I wrote this piece on May 27, 2011. I have sent this to as many Filipinos as possible - Filipinos who use the matter between their ears. Now that this issue is alive again, I wish to contribute to this lively discussion.
As of this writing, the honorable members of the House of Representatives are debating in the Halls of Congress on the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill (HB 4244). Likewise, Filipinos in the streets, in the plazas, in the market, in the salons/barbershops and elsewhere are contributing their thoughts on this controversial measure. And, I too have something to share in this debate.
Right at the outset, I would like to be clear as to where I stand in this issue: I am AGAINST the RH Bill. Yes, I am a hard core Catholic and at the same time a dutiful servant and Officer of the Government. Since I do not share my faith with the rest of the Filipinos, I am not going to argue against this Bill on the basis of my Catholic Faith. I am going to argue on the grounds of sound reason (though a reason informed by faith) and on established Truths.
I was able to acquire a copy of HB 4244 in one forum sponsored by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) last April and it was participated by Hon. Edcel Lagman, the principal author of the Bill. I read the copy of the Bill several times to see for myself the real intent of this controversial measure. After carefully reading and reflecting on the provisions of this Bill, I present below by observations and most importantly, my objections to it.
Indeed, the RH Bill, in its entirety, is not faulty. There are laudable provisions that should be given support such as:
1. The guarantee for the freedom of choice (Sec. 3, a). It should be emphasized, however, that there is no such thing as “absolute freedom.” Men and women are absolutely free only within the confines of natural law and order. Therefore, “freedom of choice” should be understood not as an absolute freedom as if we can just choose whatever we want. Furthermore, it would be out of order for the State to institute as a law the hallucination of absolute freedom.
2. The provision of services for maternal health, safe delivery of healthy children and their full development and responsible parenting (Sec. 3, c). It should be noted that maternal and child health as well as responsible parenting programs and services are in place and are availed by our constituents. The frontliners in this regard are the Department of Health (DOH) and the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) and their respective counterpart in the local governments.
3. The promotion of programs enabling couples to make informed decision on the number of their children and birth spacing they desire (Sec. 3, f, 1), achieving equitable allocation and utilization of resources (Sec. 3, f, 2), ensuring effective partnerships among stakeholders in good governance in the provision of programs and services that aim to enhance the quality of life of the people and the protection of the environment (Sec. 3, f, 3), and conducting scientific studies to analyze demographic trends towards sustainable human development (Sec. 3, f, 4) and to determine the safety and efficacy of alternative medicines and methods for reproductive health care development (Sec. 3, f, 5). Again, it should be noted that these are being performed by the Government through the Population Commission (PopCom) and the DOH. Honestly, I do not see the point of making the basic functions of these government agencies a law.
4. The provision of reproductive health information and care by both the national and local governments (Sec. 3, g). Again, this is being done by the Government. The DOH and its local counterpart are mandated to do this and, likewise, I do not see the point of making this particular provision a law.
5. The active participation of non-government organizations and communities in governance (Sec. 3, h). Indeed, there is no better way of governing other than actively involving the stakeholders of Good Governance. However, it should be noted that this particular section of the Bill (Sec. 3, h) makes a false claim that RH and population control are solutions to the priority needs of the poor, especially women.
6. The condemnation of abortion and the provision of treatment and counselling to women with post-abortion complications (Sec. 3, i).
7. The achievement of development by means of policies, programs and projects that seek to uplift the quality of life of the people, more particularly the poor, the needy and the marginalized (Sec. 3, m).
8. The employment of adequate number of skilled midwives (Sec. 5).
9. The establishment of Emergency Obstetric and Neonatal Care facilities in every province and city (Sec. 6).
10. The provision of benefits for serious and life-threatening reproductive health conditions (Sec. 14).
11. The provision of at least one (1) Mobile Health Care Service in each congressional district (Sec. 15).
12. The conduct of Capability building interventions for Barangay Health Workers (Sec. 19). Indeed, Barangay Health Workers need training for the effective and efficient delivery of barangay-based health services. However, please note that Section 19 is specifically for building capacity of Barangay Health Workers for the promotion of RH.
