My Comments on Sex Education

The texts in italic and underline are the objectors' statements while the normal texts are my replies.

Exactly the right question to ask J.C. De los Reyes.

Besides, does the Memorandum prohibits, THUS VIOLATES, parents’ PREROGATIVE of teaching birds and bees at home?

Wrong comparison and application of principle. The memorandum does not prohibit anything, rather it does what it should not.

“The State shall defend: (1) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood; and (4) The right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them.” (Art XV Sec 3, Constitution). The contraceptive mentality of the DepEd curriculum and the Catholic principles that true Catholics live by cannot be reconciled. For the DepEd to insist on it is to violate the religious rights of the Catholic families. Were family associations such as Couples for Christ and other pro-life families invited, heard, and actually considered before the program was approved?

Do we need to prove more than one Constitutional violation before it would be taken seriously? Sound moral judgment is enough (even without the Constitution) to prove that DepEd’s act is inappropriate.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/is-sex-education-immoral-and-results-to-wrong-moral-development/#comment-10323

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the fact is almost all parents do not talk to their children about sex. they lear about it on their own from their peers or porn. that is a very dangerous thing as it does put sex in a very distorted way.

gtetting the schools and teachers to teach children about sex is a much better option. it will be done preofesionally and in a very structured way.

even if its taugght in school, parents should discuss sex with their children and discuss what they learned in school so that the parent will get involved in the learning process and will allow the parent to define the values the parent believes in.

That is almost my point in the article Usaping Sex sa Paaralan [http://mangingibig.blogspot.com/2009/12/usaping-sex-sa-paaralan.html] that I have written last year. The only idea that I cannot agree with is that “getting the schools and teachers to teach children about sex is a much better option. it will be done profesionally and in a very structured way.” Even today’s general values education is not better than what good and well-trained parents can give their children. When I graduate from high school, I received the “Best in Values Education”, “Most Well-Behaved”, “Most Responsible”, and “Most Trustworthy” awards, but I cannot attribute it to the school’s “structured and professional” way of teaching. I was and still am very positively critical of teachers, parents, and superiors. It would take at least two generations for our teachers to be able to teach sexuality without shying away or without making students shy away. And it should be noted that in order for the children to be not malicious regarding sex education, it must — like charity — begin at home. Teachers cannot build that foundation.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/is-sex-education-immoral-and-results-to-wrong-moral-development/#comment-10329

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the primary source of values ought to tbe parent, not the schools and teachers. schools and teachers however are the primary source of education. so let’s allow teachers and schools teach sex education and let us not allow parents to abdicate teaching of values.

Parents are the primary teachers; school teachers are just secondary parents; therefore, school teachers are secondary teachers, especially about subjects that directly affect a person’s life and outlook. Sex education will always be a primary affair of the parents, not of school teachers. Teachers can share their knowledge with the parents, but they cannot be an actual parent when it comes to educating children about sex.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/is-sex-education-immoral-and-results-to-wrong-moral-development/#comment-10332

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly, how does the memo prohibit the primary right of parents to develop moral character in their children as claimed by Kapatiran? With or without the memo, I can still teach my children about penis and vagina, right? This is my point of contention not what the “memo does what it should not.” Which is another point of discussion.

Educate me if you will but I cannot find from this article nor from the Inquirer’s that Kapatiran accuses DepEd of prohibiting something. If they do, then I believe AKP must have a wrong conclusion. What the DepEd does is it violates the rights of the parents. Besides, it could not in anyway or any reason prohibit parents from anything. It has no power to do so. Both you, if you are a parent, and your child’s teacher, if he/she is well trained, may and should talk about penis and vagina. However, teachers should be limited within the scope of anatomy, physiology, and hygiene. Parents are the ones who should tell their children when, how, why, and in what context it should be used. The arguments of Kapatiran as per Inquirer’s report has solid grounds. If somebody has any other article where the party has been reported saying something strange, please let me know.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/is-sex-education-immoral-and-results-to-wrong-moral-development/#comment-10342

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did the memo say, impliedly or otherwise, Deped is taking the primary role of teaching sex education to children. Parent’s neglect, or lack of knowledge, will only make it so. But were parents taught proper sex ed in school?

I have not seen the full text of the memo (as of the moment) so I could not say that it has implied or explicitly said in letters that it would take the role of the parents. However, the mere fact that both DepEd and DOH have the influence of contraceptive culture, and that this sex education aims to shape the students’ moral and practical view regarding the use of their sexual faculties, it actually tries to take away (or at least compete with) the role of the parents. The concept sounds so RH bill.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/is-sex-education-immoral-and-results-to-wrong-moral-development/#comment-10344

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, there are more trees that the catholic church should bark upon that are more influential in shaping the students’ moral and practical view regarding the use of their sexual faculties, that they actually try to take away (or at least compete with) the role of the parents.

We have noontume shows like Wowowee, movies depicting illicit sex, the MTV culture, immoral actors and actresses (how many of them go catholic church on sundays?) to name a few.

Who are we to judge that sex education will lead to promiscuity? Do you have studies to prove this? On the contrary please read the editorial of the philippine daily inquirer today. It might just assuage your fear.

I don’t think the Church failed to teach the principles on how to discern the morality of movies and TV shows. Priests may or may not point out Revillame’s behavior, for example, but it’s up to them. Besides, what you deem moral (or immoral) applies to everything. Furthermore, TV shows and movies could not be more influential than teachers if the parents have “the authority” over their children. It is only in extreme situations that the Church should warn the faithful about particular shows. That is still the role of the guardians in ordinary circumstances.

And what does the question “How many of them go to Catholic churches on Sundays” imply? That they should not be allowed to? That they should be singled out on homilies? Any other else? When parents teach their children about honesty, it is very wrong and insensitive to say to one who is known to be dishonest, “Kaya ikaw, huwag kang sinungaling!” That scene is common but it is wrong parenting. You should not even say to your children, whether you have 2 or 12, the line, “Ang titigas ng ulo nyo!” It is an act of condemnation rather than of correction.

We do not judge, we discern. We do not speculate, we use principles. And as I have said earlier, DepEd is living and thinking in a culture of contraception and two-child mentality; that alone is enough to see where this is leading to.

Sex education is a very broad term. I used to talk about sex “on air”, and I am still giving insights about it to whoever solicits it from me. Sex education itself “should” not lead to promiscuity; however, wrong education might lead to wrong behavior.

Did sex education “really” help Americans to be less promiscuous? Read Humanae Vitae, then tell us where Paul VI failed to perceive our generation more than 40 years ago. Besides, why should the government insist on teaching sexuality beyond its [government's] bounds? They should know the word respect better than that.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/is-sex-education-immoral-and-results-to-wrong-moral-development/#comment-10347

I am not sure why you have adopted my words, but if you want to imply that it is the Church who tries to take away or compete with the role of the parents, then you have a wrong proposition. First, religion is a personal choice; it is neither a curriculum nor a memorandum. Whatever the Church teaches, the faithful asks for it. The minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: “What do you ask of God’s Church?” And the answer is: “Faith.” (CCC Part 1, Sec 1, Chap 3). The baptised-to-be’s gesture professes that “Whatever the Church teaches, I believe.” Whether you are a parent or still a child, you actually asked your church (whether you are aware or not) to teach you according to its faith — that is religious belief, morality, and discipline.

Second, the State recognizes and shall defend “the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions” as per the Philippine Constitution. This just means that the State also recognizes religion has the primary influence in parenting and family life.

In short, the Church cannot compete with the parents because it is actually one of their influences. Now, it is not the case with DepEd, because whatever attacks a family’s religious belief is a violation of its religious and constitutional rights. And besides, what DepEd wants to do is already outside its boundary.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/is-sex-education-immoral-and-results-to-wrong-moral-development/#comment-10348

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“But were parents taught proper sex ed in school?”

