Former DENR chief Lito Atienza was in the news recently following his declaration of a survey that states that an overwhelming majority of Metro Manila is against the Reproductive Health Bill. A damning statement to say the least, and Atienza, a conservative Catholic by reputation, was quick to back up his assertions with a survey conducted by the HB & A International-ARO Research Group.
At first glance, the survey’s figures are pretty intimidating to any RH Bill supporter. But a closer look at Atienza’s latest ammunition against the Pro-RH crowd may be nothing more than blanks. Very loud blanks.
To enumerate some of the quirks I found in the surveys results at a glance:
1. A sample size of 500 respondents.
Even if the surveyors were to assert that it scouted respondents from sixteen cities, I find it very hard to believe that those respondents truly encapsulate the opinions of Metro Manila’s 20 million or so residents. Sixteen cities – so these respondents speak for the tens of thousands – if not millions – of people in each of their cities now?
2. December 2 to 9.
In short, this survey was taken in just one week. By comparison, most professional studies and surveys take months, if not years, of observation and information gathering before they publish their reports.
3. 10 to 11 year olds target group may be exposed to sex techniques with vivid pictures.
They got me there – I would also be in an uproar too if the school suddenly taught my (theoretical) 10-year-old child the intricacies of sexual activity. Except that the bill is aimed at educating young mothers and teens within the age bracket of 15 to 24. Instead of mentioning this fact, Atienza instead resorts to scare tactics that make us think this bill be aimed at children’s innocent minds.
4. 94 percent
Where exactly did the surveyors get their respondents? Convents? Does anybody else find this figure too biased in favor of Atienza’s assertion? This survey result can only look more suspicious when you consider that in 2008, an SWS survey revealed that 70 percent of their respondents were in support of an RH Bill. So unless these said respondents had a very abrupt paradigm shift, it seems rather implausible that Atienza’s survey could garner such overwhelming support.
That’s just some of the more dubious bits of into I found in Atienza’s assertion, and him intentionally grouping birth control pills and condoms alongside abortifacients.
Furthermore, for Atienza’s camp to resort to survey shows crass hypocrisy on their part. When the SWS published their own survey back in October 2008, the Catholic Church was quick to slam the survey as a mere “numbers game.”
They are right of course – matters as grave as the RH Bill should never be treated as a popularity contest. My question to them is, why are they suddenly letting one of their stauncher supporters get away with the very logical fallacy they denounced not too long ago?
atienza is no rocket scientist that's for sure. just one of the many third rate brains that continue to infest the philippine political landscape. you wonder why this country is in such a rut ?
people of reason and knowledge need to wrest control and eventually prevail over these knuckle dragging throwbacks.
We are really at the end of time era. These are all Satan's work. We should be aware how he works. As he said "I Pretend to love men, in order to destroy them; serve them, in order to ruin them and deceive them; help them, in order to pervert them and draw them into these my hellish regions."
People have been persuaded by the devil that they are entitled to have sex when they choose, rejecting any unwanted life that may result. The enemy may tell you “God is too demanding and unreasonable”. “If we distributed more condoms we would not have disease or the need to abort babies”. “It’s God’s fault because God’s Church is against the use of condoms”.
Sexual intercourse, by its nature and intent is potentially life giving act. This is God’s version. The enemy’s version is that sex can be closed to give life and used for physical pleasure only. Enemy’s version of sex is selfish, emotionally dangerous, and bad for humanity. The enemy offers an answer to this too, and led souls to avoid consequences by offering
widespread contraception and abortion. Both men and women are now told that sinful sexual behaviors are allowable and acceptable. God intends that a man and woman enter a blessed union (through marriage) and then share their sexuality with one another. The devil is mocking God because he depicts God’s purpose. He is laughing because many led astray on this sin.
Isn't it this bill is one of its form that says will help us? We are deceived then by Satan if this one will be approved. Satan's plan is to destroy us by having and committing sins against God.
*sniff*
serious replies like these make me sad.
jlocute: I must remind you that this is a freethought site, meaning only arguments based on science, reason, and logic are taken seriously here. I know you mean well – no matter how blind you are – but prove to us first the existence of your God and show us how you knew about his 'version' on how how we should conduct our sexual relations, and then we'll listen to you. 🙂
Meaning well doesn't even amount to anything. It has, and should have no bearing with the ramifications of one's actions.
We have seen a lot of well-intentioned extremists fucking up their part of the globe.
