Manny Pacquiao explains why he voted against the RH bill

No compromise

From CBCP for Life:

Issues on the Revised HB 4244 (RH Bill): A MUST-READ

The amended version of HB 4244 has been circulated in public. The following are some observations and questions on the latest version.

1. Amendments. It would be a misnomer to call the acceptance by the anti-RH camp and the CBCP of the amendments offered by the sponsors as “compromises”. The word “compromise” presumes that opposite sides while having different starting positions share in a desired outcome (peace in Mindanao for example in the case of the Bangsa Moro framework). Given the intrinsically evil nature of contraceptives and contraceptive acts and the adverse consequences on families and society of a contraceptive culture, the anti-RH position can hardly agree with the inevitable outcome of the RH bill for Philippine society. The Aquino administration however seems determined to deliver an RH bill which happens to coincide with the position of Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the MCC, and as manifested by the heavy-handed way in which the period of debates in the Lower House was drastically ended last August. If the pro-RH camp goes ahead and rams the bill through Congress, the proposed amendments may have to be accepted tactically as damage control to reduce some of the “nasty” aspects in the bill, such as the coercive provisions and the distribution of abortifacents.

2. Welfare economics. It seems that the House leadership has bought into the view shared by many proponents of the RH bill that they don’t really mind if the higher income couples do not practice family planning but it’s the poor who should be targeted for the government’s birth control programs. Thus in the name of recognizing reproductive health as “universal basic human right” the key amendment to the revised bill is the free reproductive services and supplies for the poor:

“[THE STATE] SHALL PRIORITIZE THE NEEDS OF POOR WOMEN AND MEN IN MARGINALIZED HOUSEHOLDS … WHO SHALL BE VOLUNTARY BENEFICIARIES OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE, SERVICES AND SUPPLIES FOR FREE”

While this revision finally owns up to the ulterior motive of HB 4244 to discourage the poor from breeding, they immediately raise a lot of welfare economics questions.

a) Is this really the first best, or even second- or third- best way to help the poor? Why prioritize free condoms, IUDs, and pills? Why not free anti-TB, anti-malaria, anti-diarrhea medicines; cheap bottled water; oral rehydration powder, etc. which would be more directed at the leading causes of illness and death among the poor?

b) How will the poor be identified? The revised bill proposes: “… THROUGH THE NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD TARGETING SYSTEM FOR POVERTY REDUCTION (NHTS-PR) AND OTHER GOVERNMENT MEASURES OF IDENTIFYING MARGINALIZATION…” Is this part of the Conditional Cash Transfer apparatus? Will acceptance of contraceptives now be one of the conditions? This NHTS-PR appears about 8 times in the revised bill and will be relied upon for eligibility for pro-bono services, anti-poverty programs, procurement and distribution to LGUs, etc.

In effect the bill contemplates creating a class of poor Filipinos certified as such for the purpose of getting qualified as non-paying recipients of reproductive health services and supplies. This raises more questions:

a. How will they be documented? Will they be given IDs or plastic swipe cards which they can bring to drug stores to get free condoms and pills? (Unless the NHTS-PR is geared up to certify their poverty each time before they want to do the marital act).

b. Will there be one ID per couple? Will they have to show a marriage certificate? Who will keep the ID, the wife or the husband? Shouldn’t the wife be given control of the ID? Will a separate ID be issued to the husband who might then use it for extra- marital pursuits?

c. Will an ID be issued to the other members of the poor marginalized family who have reached reproductive age?

d. What will be the cut-off income? How will the government prevent poor couples from selling in a black market their free pills and condoms to non-poor couples who do not qualify?

e. How will the quality of the free contraceptives be controlled? Will the COA criteria apply to procure least-cost condoms that might however have high failure rates? (This will play into the hands of pro-abortion camp: as cheap condoms fail there will be an increase in unwanted pregnancies among the poor. Before long illegal abortions multiply and there would be political clamor to amend the constitution for the legalization of abortion. This is the same slippery slope that has happened in some Catholic countries that have legalized abortion.)