If the sex education that you are referring to is as what DepEd defines it to be, then parents should have not been taught. But the more real argument here is that not all parents went to school. The question is not generally applicable. It would have been better if the question is, “Were the parents taught proper sex education?” My answer then is, “They should be now.” The focus of the proposal should be on the word “proper” and not on the “school”.

Now, the reality is: parents are parents. They have the responsibility to know what they should know. Whether they went to school or not, the fact that they are parents should push them to be responsible enough to study. Learning about life is not always done inside a campus; most of the time, it is outside. Whether poor or rich, parents should always be one step ahead of their children when it comes to life’s essentials. The Church may not reach everybody, but everybody may approach the Church and its Magisterium. Now, someone would say, “But the Church has a wrong perception about sex.” According to the world, yes; but according to the Creator of the world, the Church is “the Teacher”. Christ’s sending words are, “Therefore go and make disciples (i.e. students) of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Another one would say, “But not all Filipinos are Catholics.” Most Filipinos are Catholics and all Catholics must live according to their Faith; that means according to the teaching of the Church. Now, how about non-Catholics? Again, I would say, everybody may approach the Magisterium of the Church, whether someone wishes or not to be a Catholic. That is a “free education” offer. And if non-Catholics want to stick with the moral teaching of their churches, then good for them. But to argue that not all Filipinos are Catholics just to justify the presence of “sex education” in schools is lame. DepEd still violates rights.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/is-sex-education-immoral-and-results-to-wrong-moral-development/#comment-10349

See What They Can Do?

Previously, I have mentioned the fact that the government was able to promote, illegally though, a contraceptive culture with the help of the then Secretary of Health Juan Flavier. They were able to do that even without any legal support; even if it is a show of indecency; and even though it is a direct attack on the Constitution and on the families.

Now, when we thought the RH bill is dead, its twelfth section (Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health Education) is actually being enforced, directly violating Article XV Section 3 Paragraphs 1 & 4 of the Constitution and other parts of it. The said program is funded by the United Nations with the help of US, of course, just like the other contraceptive programs. Have you not heard the presence of Planned Parenthood Federation of America in the Philippines who, according to them, "works to improve contraceptive use among adolescents and youth through peer education and outreach programs"? They were here since 1971, and the RH bill's agenda is actually their agenda.

What HB 5043 asks for is not the moral consent of the Filipino people since they can and will try to do all of its proposals with or without the go signal from the citizens. What they actually asks for is budget. This is what the bill is all about -- billions of taxpayers' pesos. With the help of UN and Obama, though, RH bill can and will still try to enforce itself without needing to be a law.

If these people do not know how to respect individual rights, and can make a rug out of the Constitution, do you know what more they can do and will do when they already have our sweated-for money?

The Bill According to Lagman

Below is the speech of Congressman Edcel Lagman about the RH bill as it appears on his official website: First District of ALBAY. It has convinced many but I would say with Abraham Lincoln, "You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time."

Wednesday, 15 April 2009 12:28

THE REAL CRUSADE: THE TRUTH ABOUT HB 5043
(Speech delivered by REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN during a forum on the Reproductive Health Bill  sponsored by the South Manila Inter-Institutional Consortium at UP Manila on 14 November 2008)

The crusade for the passage of House Bill No. 5043 or the “Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development Act of 2008” has been difficult not because it lacks merit since the bill is truly meritorious as it is necessary, beneficial and practicable.

The enactment of the bill faces roadblocks not because it is deprived of popular support because survey after survey reveals that the RH bill enjoys the solid support of an overwhelming majority of Filipinos regardless of social class and religion. The latest SWS survey shows that 71% of all Filipinos endorse the passage of the reproductive health bill.

Neither is the passage of the bill delayed because of lack of supporters in the House of Representatives. In fact, as of today, House Bill 5043 has a total of 113 coauthors, more than a majority of the requisite quorum to approve a bill.

The campaign for the enactment of the RH bill has been made difficult because of the deliberate misinformation campaign being launched against the bill by its critics and the dilatory maneuvers being contrived by its oppositors.

I am therefore thankful for this opportunity to explain not only the salient provisions of the measure but also the chance to counter the misinformation and half-truths being peddled by those against the bill.

The RH bill assures an enabling environment where women and couples have the freedom of informed choice on the mode of family planning they want to adopt based on their needs, personal convictions and religious beliefs.

ELEMENTS OF RH - The RH bill is not principally about condoms and pills. It is certainly not about religion. It is about health and rights and this can be seen clearly in the coverage of reproductive health, as proposed in the bill.

Family planning is only one element of reproductive health. Equally important are the other elements of RH which include: (1) maternal, infant and child health and nutrition; (2) promotion of breast feeding; (3) prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications; (4) adolescent and youth health; (5) prevention and management of reproductive tract infections, HIV/AIDS and STDs; (6) elimination of violence against women; (7) counseling on sexuality and reproductive health; (8) treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers; (9) male involvement and participation in RH; (10) prevention and treatment of infertility; and (11) RH education for the youth.

It is a pity that the RH debate has been confined to family planning because its critics primarily oppose the use of modern contraceptives which they claim are abortifacients and will lead to the deterioration of marriage and family life. It is a pity because the other elements of RH, which will similarly protect and promote the right to health and reproductive self-determination, have been largely ignored.

STRENGTHENING OF POPCOM - The POPCOM shall be reoriented to promote both natural and modern family planning methods. Few people know that POPCOM, which is the government agency central to the country’s family planning program, is only promoting for sometime now natural family planning even though only 29% of all women using family planning employ NFP compared to the 71% who use modern contraceptives.

MIDWIVES FOR SKILLED BIRTH ATTENDANCE – The bill supports safe motherhood. It proposes that every city and municipality shall endeavor to employ an adequate number of midwives and other skilled attendants. Skilled attendance at birth will help prevent maternal and infant mortality which are both alarmingly high in the country. Currently, only 57% of Filipino women give birth with the assistance of a trained medical professional.

EMERGENCY OBSTETRIC CARE - Each province and city shall endeavor to ensure the establishment and operation of hospitals with adequate and qualified personnel that provide emergency obstetric care. If we are to make headway in our commitment to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to lower infant mortality and improve maternal health, it is imperative to provide emergency obstetric care to those who need them. The miracle of life should not mean death for 10 mothers daily and the importance of facilities that can provide life saving services to pregnant women cannot be overemphasized.

HOSPITAL-BASED FAMILY PLANNING - Family planning methods requiring hospital services like ligation, vasectomy and IUD placement shall be available in all government hospitals. Maternal and infant mortality and morbidity are public health concerns that government can address if effective and long-term methods such as IUDs and permanent methods like ligation and vasectomy are readily available in government hospitals – the health facilities the poor and marginalized regularly utilize.

CONTRACEPTIVES AS ESSENTIAL MEDICINES - Reproductive health products shall be considered essential medicines and supplies and shall form part of the National Drug Formulary. The classification of contraceptives as essential medicines will help the poorest of our women, who continue to have an average of six children, avoid unplanned pregnancies and maternal death. Both the WHO and UNFPA have declared that contraceptive use can prevent 1/3 of all maternal deaths.

Our maternal mortality rate which is pegged at 162 deaths out of every 10,000 live births is both alarming and insidious. Fourteen percent of all deaths in the female population can be attributed to pregnancy and childbirth-related causes (DOH and NDHS 2003). This is unacceptable. No woman should die giving life to another human being.

It should be underscored that modern contraceptives are included in the World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines. Their inclusion in the National Drug Formulary will enable government to purchase contraceptives and not merely rely on unpredictable donations.

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH EDUCATION – RH education in an age-appropriate manner shall be taught by adequately trained teachers from Grade 5 up to 4th Year High School. As proposed in the bill, core subjects include responsible parenthood; natural and modern family planning; proscription and hazards of abortion; reproductive health and sexual rights; abstinence before marriage; and responsible sexuality, among others.