Interesting assertion, but my question to you is: How do you know YOU are not the one being misled by the devil? Your claim is:
"I Pretend to love men, in order to destroy them; serve them, in order to ruin them and deceive them; help them, in order to pervert them and draw them into these my hellish regions.”
The catholic church claims to spread the love of god and hope to its constituents, but tell me how many times it has put people to the torch and imprisoned, if not executed intellectuals, non-catholics, and other deviants throughout history?
Thomas More himself was known to have torched more than one man simply for going against church law, while Adolf Hitler talked about his devout Catholicism when he gave those rousing speeches about the agenda of the Nazi party.
And finally, we have Mr. Atienza here, who claims to speak on behalf of religious morality, despite his past strack record for shady media dealings and media whoring, when he should have been doing his job of running my town.
Who was it that demonized homosexuality, claimed the moral high ground despite the fact their authority is now being rocked to the core by by a perfect storm of sex abuse exposes that has involved several of their high-ranking bishops.
I will agree with as far as saying satan is afoot in these trying times, but instead of accusing us, you may want to look at your own faith to see the true monster. 😉
I guess we'll see the real score in March.
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideNews.htm…
"
Family planning backers threaten to block other bills
by Christine F. Herrera
THE 132 authors of the Reproductive Health bill have promised to block the passage of tax measures and Constitutional Convention bills being rushed by the House leadership in the last nine days of session, and after the House leadership removed the population control measure from the list of priority bills.
“The House leadership had better prioritize the RH bill or they will pass nothing,” warned Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, principal author of House Bill 5043, in a forum Tuesday at the Sulo Hotel.
“All 132 of us would take turns in raising many valid questions about these priority tax measures until the House leadership runs out of time and passes nothing.
“No amount of new tax laws will shore up the economy if the government continues failing to address the ballooning population, which is expected to reach a staggering 94 million Filipinos this year.’’
House Bill 5043 seeks to establish a national policy on reproductive health, family planning and population development to curb the population’s 2.36-percentgrowth rate. The country’s population now stands at 94 million.
Mahar Mangahas, president of the survey outfit Social Weather Stations, said previous surveys showed that lawmakers up for re-election might lose crucial votes for not supporting health issues.
“Because of their anti-family- planning stand, congressmen who seek re-election may lose their bid,’’ Mangahas said.
“Some mayors and local government officials may lose some votes, yet they won’t lose the elections on account of family planning issues,”
Contrary to reports, Tarlac Rep. Monica Louise Prieto-Teodoro, the wife of presidential candidate Gilberto Teodoro Jr., had not withdrawn her support for the RH bill, Lagman said.
The RH block plans to use the same tactics employed by the anti-RH lawmakers like Parañaque Rep. Roilo Golez, who was allowed by the House leadership to spend 14 hours in 10 session days interpellating Lagman, followed by Cebu Reps. Raul del Mar and Pablo Garcia.
The RH bill had already been subjected to several public hearings, a yearlong debate, and another plenary debate until it was deliberately excluded from the list of priority measures for the remaining few session days.
The SWS had conducted surveys in areas reported to have strong opposition to the RH bill to test its acceptance.
“The findings of the SWS surveys show that those considered problem areas are in fact with constituents strongly in favor of the RH issues,’’ Mangahas said.
“These are Metro Manila and its cities including Parañaque and Manila, Cebu province and its cities.”
Ramon San Pascual, executive director of the Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development Foundation Inc., said he was stunned by the “lack of honesty and sense of decency” shown by the Alliance of Family Life Organizations and Family Life Philippines who claimed responsibility for the purported Filipino Family survey that said a majority of Filipinos rejected the reproductive health bill.
The Family Life survey had been commissioned by the same people who operate the HB & A International, the research firm that conducted the survey. According to San Pascual, HB & is led by Joselito Sandejas as chairman and Tony Abaya as managing director, with Sandejas also being the chairman of Alliance of Family group.
Elizabeth Ongsiaco, Reproductive Health Advocacy Network secretary general, said it was the Pro-Life leaders and former Manila Mayor Joselito Atienza who were behind the “dubious and misleading surveys” asking them to make public their survey methods.
San Pascual said their group would commission SWS for another round of surveys in March on the issue of the RH bill, as well as another nationwide survey later this month on the same reproductive health issues."
To play the Devil's Advocate here: Why should I give an SWS survey more credibility than Atienza's?
It has more years in the business. I would also likely take a Pulse Asia survey more seriously.
@ twin skies:
First, the SWS survey had 1,500 respondents VS the Pro-Life survey's 500 respondents. As all legitimate researchers know, a bigger sample size usually means higher precision in the results.