f. The bill provides that the “(FDA) SHALL DETERMINE THE SAFETY, EFFICACY, AND CLASSIFICATION OF PRODUCTS AND SUPPLIES FOR MODERN FAMILY PLANNING METHODS PRIOR TO THEIR DISTRIBUTION, PROCUREMENT, SALE AND USE.” Many contraceptive pills are classified as first class carcinogenics. Since the bill requires the FDA to ensure the safety of contraceptives, when the incidence of cancer increases from the free pills distributed to the poor, will the government accept the liability and provide free cancer treatment? Or will there be a legal disclaimer at the back of each ID stating that the recipient takes the pill at her own risk and discharges the government of any liability for any harm that the pills could cause?

c) What is the estimated cost of providing free reproductive services and supplies to the poor? Using round numbers 25% of Filipinos are below the poverty line according to NSCB, or 5 million of 20 million families. Assuming 80% acceptance of free contraceptives, and P500/month cost of contraceptive supplies per family, this translates to P24 billion a year. If you use the SWS self-rated 10 million poor families, the number goes up to P48 billion. Of course the P500 can be higher or lower depending on the contraceptives supplied.

a. Following the principle of fiscal responsibility will there be revenue measures identified to fund this new expenditure program? Will the funding come from taxes collected from the general public, including Roman Catholics?

b. Or will the funds come from of grants or loans form the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, USAID, Millenium Challenge Corporation, etc.?

3. State interference in the family. The revised version has the following clause: “THE STATE SHALL ALSO PROMOTE OPENNESS TO LIFE, PROVIDED THAT THE PARENTS BRING FORTH TO THE WORLD ONLY THOSE CHILDREN THAT THEY CAN RAISE IN A TRULY HUMANE WAY.”

a) There is no definition of “TRULY HUMANE WAY”. Who will determine and define this, the State? Will the State set quantitative criteria such as minimum nutritional requirements, square meters of living space per child, ownership of appliances, etc? Will the State use present earning capacity or the expected permanent income of both parents? How will it allow for the possible increase in income of the breadwinner in the future?

b) Based on this clause, will the State then withdraw any support for openness to life if parents bring children whom they cannot raise in a “truly humane way”?

4. Coercion to cooperate in evil. There is an amendment the purports to lessen the coercive nature of the section on “Prohibited acts” in the case of health care providers who may not refuse under penalties to extend family planning services, “Provided that the conscientious objection of a healthcare service provider based on his ethical or religious beliefs shall be respected; however HE/SHE SHALL, WITHOUT IN ANYWAY AGREEING OR ENDORSING THE FAMILY PLANNING SERVICE OR PROCEDURE REQUIRED BY THE PERSON CONCERNED, immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another healthcare provider within the same facility…”

a) How can the State dictate the mental reservations of the health care provider? Conscientious objector na nga, eh.

b) Why is the state requiring the healthcare provider to violate his/her own internal disagreement by requiring him to refer the case to another health care provider?

c) To whom or how will the health care professional report or register her “WITHOUT IN ANYWAY AGREEING OR ENDORSING” the contraceptive or IUD or the sterilization? To her Mother Superior? To her Confessor? At her Particular Judgement after death?

5. Other issues, new or carried over from the previous version. Many of the provisions duplicatethe Magna Carta for Women which is already a law. The issue of penalties for doctors who refuse to treat failed abortions is already be covered by professional medical malpractice regulations and do not require a separate provision in an RH bill.

In sum, while the revised bill has taken out some coercive provisions and tries to de-emphasizeabortifacents, it is a hodgepodge of awkward attempts to make it seemingly acceptable and reasonable. It puts State power behind widespread distribution of morally and medically harmful contraceptives. Unfortunately it now uses questionable welfare economics in the name of supposedly helping the poor.

OTHER CONCERNS

1. What does the Bill say about effectiveness? Does it provide equality to protection of life BOTH for the mother and the unborn child from conception?

2. Once a drug enlisted to be one of the very general term “Modern Family Planning Methods” has established doubtful effectiveness, does the Bill provides mechanism to remove it from free circulation?

3. If the Bill does not promote abortion, then any “abortifacient” or effect to increase likelihood of abortion (chemical or mechanical) within the list of “Modern Family Planning Products” must also be removed. Is there a mechanism for this provided for by the Bill?

