World Youth Alliance on the Passage of the RH Bill

From the website of World Youth Alliance Int'l: 

Philippine Reproductive Health Bill Passed on Third and Final Reading

December 18, 2012

Philippine Reproductive Health Bill Passed on Third and Final Reading in Congress and Senate

On December 17, after almost 14 years of discussion and debate, the reproductive health bill (the RH bill) was passed during its third and final reading in the House of Representatives, with a vote of 133 in favor and 79 against, and in the Senate, with a vote of 13 in favor and 8 against. Philippine President Benigno Aquino had designated passing the RH bill an urgent matter and called on Congress to vote on it before Christmas, prompting late-night congressional sessions that led to the passage of the bill. The bicameral conference committee is now set to consolidate the two versions of the bill, and then both chambers of Congress will need to ratify the consolidated version before it goes before the President for his final signature.

The World Youth Alliance laments the passage of the RH bill. For over four years, WYA has opposed the bill because it relies on the false premise that a government-run population management program is necessary for development.  It also lacks adequate protections for freedom of conscience, pays inadequate attention to maternal and child health, and does not reaffirm commitment to protecting the unborn.  The bill does not properly address the needs of Filipinos, who want measures to address sustainable development concerns that fully respect their cultures, religious beliefs, and values while promoting the health of mothers and children.

As the bill takes effect and is implemented over the coming years, we will continue to work with those legislators and advocates who fought against the measure to push for long-term solutions that actually respect the rights of conscience of Filipino health care workers and that stimulate the innovation needed for sustainable development in the Philippines.   We will push for increased skilled birth attendants so that every mother has access to care during childbirth and maternal mortality drastically decreases.  We will push for increased access to education so that every young person can be equipped with the knowledge and skills to recognize his or her own potential and to contribute to the development of our society and our economy.  We will push for freedom of conscience for all Filipinos, allowing all to act according to the dictates of their own consciences and not to the commands of the government.

We call on young people in the Philippines to join us in this fight.  We call on young people to be aware about issues related to the RH bill—population, development, and women’s health—and to continue to work together to safeguard our local communities from any threats to family and to human dignity. The passage of the bill and the years of debate leading up to it have shown us that our values and priorities as Filipinos continue to be threatened on different fronts. Young people must take a more vigilant and active role in monitoring the implementation of the bill in the next few years and in directing its impact on society, aiming to prevent the violation of dignity that the bill’s provisions threaten to do.

The World Youth Alliance would like to take this opportunity to thank all the people, especially the legislators, who selflessly devoted their time, talent and treasure to fighting a bill that does not adequately provide for the needs of Filipinos. The journey is not over, as we continue to work toward improving the health and education opportunities of Filipinos. We invite you to join us at WYA as we aim to improve the lives of our fellow Filipinos—and people around the world—through promoting the dignity of the human person and through educating youth about positive solutions to the problems facing our world, such as sustainable development, maternal and child health, and access to education and employment.

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

World Youth Alliance's statement on the passage of the RH bill on second reading can be found here: Philippine Reproductive Health Bill Passed on Second Reading in Congress

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

More Filipino youth leaders speak out versus the RH Bill

From CBCP for Life:

Notion of youth majority as pro-RH ‘wishful thinking’; student group doesn’t speak for youth sector

MANILA, March 26, 2012—After a group of university student leaders declared its intention to campaign against lawmakers opposed to the Reproductive Health (RH) bill, several youth organizations representing an even bigger number of young people blasted the mistaken notion that majority of the youth are easily swayed by pro-RH propaganda.

Noisy minority

As for the statement made by the Student Council Alliance of the Philippines (SCAP) national spokesperson JC Tejano that “we are ready to launch the full force of the youth against anti-RH legislators,” Youth Pinoy! President Eileen Esteban remarked, “To me the statement is irresponsible and very assuming. It’s a hollow threat, propaganda to make them seemingly look huge but the truth is they are just a noisy minority.”

“SCAP is in no position to make wholesale statements about the voice of the youth on the RH issue. They are not even a quarter of the majority of the voting youth that they claimed to be, even if we talk of the numbers game,” she continued.