Sexuality education seeks to assist young people in cultivating a positive view of sexuality; provide them with information and skills about taking care of their sexual health; and help them make sound decisions now and in the future. It has also has been shown to make adolescents more sexually responsible and adds a level of maturity to their attitudes towards sexual relations.

Formal education on RH and sexuality is necessary because of the parental default at home where conversations on sex is traditionally taboo.

Moreover, an SWS survey released only last month shows that 76% of Filipinos approve of the teaching of family planning to the youth.

IDEAL FAMILY SIZE - The State shall encourage two children as the ideal family size. This is neither mandatory nor compulsory and no punitive action may be imposed on couples having more than two children. This also approximates the desired number of children by women and couples which is 2.5 children.

EMPLOYERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES - Employers shall respect the reproductive health rights of all their workers. Women shall not be discriminated against in the matter of hiring, regularization of employment status or selection for retrenchment. Employers shall provide free reproductive health services and commodities to workers, whether unionized or unorganized.

These are all restatements and improvements of existing provisions of the Labor Code and relevant jurisprudence.

CAPABILITY BUILDING OF COMMUNITY-BASED VOLUNTEER WORKERS - Community-based workers shall undergo additional and updated training on the delivery of reproductive health care services and shall receive not less than 10% increase in honoraria upon successful completion of training. This will improve the ability of our barangay health workers to deliver relevant RH information and services.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE - No marriage license shall be issued by the Local Civil Registrar unless the applicants present a Certificate of Compliance issued for free by the local Family Planning Office certifying that they had received adequate instructions and information on family planning, responsible parenthood, breastfeeding and infant nutrition.

PROHIBITED ACTS –  (1) A health care service provider who: (a) knowingly withholds or restricts the dissemination of information and/or intentionally provides incorrect information regarding RH programs and services; (b) refuses to perform or provide legal and medically-safe RH services on any person of legal age on the ground of lack of third party consent, provided that in the case of DSWD-certified abused minors and pregnant minors, no prior parental consent shall be necessary; (c) deliberately causes the failure of the delivery of RH services through negligence or neglect; and (d) refuses to extend RH services and information on account of the client’s marital status, sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work. Objections of health care service providers based on ethical and religious grounds shall be respected but he or she shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another professional as long as the person is not in an emergency condition.

(2) Any public official who shall prohibit or intentionally restrict the delivery of legal and medically-safe RH services.

(3) Any employer who shall require or cause a female applicant or employee to involuntarily submit herself to any contraceptive method as a condition for employment or continued employment.

(4) Any person who shall engage in willful disinformation with respect to reproductive health care and rights or the provisions of this Act or cause such disinformation.

Now that I have discussed the most relevant provisions of the RH bill, I would like to answer some of the misconceptions about the measure.

The bill is not anti-life. It is pro-quality life. It will ensure that children will be blessings to their parents since their births are planned and wanted. It will empower couples with the information and opportunity to plan and space their children. This will not only strengthen the family as a unit, it will optimize care for fewer children who will have more opportunities to be educated, healthy and productive.

The bill does not favor modern family planning methods over NFP. Both natural and modern family planning techniques are contraceptive methods. Their common purpose is to prevent unwanted pregnancies and the bill does not impose a bias for either method.

The bill does not legalize abortion and will not lead to its legalization. It is false and malicious to claim that the RH bill legalizes abortion. The measure repeatedly underscores that abortion is illegal, criminal and punishable, and is not part of the menu of legally permissible and medically safe family planning methods.

It is likewise misleading and inaccurate to claim that the use of contraceptives will eventually lead to the legalization of abortion. Catholic countries like Panama, Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Paraguay and Ireland all prohibit abortion as a family planning method even as they vigorously promote contraceptive use. Muslim and Buddhist countries like Indonesia and Laos have likewise liberalized the use of contraceptives but still continue to criminalize abortion.

Moreover, there is an inverse correlation between contraceptive use and abortion. The regular and correct use of contraceptives drastically reduces abortion rates since unplanned and unwanted pregnancies are avoided. Consequently, women do not have to resort to abortion and the State will find no need to legalize abortion.

The bill does not endorse abortifacients. Hormonal contraceptives are BFAD-approved, medically safe and legal. The primary mechanism of pills and injectables is to suppress ovulation. If no egg is released, how can there be an abortion? They also prevent the sperm from reaching the egg. If fertilization is avoided, how can there be a fetus to abort? Articles in peer-reviewed medical journals testify that IUDs do not cause abortions because they stop fertilization. A recent study revealed that not a single fertilized egg was recovered from the fallopian tubes of women using IUDs proving that they are amazingly successful in preventing fertilization.

In fact, the UNDP, UNFPA and WHO have submitted to the House of Representatives an expert opinion on the mechanisms of modern contraceptives and they state that contraceptives “cannot be labeled as abortifacients” as none of these methods have been shown to cause abortions.

The bill is truly anti-abortion. It will tremendously reduce the incidence of abortion in the country which in 2002 has been recorded to be about 470,000 and the UN estimates that it has reached 800,000 today. Data also show that it is not single women and teenagers but poor, married, Catholic women in their 20s who most often undergo abortions because they cannot afford another child.

Contraceptives do not have life threatening side-effects. Medical and scientific evidence show that all the possible medical risks connected with contraceptives are infinitely lower than the risks of an actual pregnancy and everyday activities. The risk of dying within a year of riding a car is 1 in 5,900. The risk of dying within a year of using pills is 1 in 200,000. The risk of dying from a vasectomy is 1 in 1 million and the risk of dying from using an IUD is 1 in 10 million. The probability of dying from condom use is absolutely zero. But the risk of dying from a pregnancy is 1 in 10,000.

The bill will not promote contraceptive mentality. The bill does not prohibit pregnancy. Critics are mistaken in claiming that because contraceptives would be readily accessible, people would prefer to have no children at all. Couples will not stop wanting children simply because contraceptives are available. Contraceptives are used to prevent unwanted pregnancies but not to stop pregnancies altogether. Timely pregnancies are assured.

Sexuality education will not spawn “a generation of sex maniacs” nor promote promiscuity. Age-appropriate RH education promotes correct sexual values. It will not only instill consciousness of freedom of choice but responsible exercise of one’s rights. The UN and countries which have youth sexuality education document its beneficial results like understanding of proper sexual values; initiation to sexual relations is delayed; abstinence before marriage is encouraged; multiple sex partners is avoided; and spread of sexually transmitted diseases is prevented.

The bill does not claim that family planning is the panacea to poverty. It simply recognizes the verifiable link between a huge population and poverty. Unbridled population growth stunts socio-economic development and aggravates poverty. The connection between population and development is well-documented and empirically established.

UN Human Development Reports show that countries with higher population growth invariably score lower in human development. Last year, the Philippines, as the 12th most populous country, ranked No. 84 out 171 countries in the Human Development Index rankings made annually by the United Nations. This year, we are down to No. 90. Among Southeast Asian countries, the Philippines fared the worst in the latest rankings. Singapore remained in the 25th slot, Indonesia improved by 1 rank and Vietnam and Brunei each improved their position by four levels. But while Malaysia, Myanmar and Cambodia all slipped two ranks and Thailand fell down by four slots, the Philippines went down by six points.

The Asian Development Bank in 2004 also listed a large population as one of the major causes of poverty in the country. Recent studies also show that large family size is a significant factor in keeping families poor across generations.

However, the authors of the bill do claim that the bill will help promote sustainable human development. The UN has stated that “family planning and reproductive health are essential to reducing poverty” The UNICEF also asserts that “family planning could bring more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single technology now available to the human race.”

Family planning will not lead to a demographic winter. The proposition that the use of modern family planning will wipe off the Filipino race in a catastrophic “demographic winter” is a scare tactic which fails to comprehend the dynamics of population momentum wherein the country’s population will continue to grow even if the population growth rate is increasingly reduced to below replacement levels.

