the same situation of countries that adopted population control where the population is aging and dwindling prompting a complete reversal of their population policy from population control to population promotion; and

Fifth, it is fully disclosed to them that the RH bill is really backed up and supported by foreign countries and international organizations to control the population of developing countries like the Philippines even to the extent of promoting abortion under the guise of reproductive health, for their own economic interest and security; that lobby money in millions of dollars have been put up to pressure our Congress into passing this bill.

As Congress therefore resumes debate on the RH bill, Filipinos should know more about this incontrovertible information which can be considered more as “truths” than mere “beliefs”.

The Varsitarian Editorial on the misunderstood PMA position paper

For more information on the PMA position that is referenced here, please read this post: 

Setting the record straight on the Philippine Medical Association's stance on the RH Bill

RH bill medically fallacious, dangerous, unconscionable

The Varsitarian, October 4, 2011

WHILE staunch supporters of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill naively rejoice over the Philippine Medical Association’s (PMA) position paper that they seem to have misunderstood, they have been overwhelmed with the first clause of the first sentence without reading the entire passage.

The PMA expressed its support in the RH bill, but only because “it is founded strongly on the principle that ‘life begins at fertilization’”—a pro-life stance. Furthermore, the group of doctors said it “abhors any procedure, machination or scheme or medication that will interrupt any stage of fertilization and prevents its normal growth to adulthood until the stage of natural death.”

Dr. Bu Castro, chairman of the PMA Commission on Legislation and a signatory of the statement, confirmed the pro-life position himself, and said that the problem arises with the inclusion of contraceptives in the bill.

RH bill supporters have always said that contraceptives—particularly morning-after pill, IUD, and the like—are not abortifacients, and that this matter should be left to health experts. Castro himself confirmed that these contraceptives may indeed cause early abortion.

There are three things why the argument on abortion in contraception continues up to date: Either people do not know that life begins at fertilization, they don’t know what fertilization is, or they pretend to be health experts that they create their own definition of fertilization.

Of course, who would not want to support a health or family planning program? Every family desires a particular family size, but what pro-life groups say is that family planning could be achieved within moral grounds.

Like the PMA, we will support the RH bill if and only if its authors will remove its immoral, inhumane, and unjust ideas.

Immoral, in a sense that, as mentioned in previous Varsitarian editorials, RH bill makes us look like sex-starved rabbits; inhumane that it kills human life, and unjust that it is highly against other people’s rights.

It is not enough that provisions be altered. As long as the core principle of the RH bill is anti-life, it will never get any support from us.

In fact, the PMA fights for the rights of doctors because the RH bill impinges on physicians’ conscience and professional and ethical practice.

Doctors do what they think is best for their patients, but the RH bill dictates that if a doctor refuses to give RH services to his patients, he will be penalized.

It is even more stupid for the RH bill, which we may now call an “anti-doctor bill,” to say that in such case a physician cannot give RH services, he must refer his patients to another physician. Conscience-wise, asking someone to do it is like taking part of the action yourself as the mastermind.

This reminds us of a related issue in the Senate, wherein Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago lectured about conscience alongside with her efforts to promote the RH bill last August 1. Not only that, she also lectured on Theology.

The senator, who discussed as if she is an expert in Theology, said one could follow his conscience even if it is against the moral teachings of the Church.

If that is so, then where would someone base his conscience? In pop culture? In fascist ideologies? What is wrong remains wrong even if everybody does it.

Santiago also classified Theology into two: “traditional,” which sees the Church as a superstate governed by the Pope, and “progressive,” which looks at the Church as a fellowship of spiritual communities who recognize Papal primacy.

With these naïve ideas that she has, no doubt that she presents misinformation. “A little learning is dangerous,” poet Alexander Pope said.

Former senator Francisco Tatad, on the other hand, said Santiago’s classification is political.

“Theology is either good or bad, [or] sound or unsound,” Tatad said in an open letter to Santiago.

We see the words “traditional” and “progressive” in a different perspective. Traditional as being timeless and timely in keeping the values the Church has, while progressive as a state of development. In this sense, the pro-life position against the RH bill is founded on traditional values, but the intention of the opposition is progressive.