13. Pro-bono services by private and non-government health care providers (e.g., gynaecologists and obstetricians) for indigent women (Sec. 22).
14. The implementation of sexual health programs for persons with disabilities (Sec. 23).
On the other hand, however, the proposed law carries with it highly objectionable filth that should not in any way be supported and should outright be condemned. I would like to direct everyone to these filthy provisions or assumptions promoted in the Bill.
Faulty Assumptions
1. Overpopulation. The Bill speaks of a carefully crafted language, “a burgeoning multitude,” which simply means overpopulation and that because of this, “The limited resources ... spread so thinly ... making allocations grossly inadequate and effectively meaningless” (Sec. 3, l). In other words, because of the imagined “overpopulation” government is not able to cope with the demands of the people.
Is there really “overpopulation” in the Philippines? The honest and truthful answer is: NO. There is certainly no “overpopulation” in the country. While it is true that urban centers are densely populated, it cannot be denied that in most parts of the country, the description “burgeoning multitude” definitely does not hold true. We have vast tracks of land which are neither inhabited nor cultivated and these lands do not include our forests which we ought to protect and sustain. We do not need complicated statistical analysis to prove this fact; by simply observing rural and urban communities and noting the number of people living there, we will experience no difficulty in proving that, indeed, we do not have “overpopulation.”
This is not to mention the fact that we have a declining fertility rate, which in the long run, if unabated, will continue to support a “prophesy of doom”; however, this time, not the doom of “overpopulation” but the doom of an aging population with fewer children being born.
The notion, therefore, that we have “overpopulation” is unfounded and a lie – a very big lie, in fact.
2. Overpopulation is THE cause of Poverty. It is already an established fact that we do not have “overpopulation”; yet, RH Bill stubbornly insists that it is the cause of the worsening poverty of the poor and as such, it should be reversed (Sec. 3, j & l; Sec. 4 “Population and Development” [5]).
Granting for the sake of argument that indeed there is “overpopulation,” a problem still exists in the supposed direct relationship between increasing population and poverty. It should be noted that big and poor families were already poor before their families became big. On the other hand, small and rich families were already rich before they decided to maintain a small family. There is no credible documentation that shows an empirical fact that small and rich families become poor as their family size increase. Instead, experience can attest that once rich families became poor, not because of their increasing number, but because of the children’s lack of appreciation of the value of education, mismanagement of family assets, breakdown of family relations and others. Conversely, big and poor families become rich because the children studied hard and landed in good jobs, family members helped each other to effectively manage their meager resources, good family relations and others.
Truly, it is misleading and dishonest to say that poverty goes with increasing population.
Nonetheless, while it is true that population is one of the many factors contributing to poverty, it should be made clear and stressed emphatically that population is never THE cause of poverty. Studies have been consistent in showing that THE primary and root cause of poverty is Bad Governance expressed in faulty economic and development policies which adversely impact on the lives of the poor.
Undeniably, corruption ranks among the salient features of Bad Governance. Along with this are government’s weakness and inefficiency as well as the security problems, especially in the south.[1]
There is also the failure of the government to bring development to the countryside where the poor are. Jobs remain in the urban centers. Because of this, the poor are forced to leave their homes and, with the high standard of living in these urban areas, they enter into their new environment as among the “poorest of the poor.”
Agriculture could have been a solid and stable ground for sustainable economic development. Unfortunately, this sector is inadequately supported and agricultural development is not strongly promoted. As a result, famers leave their lands idle and/or sell their lands to be converted into subdivisions thereby aggravating the already poor productivity of the agriculture sector. When this happens, these poor farmers are not only snatched of their livelihood, but most importantly, their food.
Mindanao has the capacity to produce food that can feed the entire country. It has very vast track of fertile lands and is very rarely visited by bad weather. Unfortunately, the security problem there hampers its potential of becoming the food basket of the country and the generator of jobs and livelihood for many poor families living there.[2] It is common knowledge that the fight in Mindanao is just a moro-moro while top brass of the military are known to be profiting from the fighting in Mindanao.