An RH law will not be superfluous. It is a myopic view that since contraceptives are available in the market, there is no need to enact a law on reproductive health and family planning. This contention overlooks that availability does not mean access, particularly to those who are uninformed or could not afford to buy reproductive health supplies. Availability does not assure adequate and accurate information on family planning and reproductive health which are basic universal human rights.

An RH law is not unconstitutional. House Bill No. 5043 is being faulted for being violative of the Section 12, Article II of the Constitution which reads:

“The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.” (underscoring supplied).

The constitutional challenge is baseless for the following overriding reasons:

1. The RH bill does not violate or intrude into the “sanctity of family life”. On the contrary, it discharges the obligation of the State to protect and strengthen the family.

The family is more than a natural unit. It is a social institution whose well-being is impressed with public interest and concern.

Verily, it is not immune from legislation. It has to be amenable to the State’s exercise of police power for its protection and development. Hence, there are relevant laws like the Civil Code of the Philippines; Family Code of the Philippines; the Child and Youth Welfare Code; and the Special Protection of Filipino Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, among others, which are all protective of family life and the welfare of children.

The RH bill aims to protect the family from poverty and ill-health by helping women and couples achieve their fertility goals.

2. The use of legal and medically-safe contraceptives, which are not abortifacients, and which are tested by and registered with the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD), does not violate the constitutional provision on the obligation of the State “to equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”

The purpose of this provision is to preempt the Congress and the Supreme Court from legalizing abortion. This bill definitely does not legalize abortion.

The anti-abortion intent of this constitutional provision is admitted both by its principal proponent, Commissioner Bernardo Villegas, and Commissioner Joaquin Bernas who initially proposed a related provision as Section I of the Bill of Rights which read: “The right to life extends to the fertilized ovum.” (underscoring supplied).

This Bernas proposal did not materialize. Its non-adoption unmistakably manifests that the concept that life begins at fertilization was not constitutionalized for lack of concurrence from the Commissioners.

After the deletion of the Bernas proposal in the Bill of Rights, another formulation was included in Article II on the Declaration of Principles which originally read: “The State shall protect human life from the moment of conception.”

It is important to note that under the foregoing draft, it is suggested that human life begins “from the moment of conception”, not anymore from the fertilization of the ovum.

This also confirms the thinking of the Commissioners that the “fertilization of the ovum” is not the same or synonymous to “conception”. The two refer to different stages of the reproductive process.

As finally adopted, the Constitution provides that the State “… shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”

It is important to note that the phrase “the moment of” preceding “conception” was deleted. Its deletion was the result of the Commissioners’ uncertainty as to the precise beginning of conception. Hence, they decided to defer to medical science and subsequent legislation the determination of the start of conception.

Verily, the bill does not offend the constitutional intent prohibiting abortion. In fact, it repeatedly reiterates the national policy against abortion. Moreover, the RH bill is even an anti-abortion measure because it respects the option of women and couples to use legal and medically-safe contraceptives which reduces abortion rates by 85%.

The bill will address the population problem. Some critics of the bill have gone so far as to say that our problem is only population distribution. The issue on population is not a simple matter of “population density” but more importantly, it is a question of sustainable human development. Concededly, there are still vast unpopulated areas of the country but these are places hostile to human development because there are no infrastructures in place, no schools, no hospitals, and no visible means of livelihood and employment.

The bill will help foreclose the need for overseas employment. Critics of the bill commend labor migration as the beneficent result of “population power”. This is a misplaced accolade to inordinate fertility. Dollar remittances from OFWs should not blind us to the incalculable social and economic costs of labor migration.

Moreover, the so-called “population power” has just exploded in our faces as the bleak scenario unfolds with OFWs returning home because there is a depressed market for overseas employment as a consequence of the collapse of Wall Street.

Family planning, as a vital component of reproductive health, does not only ensure the health of mothers and children. Family planning saves lives. The WHO and UNFPA have declared that close to 200,000 maternal deaths and 1 million infant deaths worldwide could be avoided annually if women use contraception.

The following is a direct quote from a WHO position paper on contraceptives: “It is universally recognized that contraception is the most effective intervention to prevent unintended pregnancy, abortion, child and maternal mortality and morbidity.”

We need to enact HB 5043 because it promotes and protects the right to health, the right to informed choice, the right to reproductive self-determination and the right to sustainable human development.

As members of the academe, it behooves you to study the issue of reproductive health and take a definitive stand. We are so close to enacting a truly responsible and responsive policy on reproductive health and population development. The enactment of HB 5043 into law shall truly be precedent-setting. Be part of history and help us hasten the bill’s passage by taking a stand and publicly supporting the RH bill.

My Comments as of June 17, 2010

yes it may not be the solution to our population problem. having said that, this bill is a big first step in addressing our population growth.i think education is the key and this bill is pushing in that direction. killing the unborn for health reason – i.e. if the mother’s life is at risk- although a very hard decision on the parents part is not inhuman IMHO.

True education is a real answer to any problem, but RH bill is not about education but miseducation. What it wants to impart are wrong information that would serve to satisfy eugenicists, and would profit the contraceptive and abortion industry. Planned Parenthood’s 3.5 billion taxpayers’ dollars just since 1987 is the most crystal proof of this. And where do they use it? For education, supposed to be; but they are using it to kill babies instead. Do American protesters win? No! The government is on the side of PPF and PPF backs up Obama in particular. Now, don’t give me that naive answer that we are not America. Almost the whole world is America. Look at yourself and tell me that you are not America.

Now, the last statement is very prone to dilemma, I understand that. But let me disillusion everyone who believes as you do: THE UNBORN CHILD IS NOT LESS HUMAN THAN THE MOTHER. To actively kill the unborn for the sake of the mother is absolutely wrong. It is like saying that the child is less important. No one is less important.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/reproductive-health-bill-5043/text-of-rh-bill-no-5043/#comment-10148

Obviously you did not read the entire bill. It clearly states that abortion will remain a crime, but caring for women who underwent post abortion will be given in a humane and compassionate way. This bill shows that the country is headed in a progressive way in enforcing the rights of women. Actually, not only women, but couples and all individuals who want to have better access to information for family planning which does not limit to the “ineffective rhythm method” but to other methods/devices for birth control. This bill will ensure the prevention of widespread STDs and infanticide for the marginalized groups.

No, the RH bill does not “clearly” state that abortion will remain a crime. Besides, it does not have the power to decide whether it will remain a crime; only a change in the Constitution can make that. Instead, it just recognizes the “status of abortion” in the Philippine law. Actually, the line, “as abortion remains a crime and is punishable,” is deceptive. It conditions the mind of the readers that the bill confirms the absolute criminality of abortion, while it does not and it cannot. The purpose is to make it look like an anti-abortion bill. In reality, the law on abortion “may” change; it just needs a charter change. One of the problems with just reading the text of HB5043 is that it would be more difficult to see the intentions of those who “really” wrote it and what are the influences behind it.

Do we really need to have an additional law in order for the health care providers to be humane and compassionate? Do we need another bill just to have the government give enough budget for the facilities needed to treat post-abortion complications? And where is the right of women placed in the bill? Who really profits from condom, the pill, IUDs and other contraceptives? Is it not those men who cannot master their flesh and those who look at their wives as if they are sex gadgets — objects of pleasure?

Furthermore, what do women experience just to give inordinate pleasure to their husbands (or to men)? Answer: the side effects and risks of contraceptives which the RH bill obviously and commonsensically does not mention. Have you still not heard about the significant number of side effects of OCPs? How about the link between condom use and pre-eclampsia? It just happened that I was a medical transcriptionist, and obstetrics and gynecology is not very foreign to me. Now, please decide: with the pleasure that men get and the risks that women suffer (or at least have the possibility to suffer), where is the women’s right placed in the RH bill?