For the record, contradictory to Santiago’s claim that the Catholic Church is not the only religion opposing the bill, Muslim and Evangelical groups were also present at the State of the Soul of the Nation Address last July 25 to show their opposition to the said bill.

Also, non-Catholic religions acknowledge the fact that contraceptives being promoted by the RH bill kill life and violate their religious convictions.

Last Sept. 26, nine young congressmen expressed their opposition to the RH bill in a statement, saying that the proposed P3-billion fund for contraceptives could be better used for education, livelihood, and healthcare services. One of the young congressmen is Lanao del Norte, second district Rep. Fatima Aliah Dimaporo, a Muslim who stands firm against the RH bill.

It is odd that the national government underspends on more important services, but is willing to spend billions in buying contraceptives. The PMA statement says that “providing adequate facilities and qualified staff for maternity and pediatric cases” is needed to address the problem of maternal and child deaths in the country.

Being pro-life is not only a Catholic belief, but a Filipino value as well. Blessed John Paul II himself had said without specifying it to Catholics alone: “The Filipino family is pro-life.”

Tidbits from Bobit Avila

From his October 6, 2011 column entitled, Now it can be told: Contraceptives kill!

Finally, despite his problem in communicating in the English language, Sen. Lito Lapid entered the controversial debate in the Senate on the controversial issue of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill, coming up with a stinging question directed to its principal sponsor Sen. Pia Cayetano about the possible side effects of contraceptives. Sen. Lapid apparently revealed that his wife took such pills after she gave birth to their second child. Yet she still got pregnant and bore a baby with a heart disease who later died at the tender age of nine years old. What a tragedy for Sen. Lapid. 

Speaking in the Tagalog (they sometimes call this Filipino) language, Sen. Lapid asked his wife if she was taking birth control pills and she answered him with a “yes.” By some divine revelation, suddenly, the pro-RH Senators were faced with someone among their peers who took contraceptives in the hope that it can stop pregnancy. But this totally failed and worse of all, the baby was born with a birth defect, thanks to that contraceptive. 

When she was asked by Sen. Lapid whether contraceptives can cause physical deformities, Sen. Pia Cayetano dismissed them, saying that no research shows that contraceptives can cause birth defects. Come now Sen. Cayetano, there are countless research studies that prove that contraceptives do not only kill (as in the case of the baby of Sen. Lapid), it also causes birth defects, and yes for mothers they cause breast cancer. 

Incidentally, the month of October is Breast Cancer Awareness month. If Sen. Pia Cayetano truly wants to help our womenfolk, she must instead warn them of the dangers of the use of contraceptives as they are not a guarantee that it prevents pregnancy, but also maim babies if they get born. Worse of all, they can cause breast cancer to women or mothers who use them. If Sen. Pia Cayetano truly cares for our womenfolk, she should instead warn them of the dangers in the use of abortifacient contraceptives.

From his October 25, 2011 column, Coming soon: A city region called Mega Cebu

While the Senate already decided to move the debate on the Reproductive Health (RH) bill to next year in January, this elicited a reaction from Sen. Pia Cayetano who wanted to close the period of interpellation and proceed to the period of amendments and the eventual passage of the bill. But like it or not, there are still a lot of Senators who wanted to interpolate this on the session floor after they resume their session. As Senate Majority Leader Sen. Vicente “Tito” Sotto pointed out, “Anyone who wishes to interpolate this bill can do so; hence we cannot close the period of interpellation.” 

As expected, Sen. Pia Cayetano wants the debate closed because the truth about the RH bill is just coming out of the woodwork and the public needs to know whether this bill should be passed or junked on the Senate floor. The RH bill entails the use of billions of pesos to dole out contraceptives to the poor, when this same money could very well be used for other more important issues like poverty alleviation or the like. 

The Senate also needs to unmask the international groups strongly lobbying for the RH bill, which seek funding from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Little do Filipinos know that this is the group behind China’s “One Child” Policy? How many times do we have to remind those pushing for the RH bill that they are proposing something against the 1987 Constitution that protects the unborn. If on a worse case scenario this bill gets passed into a law, I guarantee you that cases will be filed for its unconstitutionality. In short, this money-making venture (after all, this law benefits foreign pharmaceuticals) is a waste of our time and resources and worse it is divisive.