These are just a few examples and there are a lot more that can prove that THE cause of poverty is Bad Governance, not population. The Malthusian Theory, on which this faulty assumption of the RH Bill is based, has long been proven dead. I just wonder why, we Filipinos, who pride ourselves as brilliant people, continue to cling to the claims of this erroneous theory.
3. Promotion of Gender Equality, Equity and Women’s Empowerment. This assumption is raised in many parts of the bill (Sec. 2; Sec. 3, k; Sec. 8; Sec. 16). Amazingly, in fact, the bill even claims that gender equality and women’s empowerment are its banner themes by declaring: “women’s rights shall be central to the efforts ... to address reproductive health care ... to the guarantee of women’s rights” (Sec. 2).
The question now arises: Is it really true that the RH Bill will ultimately promote gender equality, equity and women’s empowerment? By using our common sense and referring to results of studies, the answer is: NO.
RH Bill will cause the promotion of the Machismo Culture among some misdirected and unenlightened men, the violation of women’s human rights and the degradation of their very dignity.
The Contraception Culture, the safe sex mentality, will actually “benefit” the macho men more than women. The promiscuous man will find vindication for his acts in government’s approval for condom use a social norm. This is not to mention the reasonable concern of many that contraceptives may promote promiscuity.[3] In this situation, at the end of the day, women’s rights and dignity are violated; women are not empowered. To our sadness, they are dragged to the ground and, to their shame, forced to kiss the feet of the macho.
Certainly, this picture does not exhibit responsible sexual behavior, equality of men and women or the empowerment of the latter. The Bill will promote more abuses against women.
4. Condom will prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS and other Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI). Accordingly, the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STIs is one of the important issues being addressed by the Bill (Sec. 4 “Reproductive Health Care” [e]; Sec. 8; Sec. 14; Sec. 16 [f]). Although the Bill is silent as to how the government will specifically address this issue, we can find a hint from the policies and actions of DOH recently.[4] Obviously. in order to combat HIV/AIDS and other STIs, the Philippine Government shall “ensure people’s access to” condoms (Sec. 25 [b]).
Then, we ask: Does condom indeed prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STIs? The answer is: NO. It is said that condoms, “when used consistently and correctly, ... are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV infection and reduce the risk of other STDs.”[5] However in 2001, the United States (US) National Institutes of Health presented a report based on the conclusions of a scientific panel of 28 experts that there is no proof that condom, while reducing the risk of transmission of HIV and gonorrhoea, are effective in preventing the spread of the primary STDs that represent 98% of the 15 million new STD cases per year in the United States.[6] Therefore, we cannot reasonably entrust our safety on the highly questionable effectiveness of condoms in the prevention of HIV/AIDS/STI transmission. Furthermore, we should pay attention to what studies have shown that societies which adopted condom as a health policy showed an exponential increase in HIV/AIDS/STI transmission.[7] In other words, condom aggravates the already problematic situation of HIV/AIDS/STI transmission.
Why does condom fail? How does this happen? The answer is Risk Compensation, a phenomenon where people, by using a certain technology (e.g., condom) intended to reduce risks, are willing to take on greater risk (i.e., engaging in multiple sex partners).[8] Admittedly, there is no proof of a causal connection between condom usage and an increase in HIV prevalence; however, some evidence support an association between condom distribution and riskier sexual behavior.[9]
Hence, if we would like to halt and reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STIs, as the Millennium Development Goals mandate governments, certainly, condom is not the answer. For its stead, experience of Uganda teaches us that relatively simple, low cost behavioural change programs (i.e., avoiding multiple sex partners and delaying sexual activity of the youth) have made the greatest progress in fighting or preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.[10]
5. Contraceptives prevent Abortion. This supposition is based on the simplistic idea that “when there is no conception, there can never be abortion.” This is precisely the reason why, along with the aim of “managing” the alleged “burgeoning multitude,” the Bill is emphatic about its support for modern family planning/contraceptive methods (Sec. 2; Sec. 3, e; Sec. 7; Sec. 10; Sec. 11; Sec. 19; Sec. 25) and it elevated them to the same dignity as the Natural Family Planning methods (Sec. 3, e). Additionally, in an attempt to make it appear Pro-Life, the Bill is fashioned to be strongly opposed to abortion (Sec. 3, i).