Second, the SWS survey respondents were composed of 81% Catholics and 19% non-Catholics, while 92% of the Pro-Life survey respondents were Catholics. The religious composition of the SWS survey respondents is thus closer to the actual religious composition of the Philippines, which is about 80% Catholic and 20% non-Catholic.
Third, the questions used in the SWS survey more accurately reflect the actual provisions of the bill. The Pro-Life survey' statement that the bill would "teach sex techniques using vivid pictures" is not true.
Fourth, the findings of SWS are corroborated by other, independent organizations such as Pulse Asia, while the Pro-life survey is not.
Fifth, the SWS has a long track record of conducting statistically-sound research. In contrast, who has even heard of "HB&A International Research" or the "Asia Research Organization", which conducted the Pro-life research? What other studies or surveys have they conducted?
Sixth, as an independent organization, the SWS is neither for or against the RH bill. Its sole function is to gather data on people's perceptions and report them as accurately as possible. In contrast, the Pro-life survey was commissioned by the Pro-Life Philippines Foundation, which is clearly against the RH bill and has a vested (or obvious) interest in skewing the results of the survey against the RH bill.
The bottom line is, the SWS survey has greater scientific rigor than the Pro-Life survey.
Thank you jess. That was the answer I was looking for 😀
And from the belly of the beast to boot XD
@GabbyD
"It also revealed that 75 percent of Filipinos were not aware that if the RH bill becomes a law, sex education will be taught as early as Grade 5, with emphasis on the technical and biological aspects without necessarily covering the moral, religious and spiritual facets."
I had a class like that in my school too. It was called SCIENCE CLASS, and we covered the human reproductive system in great detail, minus the religious and moral implications of such activities.
"Survey results showed 65 percent agreed that fathers can best teach their sons about sex while mothers can best teach their daughters about sex, more than teachers."
Actually, based on the people I have met, it's exactly because we leave sex ed to the parents that these kids don't learn anything meaningful, at least given the level of education of the typical pinoy.
"The survey also bared that 73 percent were not aware that lawmakers have been trying to pass a reproductive Health Bill in spite of strong opposition from the Catholic Church and large segment of the population."
73 percent of a sample population of only 500 people is not a very big number, especially if it's supposed to encapsulate the sentiments of sixteen cities.
your science class covered sex? as in vaginal penetration? oral sex? condom use?
i doubt it. anatomy, yes. sex? no.
i agree with your second statement tho. i think parents dont teach their kids what they need to know. this must change. rhbill can help here.
but the question we're discussing here is accuracy/truth in the pro-life survey. they did ask the question and this was the answer that they got.
also, from a technical standpoint the difference between 1200 and 500 in standard error is 1/root(N). the difference is not that large.
Our discussion of the the human reproductive system covered a rough explanation of sexual intercourse, fertilization, and the first few stages of a pregnancy. So yes, to a degree, sex was covered.
I'm digressing though – while the bill does state that it will teach sex ed starting at Grade 5 (I admit I was mistaken earlier), it explicitly states that the material to be taught will be age-appropriate, which means that they're not going to suddenly drop all the more explicit material on kids.
As for the matter of consent however, I am a bit dicey. What about in the event of a rape? Wouldn't it be inhumane to prevent your child, the rape victim, from taking a morning-after pill just because you think it's wrong for them to use contraceptives?
The line of questioning used in Atienza's survey overlooks scenarios like that.
hey, jess, where did u get the info re the prolife survey?
this is what the article says about the survey's questions. what exactly is wrong here? where did u get the "teach sex techniques using vivid pictures"?
——–
Atienza formed an alliance with Abaya, Sandejas, and other pro-lifers to come up with a survey directly stating the grim, nitty-gritty details of the RH Bill.
Survey results showed 65 percent agreed that fathers can best teach their sons about sex while mothers can best teach their daughters about sex, more than teachers.
It also revealed that 75 percent of Filipinos were not aware that if the RH bill becomes a law, sex education will be taught as early as Grade 5, with emphasis on the technical and biological aspects without necessarily covering the moral, religious and spiritual facets.
Eighty-eight percent of parents agreed to be trained on how to teach their children correctly about sex.
On contraceptives, 92 percent did not agree with the plan to make available free of
charge birth control pills, IUDs and the like to young teenage children without the parents’ knowledge and consent.