But one of those things that puzzle me the most is the concept of STD protection. These are my questions: [1] How absolute is the protection that condom use gives to prevent STDs? Of course, it is not 100% even if it is used 100% correct. Why would a law encourage people to risk their health just to have sex? What it suggests is that man should accept that self-mastery is a fantasy. “Why suffer no-sex even when you are sick if you can protect yourself and others by using condom?” Is it not the idea? Okay, let us assume that it is impossible for human to control sexual urge, what do you think will happen to him if his/her whole body are already blisters and ulcers, can he still have sex? Will he die if he cannot? Will they design a whole body condom for him? This bill pushes people to degrade themselves instead of helping them recognize their true dignity as person. [2] And why, why, why do the proponents of this bill propose that condom use will protect couples from infecting each other? Where would the infection come from? Why would your husband or your wife be infected by STDs if you are not sick? Some fools might say, “It is just for protection.” You would protect yourself from your partner because you think there might be a possibility that you both do not know that he/she is infected? Come on! That is so, so, so insensitive! If you want to be sure that the person you will marry is not sick, is it not wise to have a checkup before the wedding instead of throwing away money to the trash bin together with semen when you are already married? If this was done and both of you were proven healthy, why would you need to protect yourselves from STDs? Those billions of peso that the government will use to satisfy men’s carnal and irresponsible desires can surely create livelihood and dignified life for the citizens instead. Even unholy fathers know what to give to a child if he/she is asking for a fish or an egg. If your child asks of these from you, will you give him condom or pill instead? I will not. But can good character, industry, self-mastery, and generosity help a family? It can and it will.

RH bill is proposing a wrong solution to a real problem. Why? Because its proponents do not recognize the real issues. In the Philippines, projects mean corruption. That is true from the executive down to the barangay level. Why give billions of taxpayers’ money to this unnecessary, destructive, and corruption-prone proposal?

Do we still need to discuss the other parts of the text? I already read the bill way back its first publication on http://jlp-law.com, and I still repeatedly read it. I even proofread and corrected my copy, which all of the online sources I saw do not (or at least failed to notice the errors). The principle of the bill applies to the whole document; that is to say, the intentions of those who wrote it are clear in every word that was used through the entire script. And what is this principle? DECEPTION. Representative Edcel Lagman can help us prove that. The congressman insists that “fertilization of the ovum is not the same or synonymous to conception.” The purpose of the claim is to prove that RH bill does not violate Article II Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, which says, “The State shall protect human life from the moment of conception.” Again, I am not a doctor but I am not medically illiterate either. And besides, this is not the only part of the Constitution that RH bill attempts to violate.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/reproductive-health-bill-5043/text-of-rh-bill-no-5043/#comment-10142

catholic church’s double standard – use conscience on election but do not use conscience on RH Bill 5043
apparently, the catholic church is asking its faithful to use their conscience on some things but find it okay that its faithful do not use their conscience on others.

You are wrong! To say to your children that they “should” not be involved with prostitutes or in prostitution does not mean you are not respecting their conscience; or else, it would be wrong to teach your children what you believe is right. Your way of thinking, like many so-called Catholics, is anti-Church. You are looking through a tainted glass when it comes to the Church’s declarations or some clergies’ opinion. All you are looking for is what would be wrong. Saying, “it’s not moral to vote for people who support the reproductive health bill,” is not dictatorial but didactic. Following one’s conscience is not equal to deciding without guidance. The Church is the teacher on morality for Christians, and it is very mindless to say that it does not respect conscience when it teaches what should be deemed good or evil. It is as if you are saying that if a teacher told her students to study on their own, she should be respectful enough not to say that the last letter on the English alphabet is Z. Those people who are hostile to the Church are always bound to miss the point when it comes to morality and even logic.

Bello was also wrong when he says that the Church blackmails some candidates. The Church, as a mother, rightfully warns her children (the candidates) that if they want the people’s support, they should do what is right; and it is her moral responsibility to warn the rest of her children (the voters) to choose who is in the right and avoid those who publicly promote principles that are deemed immoral. Actually, Bello was wrong in all of his arguments and that should not be a surprise because he is looking in a different direction, and as I said through a tainted glass.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/catholic-churchs-double-standard-use-conscience-on-election-but-do-not-use-conscience-on-rh-bill-5043/#comment-10154

how come the CBCP if not the priests (not all) lecturing us on family planning & stuffs regarding married life were in fact they dont experienced a single second of husband-wife everyday life, im just curious.Why would we listen to them on issues specifically the RH bill were the proponents are in a no win situation against them. Its non-sense to argue with them coz they pretend to be always RIGHT with regards to family matters as though they did something to uplift poverty in RP…

First of all, CBCP is composed of priests, although they have laity co-workers, so the “if not the priests” phrase is not appropriate for the argument. Second, it is one of the “jobs” of the priests to lecture (as the term you use) about family planning and stuff regarding married life, not because they themselves are married but because as workers of Christ, they were given the task to teach and remind every Christian about the principles and sacramental meaning of marriage. You do not have to be a fly to be an expert about flies. You do not have to be a baby again to know what a baby feels or wants. You do not have to be a woman to understand the value of motherhood. I myself, when I was a radio show host in our community, gave solicited advises to everybody — fathers, mothers, students, out of school youth, security guards, employees, and many others — although I am not in the same state of life. We are talking about principles and experience, but experience does not mean that you are the one who undergoes the situation. An experienced health care provider, for example, does not need to have a cancer to specialize in it, because if that is the case, they should be a patient who has had every kind of disease first before they can be a doctor. The argument that “they (the priests) don’t experienced a single second of husband-wife everyday life,” is ignorant and overhasty. Priests, as we call them, are fathers and they give advises to couples (husbands and wives) both from principles and experience. I am not a priest but I know it. Besides, do I have to be one to understand? It is true the proponents of RH bill are in a no-win situation, but not just against them. All true Catholics are against the RH bill. You might say, “Survey results show that many Catholic women are in favor of contraception,” but I will say it again: all true Catholics are against the RH bill. Anti-HB5043 comments in the title “RH Bill No. 5043 Full Text” in this site might give you a clue.

“…as though they did something to uplift poverty in RP.” You need more studying than talking. The priests, the bishops, and the whole Church always contribute a very significant development not only in the Philippines but in every country. And when I say “development”, it includes livelihood, but most of all, a sense of purpose in life and an energy to do everything that everybody needs to do. Think of this: What will you do with a billion pesos if you no longer find meaning in your existence? Conversely, you will have the potential to earn a billion if you know why you are here.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10224

In fact, we are facing socio economic crisis, food shortagae, global warming, crimes etc… it is because of what kind of goverment we have. There are things which are misinterpreted like issues on reproductive health bill. Yes I really agree of using contraceptives as long as it could help the couple to satisfy their needs as partner. There is no wrong about it, in fact overpopulation can hinder the socio-economic advancement of a country. If you are going to take a glance to the China’s program on population control, Chinese gov’t had One Child Policy…that is the better way to control and limit the problem on population.

Just for additional information:
China’s population is 1.3 billion
Philippine population is 94 million

Which one is much larger and which one is richer?

According to the data, does larger population mean poorer economy?

As per NSO, the estimated population of the country in 2040 is 141.6 million. If that is true, then even after 30 years from now, China’s population today is still several millions larger, and yet they are much richer.

How would you defy logic and math?
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10228

“Contraceptives do not have life-threatening side effects.”

...to say that contraceptives do not have life-threatening side effects is devious. All side effects are never life threatening but it does not mean that contraceptives cannot be life threatening. It has numbers of complications which include the following:

* Blood clot in the legs, lungs, heart or brain
* High blood pressure
* Liver tumors
* Gallstones
* Jaundice

These are not side effects but rather worse than that.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10229

what is the rate of occurrence of these? very minimal.

Oh, sorry, I forgot to add breast cancer.

Well, WHO has reported that the pill is carcinogenic. Do we have to “risk” the health and the life of women for the pleasure of men? I thought I heard the proponents that the bill is pro-women. How?

