Published on July 11, 2011 on the website of
The Manila Times:
Woodrose students explain why they object to HB 4244
WE are students of PAREF Woodrose School, and we are against House Bill 4244, the Reproductive Health Bill, whose full name has been changed to “The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011.” We acknowledge that there are some sections that we agree with such as those that mention the provision of treatment and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases or reproductive diseases; respect and responsibility for the reproductive health of employees, and treatment and healthcare services for those who are pregnant. Although this bill gives those said benefits, we are strongly against the use of contraceptives to promote Reproductive Health.
The bill specifically states in many sections such as Section 3.e. that artificial methods of family planning are intended to be used for contraception. The bill also states in Section 7 that family planning sessions will be provided but it forgets to include natural family planning into the section, which leaves personnel in facilities no choice but to give only artificial family planning services. How can this bill boast that it supports freedom of choice when there’s no freedom at all for the facilities? The “modern methods” of limiting and spacing pregnancy are unnatural and are therefore, wrong ways for family planning. These modern methods include the use of contraceptives, whose side effects like nausea, blood clots, irregular menstrual bleeding, etc. highly outweigh their so-called “benefits.”
Not only that, but there are contraceptives that really cause abortions (these are called abortifacients). To understand what an abortifacient is, however, it is imperative to know exactly when life begins. Life begins the moment an egg and sperm join together. This is called fertilization. Abortifacients are the contraceptives that work after fertilization by killing the new human life form. However, a “new” definition has been introduced. It now states that pregnancy does not begin until one week after fertilization. Because of this new definition, the meaning of “conception” has also been altered as the time of implantation, instead of the union of egg and sperm. This redefinition has led people to believe that most, if not all, contraceptives are not abortifacients but they, in fact, are.
It explicitly states in the bill that “this act recognizes that abortion is illegal and punishable by law;” however, the distribution of contraceptives is legal. It is, therefore, a contradiction in terms since most contraceptives are abortifacients. This is precisely the reason why many women have silent abortions because when they take contraceptives, they may have already lost their babies without even knowing it and yet more and more women all over the world are currently taking these contraceptives because they are convinced that it prevents them from getting pregnant. But, the fact is, it doesn’t.
Having stated our views on the RH bill, we sincerely hope that this letter has enlightened you to see the truth. Our morals shouldn’t be dictated by a mere vote. We must remember that, though this RH Bill has yet to be passed, what is legal is not equivalent to what is morally right.
Angela Aquino
Bernice Labad
Louise Lukban
Reggie Marasigan
Honey Mira
Victoria Prieto
Sofia Sazon
Maxinne Sebial
Year IV PAREF Woodrose students.