“You want to talk about the voice of the youth that reckons real numbers? Talk to millions of Catholic youth based in our 86 dioceses, the Catholic schools and the trans-parochial organizations with millions of members that extend globally — then we could talk of a threatening number.”

“In my opinion, the youth are the most intelligent sector in the voting population,” Esteban said, adding that she was at the PPCRV Command Center during the 2010 election, mobilizing millions of young people who wanted to take part in the historic first automated election.

“And their power to move on causes they truly believe in is just so spectacular that it’s almost miraculous. They are the vigilant and idealistic slice of the pie that inquires, critically studies and acts on a sound judgment. What made SCAP think that the youth will just give away their precious votes just because the candidate voted against the bill?! That’s wishful thinking.”

RH bill benefits only a few

“We the members of Federation of National Youth Organization are really standing up against the RH bill because we know that it will only destroy our family, our values, our morality, lalo na ng mga kabataan,” said Federation of National Youth Organizations (FNYO) Council Member Maria Lea Dasigan.

“Kung ‘di pag-aaralan, hindi natin maiintindihan na ang RH bill ay para lamang sa kapakanan ng mga iilan at hindi talaga para sa kapakanan ng mga kabataan.”

“Personally,” she added, “I don’t believe na marami [silang mga pro-RH] na parang nananakot na majority of the voting population are young and for the RH bill. I really don’t think so.”

The FNYO has organizations in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, and its members have recently come up with a signature campaign, the result of which they intend to send to Congress.

Part of the group’s preparations for the 2013 elections is educating its various organizations on electoral candidates who are true to pro-life legislation.

‘I am part of the youth and I oppose the RH bill’

Even students of the University of the Philippines pointed out that newly elected University Student Council (USC) chair Heart Diño, who expressed support for the RH bill at the SCAP press conference, does not reflect their convictions.

“Heart Diño’s seat in the USC was favored by a mere 17.02% of UP’s student population. Heart was voted into the council by 3,290 students out of roughly 19,300. Tell me, does Heart Diño speak the voice of UP’s studentry? Ideally, yes. But in reality, no,” stated Kiboy Tabada, convenor of UP Against the RH Bill.

“Heart was reported to have said that lawmakers ‘should not belittle the youth vote,’ that ‘they should listen to what the youth are actually saying.’ Listen to the youth? Or listen to you? I am part of the youth and I oppose the RH Bill. I believe that a lawmaker’s vote for the RH Bill is a vote against the real welfare of the youth, against the future of the youth. And I speak for the youth who stand against it and for the rest of my generation who do not know that it’s their future that’s at stake. On this matter, Heart Diño does not speak my voice. By what strong mandate can Heart speak the youth’s voice?”

Pro-life legislators can bank on youth support

The engineering student also reiterated his group’s all-out support for legislators who act on a genuine, life-affirming concern for the youth and for the future of the country.

“To pro-life legislators, stand your ground. The youth are with you. The youth know that you have our best interests in mind in your opposition to the RH Bill. There is no honor in instilling fear to get you to vote for the measure. There is no honor in ruining someone else’s credibility to forward our own. We from UP Diliman ought to know this. We remain ready to speak for and defend our position by its merits. And we will stand with and campaign for you by your merits as real representatives of the youth’s welfare,” Tabada declared.

John Walter Juat, also of UP Against the RH Bill, said that though the pro-RH student group was free to present its views, “I want to firmly say that they do not represent even close to the majority of those in the youth sector.”

‘Peaceful but strong assertiveness’ marks anti-RH campaign

“While the pro-RH camp may choose to go with ‘wrath,’” he continued (referring to the news item’s title ‘RH bill foes face the wrath of student groups’), “the anti-RH camp will choose the peaceful but strong assertiveness to convince our legislators to take a stand against this divisive bill, and support the pro-life legislators in the next election. The pro-RH individuals noted in the article may be university leaders, but they do not intimidate us, even a little bit. The fight to preserve our nation’s pro-life, pro-family, pro-God culture will continue and will not stop until this RH bill is finally trashed.”

