A Look Into the Reproductive Health Bill
Senator Francisco Tatad, in an opinion column, described the Reproductive Health Bill, which has been subject to assiduous and often heated debates in congress, as totally unnecessary, patently unconstitutional, destructive of public morals and family values, and particularly unjust to catholic taxpayers. Unfortunately, this uncompromising position is shared by the Catholic Church, particularly by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and Couples for Christ, which have released their own statements condemning the bill. Unfortunately, they completely disregard the salient features of the proposed bill, shared by hundreds of other countries all over the world and agreed upon in the International United Nations Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo, Egypt in 1994.
In the ICPD, 179 countries agreed that population and development are inextricably linked. In brief, the two may be considered indirectly proportional—i.e., a high population rate results in slower development and vice versa. It was likewise agreed that women empowerment and health education including reproductive health are necessary for individual advancement and a balanced life. Thus, the declaration of policies of the law provides that it is “anchored on the rationale that sustainable human development is better assured with a manageable population of healthy, educated, and productive citizens.
One need not resort to statistics to understand the effect of population on individual development. In 2002, the United Nations stated that “family planning and reproductive health are essential to reducing poverty.” It also stated that “family planning could bring more benefits to people at less cost than any other single technology now available to the human race.”
The proposed bill adopts the international definition of reproductive health, that is, state of physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. To achieve this, the bill guarantees universal access to medically-safe, legal, affordable and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information thereon even as it prioritizes the needs of women and children, among other underprivileged sectors.
It recognizes the right to informed choice, which means that the bill guarantees full access to relevant reproductive health information. First, it provides “mandatory, age-appropriate reproductive health education” which emphasizes among others, responsible parenting, proscriptions and hazards of abortion and management of post-abortion complications, and abstinence before marriage. Second, it provides a penalty for health care service providers who fail to provide this information, not being religious conscientious objectors and having failed to immediately refer that person to another health care facility.
It does not, as critics claim, set a prelude to a two-child policy. What it does is to give access to family-planning programs which would enable couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of children. The bill requires the “State to assist couples, families and individuals to achieve their desired family size within the context of responsible parenthood for sustainable development and encourage them to have two children as the ideal family size.” This however is neither mandatory nor compulsory. It merely suggests a global standard.
The bill, at best, embodies fundamental principles recognized in our Constitution—the right to a dignified and healthy life, full access to information, and equal protection before the law. At worst, it only requires fine tuning that can only be addressed by discourse and sobriety.
I believe what you have just written is full of contradictory comments:
You said in the 6th paragraph, and I quote:
“This [RH Bill] however is neither mandatory nor compulsory. It merely suggests a global standard.”
But you already said in the previous paragraph that the bill provides “mandatory, age-appropriate reproductive health education” which emphasizes among others… and also “…provides a penalty for health care service providers who fail to provide this information…”.
Does it not sound either mandatory or compulsory to you?
Now for the RH Bill itself, I am one of those who firmly object the bill because of its many errors. I personally found one when I read the full text of the HB 5043.
Specifically in Section 12, entitled “Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health Education”. It clearly defines the subjects and standards that will be included in the mandatory sex education for students, but I think that the proposed curriculum is quite biased because it does not include the study or any presentation whatsoever of the bad effects of the use of contraceptives.
With a biased sex education curriculum proposed, how can the State be sure that “couples and individuals have the information and means to carry out their decisions, and to have informed choice…”, as stated in the definition of responsible parenthood and family planning.
You also said that the bill “does not set a prelude to a two-child policy”. But in Section 16, the bill “encourage them [the family] to have two children as the ideal family size”.
Finally, I just want you to be aware that the International United Nations Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo, Egypt in 1994 is a direct consequence of an old study of the United States, the infamous NSSM 200 or commonly known as the Kissinger report of 1974 (search it if you want), that World Population Plan of Action would be used to advance all of the relevant action recommendations made by the U.S. Agencies in order to generate more effective programs for population growth limitation all over the world.
In the end, we should really ask ourselves if this bill is really necessary to promote “individual advancement and a balanced life”, to the risk of endangering the family (this bill is indeed a prelude to the two-child policy!) and giving misinformation to the youth (by biased sex education curriculum).
Let us think twice and act accordingly.
Patrick, I applaud your excellent research. I’d like to raise some queries on your points however:
1. Sec. 12 of the RHB indicates the following: a. Reproductive health and sexual rights; b. Reproductive health care and services; c. Attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development, sexual behavior and sexual health; d. Proscription and hazards of abortion and management of post-abortion complications; e. Responsible parenthood. f. Use and application of natural and modern family planning methods to promote reproductive health, achieve desired family size and prevent unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies; g. Abstinence before marriage; h. Prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other, STIs/STDs, prostate cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer and other gynecological disorders; i. Responsible sexuality; and j. Maternal, peri-natal and post-natal education, care and services. Wouldn’t your concern for the negative effects of contraception be included in the aforementioned items?
Does the term “encourage” in a law mean that there is a proviso in the law to eventually mandate or “require” two children? And would not a set number of children per family mandated by a law be declared unconstitutional?
Also, the study you mentioned was done in 1984. Have there been new studies done that disprove the findings of the said study? Has it been proven that population growth does not affect economic development?