The survey also bared that 73 percent were not aware that lawmakers have been trying to pass a reproductive Health Bill in spite of strong opposition from the Catholic Church and large segment of the population.
got the info here:
http://www.cbcpnews.com/?q=node/11814
(re: RH Bill)
There are also those who oppose RHB not in the grounds of religious argument. http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/reproductive…
According to the link, the bill forces(coerces) the employers to pay for the RH services to the people. If the employers will not be able to provide the RH services to the people, they will be fined or imprisoned. (Section 21-22) They (or he) asks, "If the RH bill is so good, why criminalize those who want to opt-out? Why impose penalty on the employers who don’t want to be reduced to mere slaves? Why do the Leftist politicians who proposed this bill have to force some people to contribute to what they call the “common good” if their proposition is for the good of everybody?"
I think he(or they) have a point here. Watcha think? But the thing that i dont like with this blogger is that he(or they) reject studies conducted by researchers (like UN) that connects over population and poverty. He just can't deny them. Also, although they find some glitches or loopholes (bad things)in this bill, but over all the bill is really good for our country (family planning, maternal and child nutrition, etc).
I don't know with you, but I like the fact that the government is requiring my employers to give me what is due – minimum wage, social security, health benefits. I recall, based on my business education, that most if not all studies show that happy, healthy workers are to the benefit of both the employees and the employer, resulting in higher productivity and lower worker turnover (ultimately, higher profits). I refuse to accept that any of this person's arguments are valid. The quote you have extracted is self-contradictory in all of its entirety.
social security is not provided by the firm. its the govt that provides that. similarly, i think, health care is provided by HMOs, private firms.
Excuse me dear but social security is paid for both by the employer and the employee. They each have a share. The same is the case for Philhealth. The government only runs the program (e.g. takes the cash both the employer and employee contributed and redistributes the benefits).
precisely, the govt runs the program. thats precisely the mechanism that makes it work. there are major costs to providing these services that make govt provision preferable/feasible than for each firm to provide it themselves.
naturally, all goods/services produced by the govt are financed via taxation. how else would the govt be able to do it? the same principle should apply to RH products/services.
I will not bother with this. Your views on government services, how taxation works, and your support of this petty excuse that "govt need to pay for RH" are all false and stupid in light of all the other health services the govt requires the employer to provide.
Bottomline is you just fail to realize the relevance of reproductive health to society, you exaggerate the costs of providing reproductive health and magnify the so-called "damage to society" it creates, and you are wasting people's time, ultimately causing more people to suffer by getting in the way of this bill. Boo to you and your ilk.
look sinister, simple question. why must individual firms shoulder the cost of providing RH services? why cant the govt provide these services, under its existing infra, such as hospitals, barangay health units, etc?
if an employees gets sick, and if he is insured under, say, a govt health program, the employee goes to the doctor employed at a hosptial right? buys drugs at a pharmacy, etc…
i know of NO health service provided directly by firms/employers. all of it is given to a third party, say the govt or a private provider.
Dude by your questions you don't seem like you work, support yourself (or contribute to family budget), or read a variety news sources.
@justin
ouch! i'm glad you have insight into my personal life. perhaps you can tell me if i said anything factually incorrect.
btw, only 2 of those things u mentioned are true. guess which one! (hint: its the news)
You don't seem to be aware that firms are already required by the government to provide several on-site health services to employees. Adding reproductive health to those services will not take much. All this whining about cost blah blah is misleading.
And your dramz about "goverment should provide this service!" is PRECISELY WHAT THE RH BILL IS FOR. THEY ARE TRYING TO LEGISLATE THIS SO THAT THEY COULD ALLOCATE THE PROPER FUNDS TO DISTRIBUTE THESE SERVICES THROUGH BOTH THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR. So your ilk is getting in the way of your recommendation, stupid.
@sinister
if you are referring to the labor code, these depend on the size of the firm, and they are mainly for health issues encountered while doing work. perhaps they are employed for sex… in which case, i'd like to apply…
look, i'm not saying the notion of the govt providing RH services is bad or good. actually, i'm in favor. but the bill has this strange feature, which need not be in there.
and yes, i am stupid. but this has little to do with reproductive health, and everything to do with my IQ.
And there again you display your misunderstanding about RH. Reproductive health is not just a sex issue. All humans have this function. Besides, what reproductive health services are you opposing, anyway? What is your idea of providing "reasonable reproductive health care services"? How complicated do you think this is?
the govt offering reproductive health services is fine by me. but lets provide it properly, and not private firms to offer it if they dont want/arent able to.
last time i checked, limiting/spacing pregnancies is a key element of reproductive health. sex and pregnancies are intimately connected.