World Youth Alliance Asia Pacific (WYAAP) regional director Renelyn Tan blasts the misleading assertion that the RH bill will empower women as well as provide a solution to poverty.

Youth know RH bill is not the answer

“Working with young people in World Youth Alliance Asia Pacific allows me to see the great concern they have on issues relating to women and children. Our members clearly do not want women dying during childbirth or children missing out on opportunities but unfortunately, the current RH bill version does not provide a holistic way of addressing the fundamental causes of poverty and challenges to true women empowerment,” Tan said.

In an earlier statement, Tan explained that she and other young people find it unfortunate that the media often portrays young people as “callous, who don’t know when to stop. But this is not true,” she asserted.

“Kaming mga kabataan, we are all made for excellence and we really hope that our government, our institutions, our leaders and civil society will be able to provide [the necessary conditions] because our lives should be seen as an expression of our intrinsic and inviolable dignity. We would like to reiterate that young people are not only sexual beings.”

“Much has been said about the RH bill, but it cannot be an issue totally conclusive of a young person’s future,” Esteban of Youth Pinoy! added.

“Education comprises the biggest chunk, though we’re not talking about sex education here but good quality education that leads to an individual’s progress.” (CBCP for Life)

Is our population's growth really the root cause of our economic problems?

From the prestigious American journal National Review:

Population Growth in the Philippines: Problem or Potential?

By Christopher White

February 8, 2011

In one week, a population-control bill in the Philippines is likely to be passed that supports coercive government-funded family-planning initiatives for demographically targeted populations. If passed, one year or even one generation from now, the root problems that this bill seeks to address will still exist. In fact, they’re likely to be exaggerated.

“The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011,” as this bill is officially titled, is in essence an attempt to curb the growing population of the Philippines through a variety of measures — most notably, a new sexual-education program, greater access and distribution of contraceptives, and eventually, government-funded abortion. This past week the bill made its way out of a plenary session and is now on the fast track to becoming law.

At present, the population of the Philippines is estimated to be over 92 million making it the world’s twelfth most populous country. Fertile women in the Philippines have, on average, 3.1 babies each — a stark contrast to neighboring Singapore, which had an all-time low average of 1.16 in 2010. Given its size and increasing growth, the needs of the Philippines are vast — education, health care, and better sanitation to name a few. But is population growth really the root cause of these problems and needs? History seems to indicate otherwise.

How not to prevent maternal deaths

A handy summary of some of the major arguments against the RH bill

8 Reasons Why We Should Not Pass the RH Bill
From: World Youth Alliance

(For a slideshow version, please scroll down this post.)

1. The Reproductive Health Bill undermines the human rights it seeks to advance.

The government cannot, on the one hand, guarantee the “universal basic human right to reproductive health” with its concomitant “right to make free and informed decisions,” and on the other hand advocate a policy that tells parents—especially women—what their choices should be. Such an approach is an unjustifiable affront to the dignity and capacity of the poor.

The bill also claims to give equal importance to natural and artificial methods of family planning. This claim does not hold. While mention is given to natural methods of family planning, no funding is provided for the promotion of these methods in the budgetary provisions of the bill. Natural methods rely on investments in the education of women and increased knowledge, in order to enable women to manage their health, and make informed decisions. Budgetary allocations must be inserted to the bill to provide funding for the training of knowledge-based reproductive health care providers, and the promotion of necessary information to women in order to enable informed choice.

2. Maternal Health requires access to healthcare facilities and reproductive health education, not contraceptives.

Improved access to basic health care, nutrition, medicines and technology are the additional means by which maternal mortality and morbidity can be reduced and eliminated.

The mandate of the RH bill to increase obstetric care and skilled birth attendants, is not emphasized in this bill. The causes of maternal mortality and morbidity are limited: hemorrhage, infection, obstructed labor and hypertensive disorders. These causes can be significantly addressed through investment in skilled birth attendants, and provision of health education for women and families.