Should a guy tell a girl to swim in a river where periodical presence of crocodiles were reported just to get him his favorite shrimp, and then say, “Don’t worry, most of the time, they are not there”? Would it have a bearing if the occurrence of wives being killed by crocs are “very minimal”?
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10247

contraceptives are okay as long as its with good conscience.

Good intention is not always the same with good conscience. That is why there is a saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, or as St. Bernard said, “Hell is full of good intentions or desires.” Human cannibals in a cannibalistic culture do not think that what they do is wrong, but it is. Not all criminals perceive themselves as criminals, but they are. Many abortionists honestly believe that they do not sin, but they do. A good conscience is shaped by a good moral foundation, not just by good intentions.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10230

“Did you actually read the Bible? Only once did God say be fruitful and multiply.”

Wrong. “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28); “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Genesis 9:1); “As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it” (Genesis 9:7). What’s ironic is your question: “Did you actually read the Bible?” If you read all the 73 books of the Bible, how come you missed some parts of the first?

“Look at the meaning of ‘rule’ it means manage, if we can’t manage what we create, we’re disobeying God.”

Right. I would recommend my title: “Kung Mahal Ninyo Sila…Magplano” regarding this point. But let me leave a short line here. Using contraceptives does not in anyway imply true management. It is like drinking liquors everyday and taking a liver supplement “to be safe”. That is irresponsible. To rule also means to become master of something. Now, how to be a good ruler? The answer: rule yourself first. Be your own master. Be not a slave of carnal desires. You are a Bible reader, right? Using contraceptives shows that you want physical satisfaction here and now but does not want extra responsibility. Again, rule yourself. If you want birth spacing (which every couple should practice), you should learn sex spacing. Even dogs and other animals do not copulate everyday. “If we can’t manage what we (or rather HE) create, we’re disobeying God.” Did you hear that?

“God actually says that if your spouse wants sex, you should give it.”

I do not think so. Paul actually said, “Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time.” Did Paul contradict himself by using “except” and “mutual” on the same line? No. Whatever the reason is; may it be for prayer, birth spacing, or self-discipline, Paul is saying that you can actually refuse (in a positive manner) your spouse especially if you have a prior agreement. Your body is your spouse’s but it is not his/her slave. Even prostitutes refuse because of preference. A wife or a husband is much more dignified than a prostitute when it comes to sex.

RH Bill cannot solve all our problems, but it will help many.

“RH Bill cannot solve all our problems,” it would add up to it.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10231

1987 Constitution: No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.<< If ever the bill be passed, and it compromises the exercise Catholic faith, would it then be unconstitutional?

RH bill does not give a damn whether one is a Catholic or someone who believes that contraceptive use is immoral and that there should not be a contraceptive sex education for elementary and high school students; every citizen is under the law. Whoever resists shall be punished.

Questions about the constitutionality of the proposal are just being shrugged by the proponents.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10233

you grossly misrepresent the punitive provisions of the RH Bill. the RH bill DOES NOT punish citizens at all, it only gives citizens the freedom to choose which method best suits them.

Okay, the last comment may be gross; let me give details to compensate. But let me make it clear first that doctors are citizens, and you already admitted somewhere that they can be punished. If the bill does punish doctors, and doctors are citizens, then “the RH bill DOES punish citizens”.

“…it only gives citizens the freedom to choose which method best suits them.” If that is the case, what is section 22 for?

Okay, let me give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you are trying to say that the bill would not punish private citizens. But still, it is not accurate. [Here is the detail that I promised.] Section 21e will punish “any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.” Any includes all, right? It is the opposite of what you have just said. Now, how would you define malicious in this context? And what is disinformation?

“…it only gives citizens the freedom to choose…” Don’t you have a freedom to choose? I do. I do not need a law to give me that freedom; it is innate to me. The government did not and could not give it to me. In the context of contraceptive use, does the present government prohibits anyone to contracept? No. So there is no prohibition to lift up by a bill.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10248

the bill is not dictatorial nor is it punitive. the whole intend behind the bill is to provide its citizens the complete resources and knowledge to make an informed choice but it does leave the final decisions on individuals and couples.

Dictatorial? Punitive? Of course not! It will just punish all those who would not adhere to it. The parents, the children, the doctors, the teachers, and all the individuals that will say what we are saying now. It will just use Catholic taxes to promote anti-Catholic practices. Well, what should I call that? Punishment? Yes, true, it may not be. But it is stealing. Stealing means getting or using something without the consent of the owner. Have I applied the definition accurately?

Regarding the intention to provide resources to make an informed choice, it does not appear to be like that. RH bill advertises contraception. It discredits natural family planning, although of course it does not say that explicitly. Besides, if the proponents trust NFP, will they still promote artificial family planning, which aside from being dangerous, requires billions of pesos? Is that what we call wise spending?
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10234

“You need to understand what the RH Bill is trying to do.”

I completely agree. When you said RH bill is neither dictatorial nor punitive, it appeared that you do not understand even just the 21st section of the bill.

“The RH Bill intends to level the playing field.”

I beg to disagree. It has no intention to promote both methods. As I have already said somewhere, it discredits NFP because first of all, it requires true discipline, and because there is no money in it. The very famous “traditional” and “modern” comparison is one of the more obvious proof of the word game that the contraceptive industry is playing.

To deceive people is what RH bill tries to do.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10238

section 21 sanctions health providers who do not provide health services as defined by the bill. what is wrong with that? that is much like the law we have where hospitals will be sanctioned if they violate the law on accepting patients to give them health services for whatever reason.

You have written the point but have actually missed it. Why would you need another law if one already exists?

With the question, “What’s wrong with that,” I would give you a picture. If you are a doctor, and it is against your personal belief to kill a baby, is it right for the government to punish you for not killing one? We all know the answer, no need for you to respond. Now, this is the real scenario: Many health care providers, especially Catholics and those who respect their Hippocratic oath, believe that it is morally wrong to use contraceptives, but even more to prescribe an emergency pill because it is abortifacient. (Where was emergency pill mentioned in the bill? It is for you to see.) These are the doctors that the bill will punish. What do you call that now? Anti-conscience. What’s right with that?
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10245

the parents themselves, specially those coming from the poor want to control births or at least space them properly. this bill is responding to the needs of the people. arroyo and the bishops are putting up barriers to satisfy the people’s needs.

Birth control would take self control. Sounds unfair? If you cannot control yourself, how would you control and discipline your children? How would you be loyal to your marriage? How would you master your desires?

Does responsibility mean condom, pill, IUD, diaphragm, emergency pill, or injectables? In what wisdom book will you find that? Responsibility means self mastery. Arroyo and the bishops are not putting up barriers for the people to develop that virtue.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10235

There are scientific and mathematical basis having two children are ideal. It is not imposed but is recommended.

What’s the formula? On the other hand, there is eugenic and American influence in this so-called ideal. Actually, it is purely American.

“Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S.
Security and Overseas Interests” That is the long title of USA’s bible — the NSSM 200. US is threatened by the growing population of some countries, just like Egypt was of Israel’s. Security is also the main factor of the depopulation attempt of Egypt against Israel; thus, the no-male policy. NSSM 200 says, “Our aim should be for the world to achieve a replacement level of fertility, (a two-child family on the average), by about the year 2000.” The students will also be brainwashed, just like in a socialist government, that the number 2 is the perfect number: “That AID stimulate specific efforts to develop means of educating children of elementary school age to the ideal of the two-child family.” Sex education for elementary students; sounds familiar? Besides, Edcel Lagman is not the true writer of the proposal.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10244

where is the deception there?
deception is where govt health providers are prohibited to promote modern methods of contraception while promoting the more risky traditional methods of contraception.