How NOT to help women

From Bobit Avila's latest column for the Philippine Star, published on October 6, 2011:

Finally, despite his problem in communicating in the English language, Sen. Lito Lapid entered the controversial debate in the Senate on the controversial issue of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill, coming up with a stinging question directed to its principal sponsor Sen. Pia Cayetano about the possible side effects of contraceptives. Sen. Lapid apparently revealed that his wife took such pills after she gave birth to their second child. Yet she still got pregnant and bore a baby with a heart disease who later died at the tender age of nine years old. What a tragedy for Sen. Lapid. 

Speaking in the Tagalog (they sometimes call this Filipino) language, Sen. Lapid asked his wife if she was taking birth control pills and she answered him with a “yes.” By some divine revelation, suddenly, the pro-RH Senators were faced with someone among their peers who took contraceptives in the hope that it can stop pregnancy. But this totally failed and worse of all, the baby was born with a birth defect, thanks to that contraceptive. 

When she was asked by Sen. Lapid whether contraceptives can cause physical deformities, Sen. Pia Cayetano dismissed them, saying that no research shows that contraceptives can cause birth defects. Come now Sen. Cayetano, there are countless research studies that prove that contraceptives do not only kill (as in the case of the baby of Sen. Lapid), it also causes birth defects, and yes for mothers they cause breast cancer. 

Incidentally, the month of October is Breast Cancer Awareness month. If Sen. Pia Cayetano truly wants to help our womenfolk, she must instead warn them of the dangers of the use of contraceptives as they are not a guarantee that it prevents pregnancy, but also maim babies if they get born. Worse of all, they can cause breast cancer to women or mothers who use them. If Sen. Pia Cayetano truly cares for our womenfolk, she should instead warn them of the dangers in the use of abortifacient contraceptives.

Setting the record straight on the Philippine Medical Association's stance on the RH Bill

From the Varsitarian:

PMA backs pro-life stance vs RH bill

September 24, 6:46 p.m. - THE PHILIPPINE Medical Association (PMA) has backed the pro-life position that life begins at fertilization, saying this scientific fact should be the basis of the reproductive health (RH) bill.

In a statement sent to the Senate, the PMA also rejected the RH bill's penalty clause on doctors, and argued that the religious beliefs of patients should be respected.

The group of doctors demanded “utmost respect” for physicians’ rights, which are being threatened by the RH bill.

The bill will require doctors to provide RH services. Those who object on the grounds of conscience must refer the patient to another doctor, or face penalties.

“They (physicians) must be left undisturbed to decide what is best for their patients,” the position paper, signed by PMA president Dr. Oscar Tinio and PMA Commission on Legislation chairman Dr. Bu Castro, said.

Moreover, the PMA said a patient’s right to exercise his or her religion “must be accorded full respect,” and that patients are entitled to quality health services.

The government should prioritize maternal and child health care over the distribution of contraceptives, the group added.

While the first phrase of the statement appears to be in support of the RH bill, the PMA said it only supports the bill “insofar as it is founded strongly on the principle that ‘life or conception begins at fertilization.’”

Not ‘frog biology’

The PMA said the assumption that life begins at implantation (normally on the 14th day from the start of fertilization) is wrong because there is already a living individual from fertilization.

It said the so-called “pre-embryo” stage of fertilization, advocated by Clifford Grobstein and Richard McCormick, S.J. in 1979, had conclusions based on “frog biology.”

“[T]he PMA does not support the studies done on frogs but rather it supports the scientific data that a new cell, the zygote, comes into existence at the ‘moment’ of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second," the position paper said.

The statement added that there is no human embryologist in the world who would deny that life begins at fertilization.

“The PMA thus abhors any procedure, machination or scheme or medication that will interrupt any stage of fertilization and prevents its normal growth to adulthood until the stage of natural death,” the statement said.

Contraception treats a woman’s body as though there was something wrong with how God created it, the PMA said.

“In an age that has become very weary of dumping pollutants into the environment, it is so ironic that people are so willing to dump pollutants into their bodies,” the statement said.

Among the health risks of contraceptives mentioned in the statement are high blood pressure, stroke, and some forms of cancer.

It added that preventing the fertilized egg from implanting into the wall of the uterus is considered an early-term abortion.