There is probably no more important step the Philippines could take toward improving reproductive health. The UNFPA states that three-fourths (¾) of all maternal deaths could be averted by the presence of skilled birth attendants. By contrast, family planning is likely to reduce maternal deaths only by one-third. The RH bill’s current provisions for maternal care are important, but underdeveloped in comparison with other parts of the bill.

3. It does not protect the rights of conscience of those that will be responsible for implementing new measure.

All reproductive health care workers should “provide information and educate” and “render medical services” consistent with the new provisions in this bill. This bill does not include measures that protect conscientious objections for healthcare workers or institutions that refuse to provide services due to religious or cultural beliefs and practices. In addition, through state-imposed reproductive health curriculum in schools, this bill undermines the rights of parents to be the primary educators of their children. Likewise, denying couples the right to marry without first receiving “adequate instruction” on family planning and responsible parenthood violates their individual freedom conscience and discriminates against those who would refuse such training in religious or cultural grounds.

4. It violates freedom of expression.

The bill’s criminalization of speech that “maliciously engages in disinformation” (an undefined category) about the substance or even potential motives behind the RH bill violates the constitutional right to free speech and expression. The provision should be eliminated in its entirety.

5. Increase in Contraceptive use leads to higher abortion rate

Dr. Malcolm Potts, abortion and contraceptive advocate and past medical director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, said that “As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate.” Dr. Judith Bury of the Brook Advisory Center chimed in a few years later that “There is overwhelming evidence that, contrary to what you might expect, the provision of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate.”

The reason for this is twofold: First, contraceptives fail a certain percentage of the time. A 5% failure rate means that 5% of the couples using a certain method will be pregnant at the end of the year. Second, the use of contraceptives gives a false sense of security that leads to risky sexual behavior. The result is more “unplanned” pregnancies and hence more abortions.

http://www.pop.org/content/presidents-page-contraception-reduces-1874

6. It fails to reaffirm the Philippines’s protection of the unborn.

Filipino law has long defended the right to life of all persons, whether born or unborn. The Reproductive Health Bill makes only an ambiguous statement of principle (“While nothing in this Act changes the law against abortion...”) as part of a care provision for post-abortion complications. Additionally, the bill’s guarantee of “reproductive health care services,” as opposed to the defined term “reproductive health care,” as well as a “universal basic human right to reproductive health” according to international legal custom, could eventually open the door to undermining Philippines national law protecting unborn persons.

7. Recent reports emphasize the problems with widely used family planning programs that fail to meet the needs of the poorest populations.

“Strategies that seek to increase contraceptive use rapidly by improving services and access in convenient or well-resourced areas are likely to increase observed inequities in contraceptive use.” Maternal mortality and general reproductive health problems also remain high because the unique issues facing poor populations are not addressed. (Nuriye Ortayli and Shawn Malarcher, “Equity Analysis: Identifying Who Benefits from Family Planning Programs.”) In this way family planning programs, by focusing on contraceptive use rather than an integrated, comprehensive approach to population development, fail to address the needs of the poor.

8. There has never been a direct link connecting high population with high poverty rates.

Correlation is not causation. It is short-sighted to think of declining population growth as a goal in of itself. Population control, as an economic policy, has proven to be unsustainable. Across Europe and Asia, countries that saw steep declines in fertility in the past generation are now bracing themselves for the future consequences of an aging population, when a large number of elderly can no longer be supported by the smaller and younger working class. During the 1970s and 1980s, Singapore instituted an aggressive two-child policy, which led to a situation of labor shortages and the difficulty of supporting an aging population. In an effort to recover, Singapore now pursues a pro-fertility policy.

In the case of Hong Kong, the country’s dense population has had no debilitating effects on its economic development. Hong Kong has experienced a great economic boom and high levels of economic prosperity largely due to a sound banking system, no public debt, a strong legal system, and a rigorously enforced anti-corruption regime. This case provides a clear example that economic development is not synonymous with small population size, and that a large population is not only sustainable but an asset to development.

