Skip to main content

RH Bill Debate: Things Not to Forget



As of this writing, the author tried but failed to get a copy of the six reproductive health bills (RH bills) filed in the House of Representative. This means that Filipinos concerned in guarding the nation from the potential dangers of the bill may have to ensure that they know what are being proposed in these bills so appropriate actions can be taken to prevent the worst from happening. 

The House Bill readily available is HB05043, otherwise known as the Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008, filed in the 14th Congress. The HB00513 that the 15th Congress received on 1 July 2010 has already passed first reading on July 27, and is pending with the Committee on Population and Family Relations.

Freedom of Informed Choice

It is inherent in Christian faith and in the Philippines the freedom of each Filipino to choose. God respected our free will; and our Constitution confirmed that as a fundamental right of any Filipino. This freedom is reiterated in Sec. 3 (Guiding Principles) of the House Bill 5043 filed in the 14th Congress.

In relation to this, the Government has the inherent responsibility to ensure that all Filipinos will have the opportunity to make the choice. With regards to contraception, spouses must be given the means to choose which contraceptive methods they want to use based on their joint judgment and conscience. But the Government in performing this responsibility, and considering the equal opportunity to choose between natural and artificial contraceptives, must equally provide all information available so that spouse are empowered to follow through with their choice.

Protection of the Life of the Unborn Guaranteed in the Constitution

The 1987 Philippine Constitution declares in Article II, Section 12: "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." This fundamental law guarantees that abortion shall not be made lawful in the country. The equal protection of the life of both the mother and the unborn removes from the mother any right to kill her unborn child until such time when the life of the mother is irrevocably threatened by the survival of the unborn child. In such a case, the mother and the father must choose which life to protect--the mother or the unborn child. Right now, no law prescribes for any preferential choice in this situation.

In addition to the Philippine Constitution, the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, enacted in 1930, criminalized in Articles 256, 258 and 259 the act of abortion, covering the mother who procured the abortion, and any person who assisted in the procedure.

House Bill 5043 in Sec. 3 supported the unlawfulness of abortion.

Pregnancy Is Not a Disease

What must be observed closely is the language of the reproductive bills, which may indignantly consider pregnancy as any other disease that requires treatment. Such a point of view degrades and disrespects the divine gift of human life through pregnancy. With that view, contraceptives becomes a necessary medicine like any antibiotics or anti-hypertensives.

House Bill 5043 believes so in its declaration in Sec. 10, entitled "Contraceptives as Essential Medicines." It provided that "Hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other allied reproductive health products and supplies shall be considered under the category of essential medicines and supplies which shall form part of the National Drug Formulary and the same shall be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national and local hospital and other government health units." Should this provision be approved, pregnancy becomes a disease in Philippines laws.

With this line of reasoning, contraception becomes a preventive medicine like any food supplemental vitamins and minerals. The only difference is that the use of food supplements prevents potential infection while contraception prevents the potential appearance of life. The life that is protected in the Constitution is now degraded into the level of disease-causing microorganisms. While abortion snaps out life, contraception snaps out the potential appearance of life. Both share the same attitude of antipathy towards life.

While unbridled birthing increases the risks to the life of the mother, that alone cannot justify treating pregnancy like a disease. Diseases may directly cause death, or at least threat life in the same way that pregnancy may be in malnourished mothers with many children. But not all pregnancy cause that kind of threat to the human life to be treated as a disease.

Not Spending Tax Money in Favor of Artificial Contraception 

Any humane State cannot espouse antipathy towards life without destroying the fabric of justice that it wants to protect. And that antipathy, unlike mere giving out of information to provide educated options for spouses, becomes concretely supported when the government spends the tax money (the money of the people) in purchasing contraceptives as a gesture of actively supporting the act of contraception (preventing life from existing) instead of only providing information about responsible parental choices. Section 4 (Definition of Terms) in HB 5043 ensures that be so when it defines "Reproductive Health Rights" as involving being given the "means to carry out their decisions," which means buying contraceptives given for free to women who ask for them. The same active support on artificial contraception can be found in Sec. 10 (Contraceptives as Essential Medicines): "shall be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national and local hospital and other government health units."

