RH is Pro-Chance

Hindi nga? Sinasabi ng mga supporter ng RH Bill na hindi daw ito tungkol sa aborsyon dahil wala daw nakalagay sa teksto na isinusulong nito ang aborsyon. Ngayon naman, kung ano-anong klase ng panloloko ang sinasabi nila sa tao on national television tungkol sa isinusulong nito. RH Bill is pro-chance daw; nakasulat ba?

"Chance para sa ipinanganak na mahirap. Chance na makapag-aral nang tuloy-tuloy; mapakain ng tama ang mga bata; magkaroon ng pangarap at di lang mga panaginip. Chance na makaahon. At yun lang naman ang hinihingi natin -- chance sa buhay."

Saan banda? Kahit saang bersyon ng RH Bill, walang nakasulat kung paano yayaman ang mga ipinanganak na mahirap; kung paano sila makakapag-aral nang tuloy-tuloy; kung paanong mapapakain ng tama ang mga bata; kung paanong matutupad ang kanilang mga pangarap; at kung paano sila makaaahon. Isa lang ang solusyon ng RH Bill -- pigilan ang panganganak. Ang tanong, sigurado bang yayaman ang mag-asawang konti ang anak? Sigurado bang makakapag-aral nang tuloy-tuloy ang dalawang magkapatid? Sigurado bang kakain ng masustansya at sapat ang maliit na pamilya? Siguardo bang matutupad ang kanilang mga pangarap at makaaahon sila sa buhay? Matapat bang makakasagot ng diretsong "oo" ang mga tagapagsulong ng RH Bill? Hindi. Dahil tulad ng sinasabi nila, ito ay tungkol sa tyansa -- sa tyamba -- baka sakali.

Pagkatapos ng pagtatapon ng bilyon-bilyong pisong pera ng mga mamamayan, sumusuporta man o tumututol sa panukalang ito, ang tanging maibibigay ng RH Bill ay "baka sakali." Pero ayon sa kasaysayan at sa pag-aaral, hindi automatikong magiging mas masagana ang buhay kung itutulak ng pamahalaan ang kontraseptibong mentalidad. Ang kabaligtaran ang mangyayari. Mawawala ang atensyon ng tao mula sa totoong problema ng korupsyon at kawalan ng pantay-pantay na oportunidad, dahil sisisihin ng lahat ang populasyon, na kung tutuusin, ayon sa mga mapagkakatiwalaang ekonomista, ay siyang dahilan kung bakit umuunlad ang isang bansa.

Image: I Oppose The RH Bill Facebook page

Sa halip na pagpapayman sa mga kompanya ng contraceptives ang isinusulong ng mga mambabatas na dapat sana ay kumakatawan para sa ating personal, materyal, at pangkomunidad na pag-unlad, dapat sana ay ginagamit nila ang kanilang isip, oras, at pera para bigyan tayo ng totoong mapagkukuhanan ng, at mapapaunlad na, kabuhayan; at hindi sandamukal na mga inutil na condom, pills, at IUD. Nagkukumahog silang maipanalo ang laban na ito dahil malaking "budget" ang pinag-uusapan, habang ang iba naman sa kanila ay talaga lang ignorante at nagpapadala sa mga ideyolohiyang nagmumula sa pagiging makasarili sa halip na sa diwa ng tunay na paglilingkod

Desperado na ang mga tagapagsulong ng RH Bill kaya malawakang panlilinlang na ang ginagawa nila, at wala silang pakialam kung tuligsain sila sa kanilang mga kasinungalingan dahil alam nilang kahit gaano kakatwa at kaliko ang kanilang sinasabi, laging may mga taong maniniwala. Pero hindi tayo kasama sa mga taong iyon, at hindi rin tayo papayag na mas marami pa silang malinlang.

Chance -  the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

All possibilities are just around; we do not need laws to create possibilities What we need are laws that will give us assurances, protection -- not against people but for people, and security that comes from having our own source of wealth, beginning with effective personal development programs and proper financial education.

Is It Really About Empowering Women?

Read and discern who has the real intelligence that would benefit the people. Below are the letters that might help Filipinos to decide which fence they should be in.

The Philippine Bishops wrote a pastoral letter to the Catholic faithfuls to guide their conscience regarding this life issue. In response to this, Representative Risa Hontiveros post an open letter to the Bishops on her Facebook account. The congresswoman was very dismissive with her approach, but some of the women that she presume to be representing is not as silent and stupid as she thought. They know where they are coming from and they know where they are going. The first open letter to Risa Hontiveros came from Aisa, a woman, a blogger, and a sophomore at The Midwest Culinary Institute. The other response was a comment note posted on the I Oppose the RH Bill Facebook page.

A Pastoral Letter of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines
A Woman's Letter to the Bishops  
An Open Letter to Risa Hontiveros
And the Women Speak….

What Future Do We Have in the Hands of Planned Parenthood?

 Who is behind all of these reproductive health chaos and deceits? Right! The Planned Parenthood and all its partners in crime, thanks to its eugenicist founder, Margaret Sanger, who said, "more children from the fit, less from the unfit; that is the chief aim of birth control."

Is Sanger a murderer? It seems that her autobiography claims that Margaret Sanger is against abortion and she actually believed it is wrong because it kills a human being: "To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun." In another occasion, she also said that birth control is "no abortion. Abortion kills life after it has begun. . . Birth Control is neither harmful nor immoral." That is the exact argument of the RH Bill advocates -- that we need contraception to minimize illegal abortions. Sounds plausible; or does it? History showed that Sanger is not really anti-abortion after all. She actually spent the rest of her life convincing Americans and the whole world, through her (now) worldwide organization, that abortion is a normal part of a woman's life, and that the government should support it.