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

Slideshow version:

Phils Reproductive Health Bill Essential Points

World Youth Alliance Statement on the RH Bill

Monday, February 7, 2011

WYA Asia Pacific Response to “The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011”

The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011 violates international human rights to freedom of conscience, thought and belief that are enshrined in Philippine law. These rights are protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and CEDAW, all of which have been ratified into Philippine law.

The following passages in the current bill violate freedom of conscience, thought and belief, and include punitive measures for those who oppose these rights:

RH bill. SEC. 7, Ln. 9-10

RH bill. SEC. 8, Para. 2, Ln. 26-29

RH bill. SEC. 12, Ln. 25

RH bill. SEC. 16, Ln. 4-5

RH bill. SEC. 16, Ln 10-11, (a)

RH bill. SEC. 16, Ln. 27

RH bill. SEC. 17

RH bill. SEC. 18

RH bill. SEC. 20, Ln. 24-25

RH bill. SEC 22

RH bill. SEC. 28(a)(1)

RH bill. SEC. 28(a)(2)

RH bill. SEC. 28(a)(3) Ln. 5-9

The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011 will be presented to the Appropriations Committee on the morning of Feb 8th, 2011. If passed in this committee, the bill will be referred to the Committee on Rules, which will schedule the bill for plenary voting.

It is critical for individuals to act now by contacting their Congressional Representative to ask them to protect basic human rights by voting against this bill. Only a vote against this bill will protect these basic human rights in Philippine law.

To find your Congressional representative’s contact information, go to this link: 

http://www.congress.gov.ph/members/

World Youth Alliance speaks out against the RH Bill

(I received this via email. It's not yet posted on any website as far as I know.)

World Youth Alliance Position Paper: House Bill No. 96,  the “Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2010”

The World Youth Alliance (“WYA”), a global coalition of young people promoting the dignity of the human person, states the following position on House Bill No. 96, the proposed “Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2010” (“RH bill”).  We wish to contribute the voices of 1 million young people from over 160 countries to this high profile debate on reproductive and maternal health, population, and integral development of the human person.

So far as sound developmental policy and respect for human dignity are concerned, the RH bill suffers from flaws that undermine its efforts to improve Philippine society.

We believe that the current version of the RH bill should not be passed for the following reasons:

A Wrong Theory of Population and Development

The bill’s most serious flaw is its reliance on the false premise that a government-run population management program is necessary for the Philippines’s economic and social development. This unsupported assertion is contrary to sound developmental economics and undermines the very reproductive rights the bill strives to support.

Tamping down population growth is the last thing the Philippines should be worrying about right now, for several reasons.  First of all, the assumption that population management is necessary or even beneficial to sustainable economic development is simply wrong.  For at least two decades now, economists have known that there is no correlation between population growth and economic development.[i]  Some countries with large, growing populations are prosperous; others are not.  Conversely, some countries with little to no population growth also do well; others do not.  Population is not the issue.

Secondly, even if the Philippines wanted want to tamp down its population growth, history shows that the sorts programs proposed by the RH bill are an ineffective way of getting there.  Compare countries that instituted heavy-handed population control programs in the 20^th century with countries that had no such programs:  Fertility rates declined in both groups of countries, and at similar rates.[ii]The most important factor in determining a country’s fertility rate is its desired fertility rate, which explains 90% of actual fertility.[iii]  Mere access to contraceptives, on the other hand, has only a 5% impact on total fertility.[iv]Desired fertility is, in turn, linked to the background economic and educational opportunities offered by society.[v]  When women have access to education, when families know that children will be in school for the first quarter of their lives, and when parents believe that every child will have the opportunity to prosper, then people tend to make choices that result in smaller families.[vi]  When these conditions are not present, families will be bigger, whether they have access to contraceptives or not.[vii]  Economic development is a condition, not the result, of population stabilization.