You are proving my point again; but then again, you are still missing it. Proponents say that RH bill promotes both methods, but instead of using the terms “natural family planning” and “artificial family planning”, they use the term “modern” in favor of the latter to imply that NFP is primitive and “more risky”, as you — yes, you have pointed out. Is that the way to promote something? And who says NFP is risky? And what does “risky” mean? Actually, WHO said that Billing’s ovulation method is 99% effective. And who’s WHO? I assume you know. I would add, NFP has no side effects and it is free. Will you buy a bottled water that is not 100% clean, and has been reported as a cause of diarrhea to some individuals, if you already have a source of perfectly pure, healthy, and free water? What’s behind the contraceptives craze? Is it on sale?

Now, in what way are the artificial contraceptives "modern"? It can only be called so because it is contemporary but all the concepts are just the same hundreds and thousands years ago. To honestly believe that this is new is ignorance.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10246

couples should be allowed to make the most use of what modern medicine has to offer. they should be allowed to make a choice on their own – between modern methods of contraception or traditional methods of contraception.

Should be allowed to make a choice? Are they not? We are, as far as I know. Now wait, we are not talking about modern medicine. We are not curing any disease here. What prevents pregnancy is not a medicine but a contraceptive; and it is in no way modern. On the other hand, to call something as “traditional” to imply lesser effectiveness is not really promoting it, but discrediting it. And for the information of everybody, BOM is in fact far more modern than artificial contraceptives. And mind you also, it is not like what Edcel Lagman claims as a contraceptive method. It does not frustrate conception.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10250

it is modern medicine, that cannot be disputed. and the modern methods of contraception are far more effective than the old ways of contraception.

Medicine – something that treats, prevents or alleviates the symptoms of disease.

We are talking about pregnancy; is it a disease? Am I less informed than you when it comes to obstetrics and gynecology? It just happened that I was trained to be a medical transcriptionist and it was actually my job. Again, “what prevents pregnancy is not a medicine but a contraceptive.”

Who said it cannot be disputed? You just need to read encyclopedias (or even Wikipedia) to have information about that. Haven’t you heard about marbles inside a camel’s uterus, or about sterilization potion? Even Christianity was not yet born when these concepts were used.

And are you better than the World Health Organization?
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10255

yes the bill talks about punishment but it does so on those government officials who will not follow the law.
this blog should ban you from posting here if you continue to misrepresent facts.

Whow! Does section 21e said that it would punish just government officials? I thought what I saw are: any health care service provider, whether public or private (21a), any public official (21b), any employer (21c), and any person (21d, 21e). Don’t you think you are the one who misrepresents facts? Where in the proposal does it say that it is about government officials only? Can you point it out?

If you judged that I am misrepresenting HB 5043, then section 21e might sentence me “to an imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six (6) months or a fine ranging from Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court” (Section 22). There is another penalty for the public officials who you say are the only punishable persons here: “An offender who is a public officer or employee shall suffer the accessory penalty of dismissal from the government service.”

Haven’t I given you the facts? Have you on your part?

Definition:
Any – one, some, every or all without specification
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10257

arroyo as unilaterally imposed here religious beliefs on the whole country by allowing only old but high risk methods of contraception and ignoring modern medicine and science.

Again, I should repeat that if an agent’s main purpose is to prevent pregnancy, it is not a medicine but a contraceptive.

Regarding efficacy, maybe I should share one article with you: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm. I could also recommend a book if you want.

You are actually representing the stand of RH bill against (not regarding) NFP. You are helping to show that the bill is not true to its words when it comes to the promotion of both natural and artificial methods.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10258

aquino has been supportive of this bill. finally, married couples and specially women will be given the freedom to choose the method that suits them best.

Haven’t you heard the news? Didn’t you watch the first press conference that was called by Noynoy after his proclamation as the new president-elect? And he was right when he said, “Para na akong sirang plaka,” because he already said his recent position regarding this in many occasions. And this is what he always say: “Ang Estado ay may tungkuling sabihin sa mga magulang, ‘May responsibilidad kayo sa lahat ng anak na ipapasok ninyo dito sa mundong ito.’” (The State has a duty to say to the parents, “You have a responsibility to all the children that you bring into this world,”) and in one occasion I heard him said, “…sila [ang mga magulang] ang dapat tumugon sa pangangailangan ng kanilang pamilya.” It is not the duty of the State to provide condoms when the citizens are (almost) dying of hunger, or else Jesus will tell them in the end, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me CONDOMS, I was thirsty and you gave me PILLS.” I thought Filipinos are familiar with the Chinese proverb that says, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” This is the duty of the State. Let me give you a clue: Give a man some pills and they would have sex the whole day. Teach a man to contracept and he will be irresponsible and miserable for a lifetime.

Para na rin akong sirang plaka, but I would still repeat, the State could not give married couples (neither the men nor the women) the freedom to choose, because it has no power to give or to take freedom. I for one have the freedom that is innate to me; I am not sure if you are aware of yours. Are you at the mercy of the government?

Now, regarding this claim that “Aquino has been supportive of this bill,” I would quote Mr. President-elect verbatim: “I purposely did not sign because I have questions about certain provisions of the RH bill.” In an ABS-CBN report, he said, “There are provisions that I cannot support. I was mistakenly labeled as co-author [of the bill].” Yes, in 2009 he gave his all-out support to the bill when he said, “I don’t care if the Catholic Church will abandon me because of my support for the reproductive health bill.” But it is 2010 now, things have already changed.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10259

“I have been on the pill for over a decade and I didn’t have sex all day. I also know that I am a very responsible person.”

My first question is were you given the pills for over a decade? I am not trying to imply that taking the pill transforms a woman into an irresponsible person. There is no component in the substance that affects the sense of responsibility. It is the combination of the person’s situation (e.g. poverty), current moral disposition (e.g. indifferent), and the solution offered (e.g. easy way out) that really affect the attitude. Take for example an exam that is very well known to be almost impossible to pass. Will the majority of students who has a very low moral standard choose to take the “risk” of failing the exam than to take advantage of the leak that is being offered them for free? And will these students be responsible the next seconds or the next decades of their lives if they took the offer? You yourself might have a good intention for preventing pregnancy (besides, everybody have good intentions about something), and I assume that you took responsibility for this, just like what I have quoted from Noynoy: “…sila [ang mga magulang] ang dapat tumugon sa pangangailangan ng kanilang pamilya,” but you are not the majority. If someone wants to contracept, he/she has the freedom to do so, but to demand from the government some supplies of pills and condoms like a spoiled brat who demands for a thing (or an action) that the parents do not have the duty to give, is very wrong. Furthermore, the parents or the government who will give in or encourage this attitude is more than wrong.

“The whole day” doesn’t necessarily mean the whole day, just like “all” may sometimes mean “some”. It is a way of speaking that gives emphasis to the point and makes it easier to remember. The phrase refers to the attitude where abuse means limitation, limitation means moderation, and moderation means abstinence. One concrete example is the expression, “Sige, kaya pa,” wherever that applies. When somebody say, “You are doing nothing but to eat all day long,” it does not literally mean you are just eating the whole day. It just means you are being abusive of your body and of the opportunity. In today’s way of thinking, how do people know their limitation? Kapag hindi na kaya. It is not anymore we who actively set the limitation according to what is really moderate; we (not literally WE) just “know” when it is time to stop. Even boars know when to stop eating. Again, this argument is not about people who know they are exempted and really are exempted.

Last point: If you teach 100 men to fish, you will never be sure that the same 100 men will use the knowledge to feed themselves. Some of them might go back to begging for fish, stealing fish, or even resort to a fishy job. However, it does not mean that the phrase, “you feed him for a lifetime,” is no longer true. You have still done your part of feeding them but they do not want to eat what you have given. Using the same argument in the opposite situation, a government who will give supplies of contraceptives to those who want to contracept will still be the main contributor to the possible misery that they might or might not (for some reason) end up to. That is because just like the exam and the spoiled brat scenarios, they are encouraging an irresponsible attitude as opposed to what they claim.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10278

“It isn’t selfish if women want to prioritize their career.”

