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.