Thirdly, it is short-sighted to think of declining population growth as a goal in of itself.  Across Europe and Asia, countries that saw steep declines in fertility in the past generation are now bracing themselves for the future consequences of an aging population, when a large number of elderly can no longer be supported by the smaller and younger working class.[viii]

Fourthly, worries about tamping down population are a wasted effort in the face of the opportunities at hand.  Right now, the Philippines is in position to enjoy the sort of “demographic dividend” that many of its Asian neighbors did in the late 20^th century, when falling fertility rates lead to a large work force with fewer old and young dependents to support.[ix]  That demographic transition is already occurring naturally in the Philippines.  To take advantage of it, though, the country needs to ensure that its rising generations have access to the education, health, and opportunity necessary to prosper.            

   

Finally, the RH bill’s fixation on population management undermines the very human rights it seeks to advance.  The government cannot, on the one hand, guarantee the “universal basic human right to reproductive health” with its concomitant “right to make free and informed decisions,” and on the other hand advocate a policy that tells parents—especially women—what their choices should be. Such an approach is an unjustifiable affront to the dignity and capacity of the poor.

The current RH bill is permeated with a wrong theory of population and development.  Fixing the flaw would require extensive revisions.  Until those revisions take place, the bill should not proceed any further.

Imposition on the Freedom of Conscience

The second major flaw in the RH bill is that it imposes upon the freedom of conscience.  The right to act according to one’s moral, ethical, and religious beliefs is recognized in both Philippine and international human rights law.[x]  The RH bill, however, disregards that right in several key instances.

The bill fails to protect the conscience rights of healthcare providers, by requiring them, upon penalty of imprisonment or fine, to assist patients in finding procedures that are contrary to the providers’ ethical convictions.  This “referral requirement” should be eliminated.

The bill would also require every employer, no matter the size, to provide the full range of reproductive health services to every employee, irrespective of the employer’s moral beliefs or the fiscal ability to do so.  This provision is both an impediment to conscience and an anti-jobs measure because every worker in the Philippines is now more expensive to hire or retain.  It should be eliminated.

Parents and educators are given no assurances that they can opt out of portions of the RH bill’s new sexuality education curriculum if they find it contrary to how they believe they ought to raise their children or teach their students.  The bill needs an opt-out provision.

Finally, the bill’s criminalization of speech that “maliciously engages in disinformation” (an undefined category) about the substance or even potential motives behind the RH bill violates the constitutional right to free speech and expression.  The provision should be eliminated in its entirety.

Inadequate Emphasis on Maternal and Child Health

The RH bill’s greatest strength is its bolstering of maternal and child healthcare, especially its mandate to increase obstetric care and skilled birth attendants.  There is probably no more important step the Philippines could take toward improving reproductive health.  The UNFPA states that three-fourths (¾) of all maternal deaths could be averted by the presence of skilled birth attendants.[xi]  By contrast, family planning is likely to reduce maternal deaths only by one-third.[xii]

The RH bill’s current provisions for maternal care are important, but underdeveloped in comparison with other parts of the bill.  We recommend expanding the Population Commission’s (POPCOM) implementation mandate (Sec. 20) to include and emphasize maternal health, including: overseeing the bill’s obstetric care quotas (Secs. 5 and 6), improving the training of skilled birth attendants, and coordinating the deployment of skilled birth attendants.

Conclusion

The current version of the RH bill is a self-conflicted document.  Until the bill can be modified to address problems identified above—a faulty economic basis, violations of the freedom of conscience, and an under-emphasis on protecting unborn life and improving access to obstetric care—it should not advance any further in the Congress.  The Philippines needs a better bill.

If you have questions or comments please contact the WYAAP office at asiapacific@wya.net or our Director of Advocacy at becky@wya.net. 

Watch Renelyn Tan, Regional Director of WYA Asia Pacific, delivering a speech on WYA's stand regarding RH Bill in the Philippine Congress.

---

[i] David E. Bloom, David Canning, JaypeeSevilla, “The Demographic Dividend: A New Perspective on the Economic Consequences of Population Change,” RAND Corportation, 2003, p. 17.