4. It is true that in the amended version of the Bill, the “Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is charged with the determination of the safety, efficacy and classification” of the Modern Family Planning products, however the same Bill must place criteria for “safety” and “efficacy”. Moreover, products that are neither “drug” nor “food” such as condoms must also be taken cared of, unless this product is under FDA authority.

5. Once becoming a law, will it automatically revise or amend, the Revised Penal Code? Part of every new law is to amend or change pre-existing laws contrary to it, except the Constitution. If “yes”, then the assumption that abortion is “already” illegal seems to become invalid eventually.

On today's full-page ad on the RH bill amendments

Today, a full-page advertisement versus the amended RH bill was published in Philippine Star and Philippine Daily Inquirer. The advertisement actually consists of two statements published together:

1. The November 6, 2012 CBCP-ECFL Statement on the Amended RH Bill: (The first document in this post: Two recent statements by Bishop Gabriel Reyes on the RH bill and the Culture of Life)

2. The CFC-FFL Statement on the Amended RH Bill: MISSING THE POINT: CFC-FFL Statement Against the Proposed Substitute (Amended) RH Bill dated Oct 17, 2012.

For now, I'm not posting any image of the ad, as I have none with a resolution good enough to make it readable. At any rate, it simply reproduces the texts linked above. For those who simply want to see how the ad looks like, the website of CFC-FFL has a picture. 

Two recent statements by Bishop Gabriel Reyes on the RH bill and the Culture of Life (Updated)

(Update 15/11/12: I've uploaded an image of the ECFL statement on the revised RH bill)

Originally posted Nov. 12, 2012: 

Bishop Gabriel Reyes, Ordinary of the Diocese of Antipolo, is the current head of the Episcopal Commission on Family and Life (ECFL).

1. Statement of the Episcopal Commission on Family and Life on the revised RH bill, November 6, 2012 (LINK)

A picture of the same statement, courtesy of Pro-Life Philippines: 

2. Lecture on the Blessed Virgin Mary in connection with the Culture of Life and the Culture of Death, June 21, 2012:

Mary and the Culture of Life and the Culture of Death

By Most Rev. Gabriel V. Reyes, D.D., Bishop of Antipolo

Culture of Life

Before talking about Mary in connection with the culture of life and the culture of death, let me review with you the meaning of the culture of life. in short, the culture of life is a way of thinking, a way of living that is in accordance with the Gospel of Life. To explain the gospel of life, I will depend much on the encyclical letter of Blessed John Paul II, "Evangelium Vitae" the Gospel of Life.

Basically the Gospel of Life teaches that human life has to be respected, promoted, and protected because of the human person. According to Vatican II, "man is the only creature on earth which God willed for its own sake." Because of the transcendent dignity of man "he is the subject of rights which no one may violate – no individual, group, class, nation or state." ("Centesimus Annus", 44) Human rights are rights inherent in every person and prior to any Constitution and State Legislation. The right to life is a primary right of the human person.

The dignity of the human person is based on my things.

First, man has been crated in the image and likeness of God. He is an image of God through his intellect and will. "You have made him little less than a god and crown him with glory and honor. (Ps. 8:5) The glory of God shines on the face of man.

Second, he has been redeemed by Christ, the Son of God, through His suffering and death. Furthermore, Vatican II says: "By his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every human being." This saving event reveals to humanity not only the boundless love of God who "so loved the world that he gave his only Son" (Jn. 3:16) but also the incomparable value of every human person (Evangelium Vitae, 2).

Third, man is called to share in God's own life, in divine life. "Man is called to a fullness of life which far exceeds the dimension of his earthly existence, because it consists in sharing the very life of God. The loftiness of this supernatural vocation reveals the greatness and inestimable value of human life even in its temporal phase. (EV, 2). Through the redemption wrought by Christ, God shared his divine life with man making him his son.

"We see here a clear affirmation of the primacy of man over things; these are made subject to him and entrusted to his responsible care, whereas for no reason can he be made subject to other men and almost reduced to the level of a thing." (EV, 34)

Life is not only God's gift to man but is also a sacred reality entrusted to man. He has to take care of it and protect it. He has to bring it to perfection through love and through the gift of himself to God and to his brothers and sisters.