Patrick:
On your first point–
The context of the phrase it is neither mandatory nor compulsory was the two-child policy. I did not mean to say that nothing in the law is mandatory. If that were so, a presidential proclamation would have sufficed and there would have been no need for the legislature to argue over the bill.
On your second point let me first say that the odds of getting a bill that goes against religious dogma is tilted in favor of the Church. Thus, I disagree that the bill will result in a biased sex curriculum.
I also disagree that the ICPD was a DIRECT consequence of the Kissinger report. If you would research more deeply you might find that there are various other documents, including no less than the UN IESC and individual country reports upon which the ICPD was based. Even assuming that it relied solely on the kissinger report, we have to assume that the individual signatories took note of other studies before signing the said treaty.
One cannot solve misinformation by stifling the proponents. The only real solution is to open the discourse to a greater audience. To include a greater population in this debate.
Here are some of the potential consequences of the passage into law of the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill (HB O5043) which have dawned upon me; to wit:
1.0 BIG BUSINESS, BIGGER MONEY. If RH Bill passes into law, condom suppliers may earn from the Philippine government (which will be mandated to distribute free condoms to 4.9 million youth aged 15-27), PhP 2.548 billion every year. (Or 4.9 million youth times 1 sex act per week times 52 weeks per year times condom usage of 1 piece per sex act times supplier’s price of P10 per piece of condom.) The assumption of a youth engaging in sex at the average of once a week, I am afraid, is in order and conservative. It will be unthinkable for a young student to obey the reminder of his RH teacher or older relatives that abstinence is the most effective birth control method when that young student is aware, the government is duty-bound to provide him or her with free condom for his or her sexual cravings anytime, anywhere. Condom supply is therefore a big business if RH Bill passes into law. Nevertheless, what is bigger money is when government canvassers, signatories of purchase orders, receivers of condom deliveries, as well as check payment signatories and releasers may connive with condom suppliers to price the condom at P 100 per piece instead of P 10. The over price of P 90 per piece of condom will be distributed among the involved government officials. Therefore, due to the passage of the RH Bill, there is an opportunity for a PhP 25.48 billion condom scam to happen.
2.0 BOARS AND GILTS. These 4.9 million youth who are recipients of the government’s free supply of condoms may naturally crave for sex like animals (considering the additional enticement from the immodest mass media and the internet pornography). The young male may act like boar while the young female behaves like gilt that is in heat. This promiscuity or multiple sexual relationships, is probably just a take off point. The Law of Diminishing Extra Satisfaction (as adopted from the psychological and economic law of diminishing marginal utility) that governs pure human and animal endeavors including sexual relations will be fully operational. In other words, if sex will be a preoccupation of the Filipino youth, then the satisfaction that a young male derives having sex with female partner/s, will decrease or wane eventually. He then ventures to partner sexually with his fellow male/s to seek new level of satisfaction. He may push further by engaging in bisexual activities. But most likely he will end up as a pure homosexual. A young female may also follow the same path as she craves for sex and sexual satisfactions. She may graduate as a pure lesbian. But this scenario will not be glaring overnight. It will take a generation – ten years span. This may then translate to the need of a new advocacy – to support the passing into law of the bill on same-sex marriages and divorce in the country.
3.0 POPULATION REDUCTION. The ultimate aim of RH Bill, I understand, is achieving economic prosperity (particularly for the poor) however through population reduction approach. In case the RH Bill is passed, its success will be measured therefore by, among others, whether its respective population reduction target (PRT) is attained. And the critical factor in attaining PRT is the effective distribution and use of condom of the 4.9 million Filipino youth in particular. Effective means here, making a condom available for free, on demand of the youth, either male or female, anywhere, anytime. As mentioned above, this will cost the Philippine government, PhP 2.548 billion every year. If the government will have limited or doesn’t have that amount of taxpayers’ money (for condom purchase and distribution) then the full attainment of the PRT will be jeopardized. Thus RH Law may prove to be ineffective to reduce population in the country. If this is the case, other population reduction measures or Bills will be therefore sought. So there will be a future need to support for the passage into law of Pro-abortion Bills as well as of Pro-euthanasia Bills.
So then, to all the RH Bill advocates, if your support for the passage into law of RH Bill (which may lead to additional opportunity for corruptions in the Philippine government, to transformation of the Filipino youth as homosexuals and lesbians, to eventual murder of unborn babies and to future mercy-killing of senior citizens, etc.) makes your Mama proud of you, then go full speed ahead of your RH Bill advocacy. Otherwise, please resign as a RH Bill supporter and lobby harder for our legislators to vote against RH Bill.
To Ipe Espinos
At the outset, let me first state that I find the last paragraph of your statement offensive. I am sure both my parents, devout catholics at that, are proud that they have raised a discerning daughter and not one who would jump at conclusions.
On your statistics, let me note that you did not really support your conclusions with statistics. All you have is the number of youth. No statistics on their actual propensity to have sex. No statistics on the effect of a proper sex education on one’s inkling to have sex.
In short, all you have given us are speculation.
Finally, I have nothing against lesbians and homosexuals. That you would categorize it together with corruption is dismaying. PErhaps you should undergo sensitivity training.
As a footnote let me direct your attention to those countries that have practically the same RH Bill where there are no overpriced condoms and no boars or gilts.
The reproductive health bill is a welcome legislation in a country that sees no divide between the State and the Church.