Do contraceptives really prevent abortion? Is the Bill really opposed to abortion? The answer to both questions is: NO. A recent Spanish study has shown that a 10-year period of an increasing use of contraceptive devises had been paralleled by a significantly increasing number of abortions.[11] Accordingly, the 63 percent increase in the use of contraceptives was accompanied by a 108 percent increase in the rate of elective abortions. The researchers were amazed and could not believe the result of their study so that their funny conclusion was: “The factors responsible for increased rate of elective abortion need further investigation.” They found the result of their study mysterious.
Actually, the “mystery” behind the direct relationship between the use of contraceptive devices and abortion is easy to resolve. Common sense will tell that the basic reasons behind the use of contraceptives are: 1) the denial of the procreative function of sex, and 2) the will to prevent the formation of life, which is the natural consequence of sex. And, this is the common denominator of these two reasons: the absence of and the hostility to life. In other words, life or the formation of life is not a consideration or has no place in sex done in the context of contraception. To put it simply, there develops an Anti-Life mentality.
The decisive moment comes when the contraceptive device fails. With Anti-Life mentality, people find it easy to resort to abortion. Life is aborted and killed since, in the first place, it was not a consideration; it was supposedly non-existent. Hence, “it” should not exist. Mystery solved.
And so, do contraceptives really prevent abortion? The answer is: NO. Instead, it increases the number of abortions.
Is the Bill really opposed to abortion? Similarly, the answer is: NO. The Bill will actually promote it.
In addition to the aforementioned faulty assumptions, the Bill contains the following abusive, unacceptable and objectionable provisions.
Abusive and Unacceptable Provisions
1. Sec. 10 redefines Family Planning Supplies as Essential Medicines. World Health Organization defines Essential Medicines as “those that satisfy the priority health care needs of the population.”[12] Essential Medicines should address the top causes of death among Filipinos. Interestingly, pregnancy is not among the Top 10 causes of mortality of Filipinos.[13] This alone justifies that in no way can Family Planning supplies fit the category of “Essential Medicine.”
This is not to mention the fact that pregnancy is NOT an illness that has to be arrested by an “Essential Medicine.” By putting pregnancy in a position opposed to Essential Medicine, we send a simple and erroneous message: Pregnancy kills, avoid it!
Pregnancy, the first obvious manifestation of life, is fashioned as a threat to life itself. Yet, the main author of the Bill has the courage to declare that the RH Bill is Pro-life. He should tell it to the marines!
2. Sec. 11 provides for the Procurement and Distribution of Family Planning Supplies, which include abortifacient products like the pills and IUD.[14] Certainly, no taxpayer who upholds the sanctity of life, regardless of his/her religious conviction, will ver pay tax that will be used for the purchase of products that will cause the destruction of an innocent and defenceless human life.
3. Sec. 12 provides for the Integration of Responsible Parenthood and Family Planning Component in Anti-Poverty Programs. Obviously, this provision finds its foundation in Faulty Assumption No. 2 (i.e., Overpopulation is the cause of poverty). Clearly, there is no direct link between population growth and poverty. And yet, here we find again another provision of the proposed law which will mandate government agencies to inefficiently expend government funds to address a “problem” based on a wrong assumption. More than Responsible Parenthood and Family Planning, which have for its aim the reduction of population, Anti-Poverty Programs need Community Building as an important and essential component. Anti-Poverty Programs, in order to be effective and sustainable, need to be community-based and run by people who care about their neighbors in the community. Without this, Anti-Poverty initiatives of government are doomed to collapse. Anti-Poverty Programs do not need population control measures in order to stand and succeed.
4. Sec. 16 provides for the Mandatory Age-Appropriate Health and Sexuality Education. The proposed law imposes Sex Education on the youth to address the increasing number of teenage pregnancies.