Oral contraceptive pills work by preventing ovulation, but in case of "breakthrough ovulation" and fertilization, the hostile environment created by chemicals in the uterine lining could prevent implantation. Pills have also been declared Group 1 carcinogens by a research body under the World Health Organization.

“Some speak of ‘accidental pregnancies’ as if getting pregnant were like getting hit by a car … But the truth is that if a pregnancy results from an act of sexual intercourse, this means that something has gone right, not that something has gone wrong,” the PMA statement said. Rommel Marvin C. Rio

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

For those who want to read the PMA Statement for themselves, here it is:

As the pro-life movement has been saying all along: oral contraceptives can cause cancer

See also this article from ABS-CBN: Hormone pills on list of carcinogens

From CBCP for Life:

WHO agency 2011 report retains pills on list of carcinogens

MANILA, September 3, 2011–Researchers under the World Health Organization (WHO) have again confirmed that oral contraceptives can directly cause cancer – in another setback for lobbyists seeking billions of pesos in yearly taxpayer-funded subsidies to distribute pills for free nationwide under the “reproductive health” (RH) bill.

A monograph released just this year by a working group under the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) made an “overall evaluation” that “oral combined estrogen–progestogen contraceptives are carcinogenic to humans.”

The 2011 report classified the pill as a “Group 1” carcinogen, which means the highest level of evidence of cancer risk.

Other Group 1 carcinogens include asbestos, arsenic, formaldehyde, and plutonium.

“There is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of oral combined estrogen–progestogen contraceptives. Oral combined estrogen–progestogen contraceptives cause cancer of the breast, in-situ and invasive cancer of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the liver,” the 40-page section on oral contraceptive pills of the WHO-IARC monograph said.

This is the third time the Lyon, France-based IARC evaluated the carcinogenicity of pills, after earlier working groups formed in 1988 and 2005. Monographs were published in 1989 and 2007.

Synthesizing its review of scientific findings on the pill, the 2011 IARC monograph said: “A large body of evidence was evaluated for several organ sites, among which the Working Group concluded there are increased risks for cancer of the breast in young women among current and recent users only […].”

There was also increased risk for “in-situ and invasive cancer of the uterine cervix, and for cancer of the liver in populations that are at low risk for HBV [Hepatitis B virus] infection (this risk is presumably masked by the large risk associated with HBV infection in HBV-endemic populations),” the report said.

“In addition, for cancer of the uterine cervix, the magnitude of the associations is similar for in-situ and invasive disease, and the risks increase with duration of use, and decline after cessation of use,” it added.

While there are risks for breast, uterine cervix, and liver cancers, pills were considered “protective” against endometrial and ovarian cancers. But this was not enough to alter the WHO-IARC’s overall evaluation that oral combined estrogen–progestogen contraceptives are highly carcinogenic to humans.

The US National Cancer Institute, in an online fact sheet, had also acknowledged that pills could cause breast cancer, advising women “who are concerned about their risk for cancer … to talk with their health care provider.”

Pro-life groups have called on RH bill lobbyists to bare information on the dangerous side effects of pills and other contraceptives such as the IUD to the public, noting that the RH bill is being pushed under the pretext of “access to information” and “informed choice.”

Latest government data showed that only 16% of Filipino women use the pill. Only about 60% of pill users know about “possible side effects.” It was unclear what side effects were discussed by government health workers, and whether women were informed that pills are carcinogens. (Dominic Francisco)

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. 

A doctor speaks out on the moment of conception and the definition of "abortifacient"

This is the document that is cited in the Filipinos for Life press release that, in turn, forms the basis of the following article on CBCP for Life: Debate over conception settled decades ago, lawmakers told.

****

The following questions are frequently asked in connection with the debates over the Reproductive Health bill:

1. What's the scientific basis of conception occurring at fertilization?

2. What contraceptives can therefore be considered abortive under that definition?

The following is my response. 

The key feature of a human pattern is its organization towards the production of a mature human body. Basic embryology teaches us that the instant of fertilization (the union of the ovum and sperm) is time zero of human development. Fertilization results in the formation of a new cell that is distinct from the cells that give rise to it, because the fertilized ovum/zygote/embryo, as a stage in human development, possesses the material composition (genetic and molecular) and behavior (developmental pathway) necessary for its maturity.