[ii] Compare the decline in children per woman between 1950 and 2000 in high population control countries like India (5.91 to 3.11), Indonesia (5.49 to 2.38), Bangladesh (6.7 to 3.22) and Pakistan (6.6 to 3.99) with countries without extensive population campaigns: Brazil (6.15 to 2.35), Turkey (6.9 to 2.23), Argentina (3.15 to 2.35) and Algeria (7.28 to 2.53).  Data from the United Nations Population Division.  Cited in Matthew Connelly, Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population, Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2008, p. 374.

[iii]Lant H. Pritchett, “Desired Fertility and the Impact of Population Policies, “Population and Development Reivew 20 (1994), pp. 1-55.

[iv]Id.

[v] Connelly, pp. 374-75.

[vi] Jacqueline Kasun, The War Against Population: the Economics and Ideology of World Population Control, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999, pp. 78-86.

[vii]Id.

[viii]Joaquin Alumnina, Commissioner of the European Union, Closing Address to the Second European Demography Forum, November 25th, 2008 (“The economic impact of ageing will make it more difficult to finance our Social Model and to sustain it for future generations… impact of ageing in the EU will, from 2040 onwards, almost the halve the average growth rate of about 2 ½% in recent years”); European Demographic Report 2007, Executive Summary, page 6 (“Demographic change will gradually limit the scope for future employment growth”), 7 (“Projections show that, as employment decreases and productivity becomes the only source of future economic growth, the annual average potential GDP growth rate in the EU-25 will decline from 2.4 per cent in the period 2004-2010 to only 1.2 per cent in the period 2031-2050”); Wong, Theresa and Brenda S.A. Yeoh. “Fertility and the Family: An Overview of Pro-Natalist Policies in Singapore.” Asia MetaCentre Research Paper S eries, No. 12. AsiaResearch Institute, National University of S ingapore. Available at: http://www.populationasia.org/Publications/ ResearchPaper/ AMCRP12.pdf. Also see: Wijaya, Megawati. “Singapore faces a ‘silver tsunami.’” AsiaTimes Online. August 27, 2009. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/KH27Ae01.html. Last visited: 8 September. 2010.  Loh, Andrew, “MM Lee—population control revisited 30 years later.” The Online Citizen. Sept. 8, 2010. http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/ 08/ mm-lee-%E2%80%93-population-control-revisited-30-years-later/. Last visited: 8 Sept. 2010.

[ix] Roberto de Vera, “Economic Issues: the Consolidated Reproductive Health Bill in the House of Representatives,” The Bishops-Legislators Caucus of the Philippines, pp. 13-15.Based on data from the United Nations.

[x]Philippines Constitution, Art.II, § 2; Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 18.

[xi]UNFPA Facts Sheet, “Delivering Hope and Saving Lives.”  Available at: www.unfpa.org/webdav/site/global/shared/safemotherhood/factsheet3_eng.pdf.  Last visited: 10 Sept. 2010.

[xii]RH Bill Explanatory Note, p. 1 (“Correct and consistent use of contraceptives will prevent one-third of all maternal deaths”).

Watch Video here.

The RH BIll: Reading between the lines

Interesting, but read with caution. CAP.


The RH Bill: Reading between the lines

READ NOW By J. Vincent Sarabia Ong (The Philippine Star)
Updated November 20, 2010 12:00 AM

Due to the Damaso issue, the Reproductive Health Bill has been a debate among public personalities, between people in the rigid church and the loud media. And this is why I have only written about it now. I had to wait for things to settle down. Private individuals like you and me should ultimately be the ones concerned about the issue. It is the man on the street who will get affected by any law implemented by our government, and not just the RH bill.

Yet, when we take our stand and finally say something, the words that we will espouse must be intelligent rather than emotional. We have to be informed about what we fight for. Otherwise, all our rallying will be a waste of time.

And this is why in my search for truth, I found World Youth Alliance (WYA), an international non-profit organization that promotes and defends the dignity of man according to UN standards. They are one of many groups who have intelligently scrutinized the RH bill according to their mission. Ironically, I interviewed an American Yale lawyer Christian Huebner, who was sent from New York by WYA to read the actual bill, to read and explain my rights. Although there were points in which we diverged, the dialogue was an enlightening example of how conversation is a powerful tool in dissecting relevant issues in a civilized manner.