For the record: Pro-Life Philippines versus the revised RH bill

Other position papers versus the revised RH bill:

1) CBCP - ECFL (see first document in this post)
2) CFC-FFL on the Revised RH Bill
3) World Youth Alliance Asia Pacific on the Amended RH Bill

Pro Life Philippines Foundation, Inc.

Position Paper on the New RH Bill Version

Filed at the House of Representatives

                

Greetings of Peace!

We have received a copy of the new RH bill version which was filed at the House of Representative  last October 23, 2012. For the education and information of our friends and all those who support us, we are releasing this statement in order to shed light on this new proposed RH Bill and it’s implications.

1. There simple is no need for an RH Law. As Senator Tito Sotto has mentioned in his Turno en Contra speech, there are 23 existing laws that mimic the RH bill, and close to 8 billion pesos given to the DOH by the government to fund RH-like programs and projects. Then there is the Magna Carta of Women. The RH bill is simply redundant and unnecessary.

2. The RH bill is a population control measure that masquerades as a bill that will empower women. True women empowerment happens when there are enough jobs for women to support their families as well as education for their children. The funds to be used in purchasing contraceptives can be utilized in projects that directly alleviate poverty and empower women, like building classrooms and schools, roads, bridges, ports, and other infrastructure.

3. The provisions that will allow adolescents to have access to contraceptives are still present. Not that taking them off will convince us to accept this bill, but the presence of these provisions only reinforce our convictions that the RH bill is for population control. Aside from this fact, adolescents should not be given contraceptives as this would only reinforce teen-age sexual activities and lead to teen-age pregnancies.

4. The provision for sex education of adolescents is still present. The important points in sex education are already included in our present curriculum via our biology classes; what the youth need is education and formation geared towards the discovery and enrichment of their talents and skills, and personality development and self-mastery, which are all necessary in preparing them to be efficient members of the workforce. A student who is prepared both physically and emotionally for work will be an asset in any workplace, and if he is poor, he has more chances to bring himself and his family out of poverty.

5. The bill propagates the misconception of poor women needing contraception because they want to limit the number of children born to them, but are too poor to afford contraceptives. Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government professor Lant Pritchett says parents who have large families want large families, meaning parents want the children that they beget. It is also a misconception that poor women cannot afford contraceptives, hence the need for the RH Bill. According to the 2008 National Demographic Health Survey, only less than 1% of women cannot afford contraception.

6. The RH Bill has been a highly divisive issue, with both sides hardly yielding any ground. However, there are certain bills that are not as divisive as the RH bill but will also help this country move forward by curbing graft and corruption. We are referring to the Freedom of Information bill, and the Anti-Dynasty bill. Both the congress and senate would have taken the country a step forward in the right direction had they passed these two bills. Instead they chose to dwell on the RH bill, and because of this our politicians look like they are only after their own selfish interests.

The framers of the RH Bill presented this revised version of the RH bill hoping that they could pass it with the amendments in place. They are sadly mistaken. We still oppose the RH bill, and there shall be no compromise. We value life and the true dignity of women. No to the RH Bill!

Sincerely

Mr. Eric Manalang

President, Pro Life Philippines

(SOURCE) 

This paper was originally posted last week (November 7, 2012) on the website of Pro-Life Philippines

For the record: World Youth Alliance Asia Pacific versus the revised RH bill

For the record: CFC-FFL on the Revised RH Bill

MISSING THE POINT: CFC FFL Statement Against the Proposed Substitute (Amended) RH Bill dated Oct 17, 2012

Scrambling to get the Reproductive Health Bill approved before the Christmas break, its authors in the House of Representatives have dangled an enticing gambit by unveiling a ”tamer, watered-down version” of the controversial measure.

The re-packaged Bill aims to bait acceptance from detractors and approval from the general public, on the strength of compromised amendments.

On surface, the amendments appear to bridge the gap separating the proponents from the objectors. But upon closer scrutiny and beneath the veneer of an attempted compromise, the revisions really do little to save the Bill. The reason is simple: THE AMENDMENTS MISS THE POINT.