But of course, it would have not been easy to say that you oppose abortion today and promote it tomorrow. The first part of the plan was already put in place and rapidly getting popularity and support; that is the propaganda that contraception would minimize abortion. Americans underestimated Sanger's cunning and failed to see what she was up to.

With a very subtle intention, she said, "While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization." It conditions the readers' minds that she was really a champion of women and that she personally opposes abortion, although the law and the health care providers consider it acceptable in particular cases. Through this statement she wanted to imply that there are times when abortion is not absolutely wrong. She even claimed that "the woman who goes to the abortionist's table is not a criminal but a martyr." Sanger was a very crafty woman. She had written and spoke self-contradicting statements but instead of being put under scrutiny she had successfully confused the whole world, changing it's values, cultures, and notion of life. While continuously claiming that contraception is far better than abortion, she encouragingly stated, "We know that abortion, when performed by skilled hands, under right conditions, brings almost no danger to the life of the patient, and we also know that particular diseases can be more easily combated after such an abortion than during a pregnancy allowed to come to full term." Planned Parenthood doctors still use this deception, telling women that abortion is safe..."even safer than giving birth."

Now, what do you think Margaret Sanger really wanted to promote, contraception or abortion? Was she an anti-abortion or an abortion promoter? Let her answer that question: "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." At first, she said that abortion is always wrong; then she subtly implied that it is justifiable in some cases; and finally, that killing an infant is a merciful act.

Followers of Margaret Sanger and of Planned Parenthood believe it is their right to demand government-paid contraception and abortion, and that they should not feel sorry for killing their own children as their "Mother" taught them. This was exactly the future that Margaret Sanger had in her mind. She said that "women must come to recognize there is some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine." Between the lines is her notion that womanhood is also being a child-killing machine.

So what kind of citizens do Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood want us to be?

• Promiscuous
• Disrespectful
• Irreligious
• Murderers
• Adulterous
• As perverse as we can possibly be

RH Bill advocates can say forever that this is not about abortion; that this is about women's health; that this is about preventing abortion; but we already know their color. Planned Parenthood is the largest organization of baby-killers and their dirty tactics are already EXPOSED.


Sources:















The Autobiography of Margaret Sanger (Google Book)
What Every Girl Should Know, by Margaret Sanger

Relationship of Church and State

RH Bill advocates untiringly invoke the concept of the "separation of Church and State," but do they really understand what they say? I have enlisted here the provisions that supply the details regarding the separation (or should it rather be the relationship) of Church and State. Little do the RH advocates know (or little do they want to know), that it is their bill that attempts to disregard this "wall of separation".

Article II

Section 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.

Does this sound that the Church and the State has nothing to do with each other? The contrary is true. The Church shares with the State the same advocacy to promote and protect the whole aspect of youth and the citizens’ human person. It also encourages their involvement in public and civic affairs. The Church opposes the RH Bill because it puts the physical health of men and women at risk; it attempts to reshape their morality, to discredit spirituality, to poison the intellect with manipulated science and false self-image; and it will eventually ruin their social welfare because the bill promotes hedonism and self-serving lifestyle.

Article III

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

This section was written to protect religious freedom. The expression, “separation between Church and State” that Thomas Jefferson coined was originally intended to create an imaginary separating line that would emphasize the constitutional fact that the government has no right to prevent anyone from practicing his religion, or to violate his rights of conscience. The RH Bill, on the contrary, disregards and attempts to breach the “free exercise” clause and, thus, the “separation” provision by obliging everyone to practice particular actions that would violate the individual’s rights of conscience.

Article VI

Section 5. (2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.

This provision is perfectly compatible with the Church’s teaching that no clergy can engage in partisan politics, which means they cannot run for an office or directly endorse a candidate. However, they can speak about politics since they are also citizens of the country and, most of all, because love and justice would sometimes demand it. That is part of their mission to be the salt of the world.

Section 28. (3) Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non- profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.

This is another example that there is no divorce between the Church and the State as RH Bill advocates want to believe. The Constitution is very specific about its relationship with the Church and all other religions. It is not indifferent to it.

Section 29.  (2) No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.

Article IX - C

Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:

(5) Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must present their platform or program of government; and accredit citizens' arms of the Commission on Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government shall likewise be refused registration.

Article XIV

Section 3. (3) At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the children or wards belong, without additional cost to the Government.

Some people want to believe that the State is absolutely secular in the sense that it must not be influenced by the concept of a power greater than itself but should rather be godless. Unfortunately for them, that is not the case. The Constitution recognizes God and even implores for His aid “in order to build a just and humane society and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace.”

And since the State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building (Article II Section 13), and the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions (Article XV Section 3), one of its ways to promote the welfare of the youth is to allow religion to be taught in public schools. If the State has really nothing to do with the Church, then it would rather prohibit prayers, let alone religion class in public schools since these institutions are run by the government. But since the State understands its relationship with the Church, it would not do that.

The ill-defined “separation of Church and State” just cannot hold any ground.

The Less Popular Truth About RH Polls

A more recent survey shows that SWS and Pulse Asia's results regarding the Filipinos' awareness and approval of the Reproductive Health Bill are inaccurate and misleading. The poll, which was conducted by the HB&A International Research and the Asia Research Organization, shows that 73% of the respondents are not aware of the ongoing debates regarding the RH Bill.

Below is the survey result presentation.

Proponents of RH Bill are so desperate that they need to resort to deceits just to pass their anti-life proposal.