As such, I would like you to join in my conversation with Christian last week as a catalyst for you to start thinking about the true reasons that you are against or for the RH bill, other than the opinion of personalities. And as a result, we, hopefully, as a more informed society, can craft laws that actually benefit each person individually.

SUPREME: What is WYA?

CHRISTIAN: World Youth Alliance is an international NGO that promotes and defends the dignity of man. We are 11 years old, with offices found in New York, Brussels, Nairobi, Mexico, and Manila.

What exactly is the dignity of man?

Human dignity is that quality all human beings have that makes us worthy of respect.

We started in a UN conference. We questioned a speaker who said that “human rights are the basis of human dignity.” We believe that it is just the opposite. Human dignity is the basis of human rights. Why do you have the right to encourage human welfare other than man’s intrinsic dignity?

Yet, what is the source of this dignity?

The concept of dignity came about after World War II. During the UN meeting, participating nations agreed that there are certain practical ideas about man that all people can agree upon, such as dignity. Yet, the source of it, whether religious, philosophical or cultural, can diverge as long as we agree that man is worthy of respect.

Why is WYA concerned with reproductive health?

Human sexuality is very much part of being human. We are concerned with anything that asserts itself in human sexuality and what human sexuality is in general. So, we are wary if it is seen as a vehicle of socio-economic development, also when it intrudes into human life and human flourishing and a person’s freedom of conscience.

What is freedom of conscience?

It is the idea that to the greatest extent possible, human beings are allowed to live according to their deepest beliefs and convictions. Governments should stop forcing people contrary to their held beliefs. There are few points in the bill that go against this belief.

What is your initial concern with RH bill?

First, that the reason that the country is lagging behind is too many people. It violates the right to make people determine how their families develop. Besides, it rests on bad economic theory that people haven’t seriously believed in 20 years, the lifeboat theory or Malthusian economics belief that our raft is sinking the more people get on.

There is no direct correlation between reproductive health programs and reducing the population. Comparing countries like India or Indonesia with heavy RH intervention to Brazil and Algeria, with little intervention. Economic papers show that there is little to no difference in their population decline.

So, what grows or reduces the population?

It all depends on the desired family size of the people. What would make them smaller than larger? Women’s access to education because it gives opportunity for careers. Then, women choose to have smaller families. Also, in developed countries, kids become expenses because of expected path to success such as investment education. Kids are kept in school longer.

In underdeveloped areas, kids are economically profitable because they are seen to do work. Each child can be a lottery ticket out of poverty. Each is a chance to have another Manny Pacquiao.

What other parts of the bill are you concerned about?

Section 13 focuses on mandatory sex education from grade 5 to 4th year high school for private and public schools. It usurps the parents’ rights and duties as primary educators of their children. No provision for parental involvement in the curriculum or opt their kids out of the class. Also, teachers cannot opt to not teach the class even if it goes against their beliefs.

In the health sector, health care workers are penalized for refusing to provide these services. While, section 18 forces employes to pay for these services. We see it doesn’t make economic sense because it increases employee taxes and makes it expensive to hire people. Section 9 makes contraceptives into essential medicines but completely ignores proper procedures. Lastly, section 15 forces couples to join a family planning seminar to get their marriage license even if it goes against their conscience.

What part of the bill do you agree on?

We support the bill in providing access to skilled birth attendants. It should be highlighted. Maternal mortality is still high. It can be averted and provided with more tangible benefits.

What if people argue that the people cannot make informed choices?

I find it contradictory when people who say, “We are for informed choice but we don’t really trust you people to make the right decisions so we make these incentives to push you to one corner.”

As explained about the poor’s view on children, I see it as evidence of rational behavior in unfortunate circumstances. Sex and love is something so irrational that it is interesting to see patterns of rationality. We should fall into arrogance of presumption due to our wealth and must examine the assumptions behind our decisions.

Any final message?

Please read the bill and find people informed on it and can argue with you on the opposite side of what you believe.

* * *

For feedback, readnow@supreme.ph. For the website of WYA, http://www.wya.net/