I agree…that is if the person is really not selfish. Being a career woman itself is not worthy of the accusation. In fact, even altruism can be a mask of greed or selfishness. My point is whether you are a teacher, a call center associate, a lawyer, a janitor, a fastfood service crew, or a full-time mother, selfishness and self-donation will still apply. It is really about the person and not the job.

“How come no one accuses men of this?”

Because there is no such thing as career men as it applies to women. Having a culture that is rooted in Christian perception of the relation between sexuality and functions, Filipinos generally accept that men are providers. For a man to have a “career” such as being an employee or a businessman is not just common but is normal; even obligatory. There is of course an exemption. It is not always applicable for a man to be an employee or a business person, but it is still the norm. To accuse a man of being selfish because he has a job is nonsense.

“…you don’t even need to be a celebrity to be a mom and be sexy at the same time.”

Let us settle first to a more acceptable definition of terms. When you say “hot” you mean “sexy” as it appears here. Besides, even dictionaries recognize the word as related to sex. When you say “sexy”, that denotes tending to arouse sexual desire or interest. Now, here is the confusing part: some women say that they want to look sexy and they mean what they say, but there are those who say they want to look sexy or hot but they do not mean (as they say) to arouse sexual desire. That is going against the norm. Angelina Jolie, Halle Berry, and Jessica Alba are some of the best examples of hot/sexy women..that is they tend to arouse sexual desire. That is why I always object when I hear parents proudly praise a child by exclaiming, “Wow, sexy!” Should a child be sexy? Now, going back to the issue, should a married woman be sexy…that is sexually desirable for everybody’s eyes? If yes, why?

“…mommies are so hot right now…So you can’t accuse women of not wanting kids because they’re vain.”

I do not agree with the conclusion. Eventual social acceptance of an idea does not change its nature. Abortion for example remains evil in America even if Americans accept it. Cheating in exams is still wrong even if it is common. Angelina Jolie, Halle Berry, Jessica Alba, and even hundreds of celebrities and/or “hot mommies” cannot change a thing when it comes to the rightness and wrongness of a concept. But then again, I am not accusing anybody of wrongdoing for being both hot and a mommy at the same time.

Now, one more word that is very much acceptable but should not be: VAIN – having an exaggerated sense of self-importance. Why are we not scandalized by the casual use of the term as if it is a good trait? That is the power of mind conditioning. That is the fruit of Californication. Here I should agree with the Red Hot Chili Pepper that “everybody’s been there and I don’t mean on vacation.” All of us (almost) are into this, and we no longer know where this influence comes from, whether there is wrong with it, and whether we can still get out of it. I should also mention the line before it, saying that it was “born and raised by those who praise control of population.” Even Hollywood superstars themselves recognize the facts.

I will leave the rest of the arguments to those who want to object. What I could say on my part at this moment is that I do not see anything wrong with a woman who does not want to have kids, but I would not encourage contraception.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10279

God created Eve to be Adam’s partner; He didn’t say, “Oh, Adam, you need to be a father so I’ll make you something that can give you kids.”


Now, this is a very complicated issue, especially if we are not walking on the same ground. But since Adam was mentioned, I should break the news that although it is said in the Bible (not a reference book for history) that Adam was created first, God’s obvious reason for making him a man is so that he could co-create with Him. And God does not intend to create hundreds, thousands, or even millions, but as many as the stars in the sky and as the sands on the seashore. Is it a form of God’s vanity? No. It is his overflowing love. He wants to create multitudes of souls for heaven, that is for life.

Through God’s gesture, he actually said to Adam, “You need to be a father.” And as Adam was made man, Eve was made woman. One is a male human being and the other a female human being. Both have the dignity of a human but the words male and female connote differences in functions — those are what we call complementary differences. Some may not agree but the Bible implies that Eve was made from and for Adam as Adam was made for God. The female was made for the male, although that conclusion does not conform with what some naive people claim that every man has a woman destined for him, romantically speaking. It only means that all of a woman’s components, from anatomy to physiology to psychology, are designed to complement the man’s. It does not make a man more of a “bida” and the woman a sidekick. You cannot make a functional aquarium if you do not have either the glass or the element that will seal it together such as a glass glue. Neither the glass alone nor the glue alone can make an aquarium even if the glue was made for the glass.

“Women weren’t created to become just childbearers–it’s one of the wonderful things we can do but our purpose is not limited to that!”

I agree. There should be woman inventors, woman politicians, woman lawyers, woman doctors, woman soldiers, etc. That is because as women, they will contribute to the feminine benefits of those functions. However, the truth still remains that women were mainly designed to be mothers, although they have different callings; just as men were designed to be fathers although they have different callings. God is wise. He would not remove genitals just because one is not called to become a mother or a father. We have one design and that is the fruit of God’s wisdom. What we will be in the future depends on God’s calling and our answer to that call. What comes to mind as a very great example is the computer. It is mainly designed for computing tasks but now we can use it as a word processor, a television, a video player, a radio, a mailer, a communication device, and many more…even as an alarm clock.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10280

the world health organization endorses modern methods of contraception.

That’s the point. The World Health Organization promotes artificial methods, that is why it cannot be accused of bias when it issues reports in favor of NFP, and also about the pill being carcinogenic.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10260

i hope you’ll agree with me on this, married couples who belong to the lowest of lower class experienced happiness only when they have sex as if its their pastime, thats why expecting baby after baby is just an ordinary thing, can we just let them go on with the NFP method? do you think it will work?

I understand where you are coming from. I agree that many of the lower class people, especially those who are unemployed, were bound to make sex as pastime because they have no reason to be busy. Actually, that might be true to all groups and classes. That is because being addicted with sex is multifactorial. But then again, the word “addicted” implies a negative state of being. Why? Because it is negative. It is not normal, though it is common, to treat as thus because even commonsense tells us that it is not healthy to be “too” engaged in sexual activities as if there is nothing more for you to do. Responsible citizenship, responsible parenthood, and responsible manhood are not equal to imbalance in any aspect of life.

It is not right for the government to promote liver supplement on the ground that there is nothing anymore that it can do to help alcohol addicts; or to promote lungs supplement because the people cannot be educated about cigarette smoking. The problem is the citizens’ state of life and way of thinking; it is not right to ignore the true issue and to engage in a wrong solution instead. A sober parent would not say to his/her kids, “Okay, dahil tamad kayong mag-aral at nakasanayan nyo nang mangopya, basta huwag na lang kayo magpahuli.” Contraceptive culture plainly says, “Have fun, be wild, don’t think about health and balance, and do whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want…JUST DON’T GET PREGNANT. In this culture, diving into sex frenzy is completely understandable but being pregnant is irresponsible. Isang malaking iskandalo at “imoralidad” ang pagkabuntis nang walang lalaking maipakilala, pero hindi imoral o nakakahiya ang makipagtalik sa hindi asawa (premarital and casual sex). We have individual and social attitude problem but instead of rectifying the issues, what many of us want to do is to give way to the attitude and just avoid the consequence. Remember the former DOH Secretary Juan Flavier proudly reported that he has given condoms to male OFWs? To think that there is no law like HB 5043 that led to that action of the government, what more can the government do if it is already legalized? What DOH has done then is undoubtedly anti-Constitution, anti-family, anti-dignity, and morally evil. I want to repeat, it is illegal, and yet it was done with heads high. Just come to think what would happen if it is legal?

Education, livelihood, and moral way of life are the solutions to the issue of poverty, not contraception.

If animals can be trained, it is a shame that humans cannot. Where is the high intelligence that we boast about?
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10263

the RH Bill seeks to correct the current imbalance where only traditional methods of contraception are promoted and modern methods of contraception ignored.

All of the arguments here are already answered in this same thread. You can watch all TV ads and research through other media in the Philippines and you will find which method have a really dominant promotion and patronage.

The issue of efficacy was already tackled.

Everything has already been answered and are just running round in circle.

I should agree with Noynoy when he said, “Korapsyon ang problema, kahirapan ang resulta,” although it is still the Filipino attitude that is the root of all these problems.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies/#comment-10269