Since LIFE is defined as an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction, and it is governed by the law of biogenesis, which states that all life comes from preexisting life, the fertilized ovum/zygote/embryo, whether it has implanted on a woman’s endometrium or not, is ALIVE and is HUMAN.

Historically, the terms fertilization and conception were used interchangeably. However, in the 1960s, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) and the International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (FIGO) redefined conception as the implantation of a fertilized ovum, citing that the union of sperm and ovum cannot be detected clinically unless implantation occurs. Pregnancy was subsequently defined as the state from conception to expulsion of the products of that conception. This invariably changed the definition of conception from fertilization to implantation. Coincidentally, this redefinition was not brought about by any scientific breakthrough during that time but was made at around the same time that the first intrauterine device (IUD) was sold in the market and birth control pills were legalized in the US.

It must be emphasized that pregnancy is the state of the mother, not of the unborn. Therefore, non-implantation does not negate the status of the fertilized ovum/zygote/embryo as a living human being.

The confusion over the term conception and whether it refers to fertilization or implantation is not a result of lack of scientific data but of verbal engineering. The implications of redefining conception are seen in the mechanisms of action of contraceptive pills and IUDs and whether they act as abortifacients.

From the pharmacologic standpoint, hormonal contraceptives (pills and injectables) have multiple mechanisms of action. Katzung’s Basic and Clinical Pharmacology 11th ed (2009) states that:

“The combinations of estrogens and progestins exert their contraceptive effect largely through selective inhibition of pituitary function that results in inhibition of ovulation. The combination agents also produce a change in the cervical mucus, in the uterine endometrium, and in motility and secretion in the uterine tubes, all of which decrease the likelihood of conception and implantation. The continuous use of progestins alone does not always inhibit ovulation. The other factors mentioned, therefore, play a major role in the prevention of pregnancy when these agents are used.”

(Note as well that in pharmacology textbooks, conception is used to refer to fertilization and is clearly distinguished from implantation.)

On the other hand, the IUD incites an inflammatory reaction on the endometrial lining. This inflammation acts as a spermicide AND as a means to decrease the likelihood of implantation should fertilization occur (Comprehensive Gynecology, 5th ed 2007).

By virtue of the ACOG/FIGO redefinition of conception, the post-fertilization effect of preventing implantation does not SEMANTICALLY equate to the abortifacient effect of contraceptive pills and IUDs, since abortion is technically defined (again by ACOG and FIGO) as the expulsion of all the products of conception before the twentieth week of pregnancy.

HOWEVER, this is in direct contradiction to the Department of Health and Human Services, US Department of Health, Education and Welfare statement which affirms that life begins at fertilization when it states that:

“All measures which impair the viability of the zygote at any time between the instant of fertilization and the completion of labor constitute, in the strict sense, procedures for inducing abortion.”

It is therefore only logical that, if we subscribe to the scientific fact that human development begins at fertilization, the prevention of implantation terminates life. While it may be argued that the prevention of implantation is not the PRIMARY mechanism of action of these drugs and devices, fertilization can occur, as evidenced by breakthrough ovulations and contraceptive failures. A contraceptive failure is a human being. THUS, the SECONDARY mechanism of preventing implantation constitutes the abortifacient effect of hormonal contraceptives and IUDs.

However, it is logistically, technologically, and ethically impossible to determine which “successful” prevention of pregnancy is due to inhibition of ovulation, fertilization or implantation. This is where World Health Organization (WHO), medical societies and scientific journals use the term “no evidence” in reference to the lack of empirical data, and NOT to the fact that a phenomenon does not occur.

In this light, it is imperative that the precautionary principle, which states that:

“if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action,”

be applied. When science finds a plausible risk, social responsibility must compel us to protect the public from exposure to harm, until such time that further scientific findings provide sound evidence that ABSOLUTELY NO HARM TO LIFE will result from the action.

Ultimately, as human beings, our actions must always PROTECT LIFE in order to be truly PRO-LIFE, because we cannot afford to risk even one human life.

===================================================

Abraham Daniel Campo Cruz, MD

Instructor A, Department of Pharmacology, FEU-NRMF Institute of Medicine

Master of Science (cand.) in Pharmacology, UP Manila

Associate Member, Philippine Society of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology

Member, Filipinos for Life