Is sex education really the answer to the problem of teenage pregnancy? The answer is: NO. Sex education does not help in delaying sexual activity among the youth and in reducing teenage pregnancies.[15]
Recently, the primary author of the Bill, in response to the mounting opposition against mandatory Sex Education, disclosed that he recommended an amendment to the proposed law which makes Sex Education optional to students. In effect: parents have the option not to allow their children to attend Sex Education classes. But the problem arises in the fact that Sex Education is not a separate subject; it is integrated in most, if not all, subjects that the students ought to take in school. Under this set up, therefore, parents can in no way prevent their children from attending Sex Education. Otherwise, these students shall have to leave the class each time the teacher tackles Sex Education lessons – a very inconvenient situation. Furthermore, these students may fail in class since they may not be able to answer questions pertaining to Sex Education in examinations. Consequently, students shall be prevented to graduate in the educational ladder simply because they resisted attending Sex Education – a subject less essential in the formation of competent, morally upright and professional workforce!
Many of us are living witnesses of a professional who succeeded in life without undergoing Sex Education. If Sex Education did not contribute to our success as a professional, where is justice in a situation where this non-essential subject becomes the hindrance to the success of another person, our youth?
5. Sec. 20 proposes an Ideal Family Size: a family with two (2) children only. Proponents of this concept claim that the two (2) children will simply replace their parents when they die. This is consistent, they claim, with the concept of Sustainable Development.
Indeed, by viewing the issue superficially, we may be easily convinced that the two (2) children will simply replace their parents. However, it should be noted that this supposition will only hold true when all two (2) children outlive their two (2) parents. But we know for a fact that not all children outlive their parents; many die young. In this situation, therefore, we risk reversing our population pyramid with less young people supporting a huge elderly population. Certainly, this is not going to be a good picture of our demographics. This is not sustainable.
On the other hand, we should note the deception occurring in the Bill itself as regards this matter. We should recall that in Sec. 3, j, the Bill says that there shall be “no demographic or population targets....” Aside from the fact that his particular provision appears very foolish as we could not see the point of pushing for reduction of population without attainable targets (an obvious sign of potential inefficiency), it seems to appear in conflict with Sec. 20 which explicitly exposes its real and ugly intent: setting a limit, though not mandatory at the moment, to two (2) children per family only and brand it as the “Ideal Family Size.”
Certainly, a family with only two (2) children is not an ideal family size; neither is it sustainable.
6. Sec. 21 imposes the mandatory responsibility of employers to provide RH services to their employees. With this provision, employers shall be forced to provide RH services that may be in conflict with the values and morals of their company or organization (e.g., faith-based organizations). This provision would violate their Religious Freedom. Furthermore, this will fall in conflict with Sec. 2 which guarantees respect of “religious convictions” of people. Is the government ready to face the consequences of shutting down all faith-based, especially Catholic organizations/companies that stand against this Bill?
At this point, I would like to underscore this seemingly “simple” provision. Actually, it has a great potential to suppress and crush all structures that will stand against this Bill. For example, if each Parish Church is considered a company, the Parish Priest would be the employer of the Parish Staff and he will be forced to provide RH Services to them even if it is against the teaching of his “organization,” the Church. If the Parish Priest disobeys, the government has at least two (2) options: 1) to put the priest in jail and 2) to close the Parish. This is just one example. How about in Catholic Schools, Hospitals, Publishing Houses, etc? Is the government ready to put all the “employers” of these organizations to jail? Is the government ready to close all these organizations along with other non-Catholic organizations that stand against this Bill?
Clearly, this provision violates Religious Freedom, one of our basic human rights.
7. Sec. 24 provides for the Right to Reproductive Health Care Information. Accordingly, the government shall “guarantee the right to ... non-fraudulent information” on RH. In order to give force to this provision, we find in Sec. 28, e this prohibition: it shall be unlawful for “Any person [who] maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provision of this act.”
What does the latter provision imply? Simple: Anybody who speaks against this Law (now still a Bill) shall go to jail. This is a violation of our Freedom of Expression! This will go against the very foundation of our Democracy.