Allowing someone else to practice their belief does not conflict with your own belief. Providing condoms to other people doesn't violate your belief in the same way you let a muslim maintain their religious duties even in your expense.
This "Violation of Belief" is a double standard and a very poor excuse. In the same way a Hotel Owner is not liable for the premarital sex going in his hotel nor is a quicky motel owner and the staff violating any laws allowing their rooms to be used for such affairs.
Simply put, what people do with contraceptives is none of anyone business. In the same way if you see someone sinning in public but not breaking the law you just come out as a prick trying to correct them.
Who cares how many people think it's wrong or right. I am pro RH freedoms, but this bill has its flaws.
Any law should be guided by maintaining or protecting our seven freedoms: Freedom of speech, thought, religion, expression, choice, association, assembly.
Freedom of religion is said to be curtailed by the RH bill.
I think it should be revised but should still maintain free information for an informed choice, without compelling the religious to state views against their own religion but prohibiting them from fundamentalist indoctrination based on religious beliefs.
Which parts of the bill specifically curtail the freedom of religion?
@twin
one complaint about the bill is that health care providers that do not believe in contraception are now required to provide these services.
there, is another complaint, unrelated to religious freedom i think. in the bill, private employers are required to provide these services to their employees NOT the govt.
On the matter of the latter scenario, it's not theoretical, it has happened more than once:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916
On the matter of the former, there is a fine line between personal belief, and professional work ethic. Nobody will hold it against a health worker if they feel what they do is against their belief, however, they are also expected to be impartial and professional in the way they carry out their job.
To pose a theoretical scenario: Would it be ethical for medical staff who happens to be a Jehovah's witness to refuse a patient a blood transfusion, on grounds that it is against their belief?
Or would it be ethical for a doctor to refuse a patient contraceptives even if the patient has just cause (an existing medical condition for example) for taking them?
Granted it's easy for the patient to find a doctor in an urban setting, but it's an entirely different story if that's the only doctor in an isolated provincial town.
does he (atienza) work for fox news?
Nope.
As hard it is to believe, Faux News does not hold monopoly on the art of spin.
Well God, the Devil and Richard Dawkins can have their sampling designs wrong!
How did Dawkins figure into this?
We should expect more out of a conservative catholic. These are good examples of how they are willing to hit below the belt when need be.
I would also like to post this here: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135001….
It's a speech of Hillary Clinton on reproductive health. This is what the RH bill advocates are fighting for. It's what Atienza and his ilk can't wrap their little minds around.
Careful – some of the Anti-RH people I have met have a tendency to try to connect any attempts at Reproductive Health to American Imperialism.
Hay nako. As I said, little minds.
All of the "scientific" documents I've asked the Anti-RHB people to site that are related to the RHB were made using manipulated data from quote mining and misrepresentation of facts.
You can find these documents in the forums In defense of Reproductive health or the RHB or go to the anti-RHB face book group. Reading all their bluster (and note that they did not read any of scientific sources I provided, shouting Satan and other ad hominems) it should not come a surprise.
Stooping to lying and deception again and again is an epidemic with the camp.
do you have a link?
By misrepresenting the bill as something that it's not, their survey is not accurate in saying that 90% of Metro Manila residents are against the RH bill. Those 90% are against the false idea of the RH bill that conservatives have been peddling for a year now. If you read all the facebook brouhaha against this issue, most of those against the bill appear to have not even read the bill.
In addition, there is also this practice of "priming" the survey respondent (I picked this up from a guy interviewed in ANC about surveys). The surveyor can effectively suggest answers to surveys by choosing the questions before it. Thus, asking leading and inaccurate questions ( such as those about showing lewd pictures to 10 year olds) before asking about sex education will lead a lot of people to say that sex education is bad.
"They are right of course – matters as grave as the RH Bill should never be treated as a popularity contest"
while the church itself isnt concerned with popularity, they are responding to an argument of the pro-RH bill crowd.
one of their major arguments is that there is a latent demand for contraceptive services, hence the govt should help provide it. if there is no real latent demand, then some of the impetus of the bill is gone.
some, not all…
Quite true. Most of the mechanics of the bill call for widespread education and awareness programs, specifically on the matters of pre and post-natal care.
That the church would obsess over just one part of the Bill – contraceptives – while not regarding what else the bill is intended to do is intellectual dishonesty.
their response is consistent — just redo the bill. of course, that wont solve anything, as there is a fundamental disagreement.
The church's idea of "redoing" the bill involves limiting contraception to Natural Family Planning-only sex education.