The freedom of informed choice is something that the government must protect. But that must only involve providing information from which spouses can make informed choice, and not actively spending the people's money in purchasing artificial contraceptives since, conversely natural contraception, which the government must support equally as well, does not require buying of devises and medicines. Spending millions of pesos over artificial contraceptives is an act favoring this method over natural contraceptive methods. That is tantamount to using the tax money of those who oppose artificial contraception in subsidizing those who prefer the convenience of free artificial contraceptives. Why should the government not educate about both methods of contraception but leave it to the spouses who chose artificial contraception to buy the devises and medicines with their own money, and not receive it free from the government?

Since pregnancy is not a disease, and contraceptive medicines are not "treatments" of a disease, the Government must not spend tax money to buy these artificial contraceptives and give out free. That's the only way the Government can show non-preference between natural and artificial contraception in her reproductive health policy. Unlike food supplemental vitamins and minerals that the Government give for free and everyone can ask for it, the beneficiaries of contraceptive drugs and devices are only those who favor the use of contraceptives not those who disfavor them. 

Respect of Religious Beliefs of Service Providers

House Bill 5043 Sec. 21 (Prohibited Acts) provides in a5 that health care service providers who does not believe in artificial contraception may not be penalized for not giving such a service to patients. This provision must also be monitored in the new bills filed in the 15th Congress to ensure that freedom of religion is not encroached upon in the name of reproductive health care service requirements for service providers.

"Disinformation" Prohibition

Subsection (e) of HB 5043 Sec. 21 considers as subject to legal punishment "any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act." This provision must be clearly defined because any valid contrary opinion that opposes the Act may be easily considered "disinformation" by its advocates, rendering a dangerous suppression of the freedom of expression among critics.


This article appears in Kuro-Kuro on 16 October 2010. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Decorated Police Officer Died As Hostagetaker

True tragedies often come with jaw-dropping surprises. Today's hostage-taking situation in Manila tells of the fleeting condition of life, and how violence can escalate into murder and death of the innocents. And it will be a difficult mental work to understand how a bemedaled police officer lost his job, and ended up taking hostages in a bus, and died in the process. Hostage-Taking in Manila 10:00 PM. The Hong Thai Travel bus (owned by Hong Thai Travel Services Ltd.) was about to leave Fort Santiago in Intramuros, Manila, where the tourists just visited when former Senior Inspector Rolando Mendoza asked the driver that Mendoza be allowed to hitch a ride. He wore a full police uniform, carrying an M-16 rifle. The driver let Mendoza in, believing that the policeman was on duty. In 2008, Mendoza was moved to the National Capital Region Office (NCRPPO) after a robbery-extortion case in Vito Cruz, Ermita, Manila was filed against him. That same year, he was accused with four othe

Pope Benedict XVI: An Ultimate Act of Love

IT SHOCKED ME to learn that a favorite pope of mine, Pope Benedict XVI, has announced his resignation effective 28 February 2013. Since I was a child I thought that the Office of the Pope, the Seat of the Ministry of Saint Peter, entails an election for life. That once elected a pope, a Cardinal is expected to die a pope. But that's the presumption of a child. After reading the translated transcript of the Pope's announcement of resignation, it became clear to me that a pope has not been made for the ministry, but the ministry, designed to guide the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ through time, must take precedence even in the personal choices of the pope.   Pope Benedict XVI's decision to resign however does not flow from a personal desire to have a break from the demands of the ministry to which he was called eight years ago. His decision flows from an intimate discernment of the will of God for His Church today. And following that will of God means having to set a

For God and People

The last thing I expected yesterday was to attend a consecration ceremony for two single women to the religious life in the Living the Gospel Community (LGC), founded by Monsignor Frederick Kriekenbeek and located in the parish of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Minglanilla, Cebu. The sisters who made their perpetual profession of vows--the three vows of poverty, chastity and obedience--were Ma. Hazel Lastimosa, LGC and Ma. Dolores La Rosa, LGC. I dropped by the parish church compound simply to visit the Blessed Sacrament and to check on the sales status of MorningSun booklets sold at the parish book center. But then before I even did any one of the above, my attention got caught by an ongoing Holy Mass concelebrated by a bishop (it turned out later that there were two bishops in that celebration) and around 20 priests. A soft and delightful invitation to attend the Mass came into my mind and my response was an outright "Yes!" as I walked into the church pews, joining the ce