Fortunately, the primary author of the Bill realized the consequences of Sec. 8, e and, accordingly, asked it to be withdrawn. Now, we ask: what is the point of Sec. 24 in the absence of Sec. 28, e? Without the latter, the former would simply appear as a nonsensical provision of the Bill. If Sec. 28, e belongs to the trash, so do Sec. 24.
8. Sec. 28, a prohibits health care service providers, whether public or private, from speaking against the Law (Sec. 28, a, 1) and refusing to perform RH procedures (Sec. 28, a, 2). Though Sec. 28, a, 3 allows for the refusal of the provision of “health care services” under the pretext of “ethical and religious beliefs,” the health care service provider shall be obliged to “refer” the client to other health service provider. At this point, we have to recognize the fact that the act of “referring” is actually connivance. The conscience of the health care service provider, therefore, remains unprotected. Failure to connive is tantamount to violating the Law.
9. Sec. 28, b declares it unlawful for any public official to “prohibit[s] or restrict[s] the delivery of ... reproductive health care services.” With this, all government officials shall now be forced to implement RH even if it runs contrary to their conscience. Otherwise, they go to jail.
As for me, being at the same time a government official, I would love to find myself behind bars for standing for what is right.
Truly, the filth contained in RH Bill outweighs the good that it brings. It harbors a wolf, a terrible wolf in fact, in sheep’s clothing.
Yes, my voice is just but one; but I echo the Truth spoken by many others. Certainly, no amount of majority public support for the RH Bill will diminish the merits of the Truth against it. And, only a fool would sacrifice or die for anything that is untrue. I am not a fool and neither do I have any political or ideological agenda. I am just a simple defender of good reason and objective Truth. To prove my conviction against this proposed law, if the unfortunate time would come that this Bill becomes a Law, I will stop paying my taxes in protest and will welcome with great joy the embrace of the prison cell. If this will be considered an act of folly, let it be.
And I will continue to cry out: No to RH Bill!!!
[1] Asian Development Bank, “Causes of Poverty in the Philippines,” http://www.adb.org/documents/books/poverty-in-the-philippines/chap6.pdf
[2] Orooj Malik, “Mindanao can be RP food basket,” http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/talkofthetown/view/20100807-285489/Mindanao-can-be-RP-food-basket
[3] See Risk Compensation. Increasing access to contraception may lead to multiple sex partners.
[4] “DoH chief to keep on distributing condoms to stop HIV-AIDS”, http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20100223-254899/DoH-chief-to-keep-on-distributing-condoms--to-stop-HIV-AIDS
[5] Center for Disease Control and Prevention, “Male Latex Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases”, http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
[6] “Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention,” http://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/organization/dmid/documents/condomreport.pdf
[7] Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen, “Condom Promotion in Developing World: Is it Working?”, https://www.ghdonline.org/uploads/Hearst.2003.CondomPromotion_.pdf , 2003
[8] BBC, “The pope was right about condoms, says Harvard HIV expert,” http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/03/aids_expert_who_defended_the_p.html
[9] Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen, “Condom Promotion in Developing World: Is it Working?”, https://www.ghdonline.org/uploads/Hearst.2003.CondomPromotion_.pdf , 2003
[10] Rand L. Stoneburner and Daniel LowBeer, “AIDS and Behavioral Risks in Uganda: Evidence for an Effective Social Vaccine and Challenges to its Replication,” in Evidence that Demands Action, Comparing Risks Avoidance and Risk Reduction Strategies for HIV Prevention, in http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=463c4c6e-eadd-4af3-9799-fed264d73ccf
[11] Jose Luis Dueñas et al. “Trends in the use of contraceptive methods and voluntary interruption of pregnancy in the Spanish population during 1997-2007,” http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(10)00327-6/abstract
[12] Essential Medicines, http://www.who.int/topics/essential_medicines/en/
[13] Top 10 causes of Death in the Philippines in 2009, http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Top_10_Causes_of_Death_in_the_Philippines_in_2009
[14] William Colliton, Jr., “The Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptive,” http://www.uffl.org/vol10/colliton10.pdf
[15] Meg Wiggins et al., “Health outcomes of youth development programme in England: prospective matched comparison study,” http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2534.abstract
No comments:
Post a Comment