I come from a devout Catholic family and studied in a grade and high school that was non-sectarian (secular) but run by Opus Dei, a conservative organization in the Catholic Church. In my freshman year in high school I was taught sex education for a few weeks during Health class. The sex ed portion was eventually scrapped because of some complaints from parents.
My whole family staunchly opposes the Reproductive Health bill and wholeheartedly supports the ordinance. My mom and I both attended the public hearing last Saturday, but she was on the pro side — I was on the anti side. I’m pretty much the only one in my family that is for the RH bill and against the ordinance — and yes, it can get quite lonely.
In light of last Saturday’s public hearing on Barangay Ayala Alabang Ordinance 01-2011, I would like to share with you this letter I mailed to the barangay chairman on how the ordinance is anti-woman and supports a culture of reproductive oppression. This letter was supposed to be my 5-minute speech but the format of the hearing was changed and I could not deliver it.
***
21 March 2011
CHAIRMAN ALFRED XEREZ-BURGOS
Barangay Ayala Alabang
Narra St, Ayala Alabang Village
Dear Mr. Xerez-Burgos,
Many women may feel the same way I do about Barangay Ayala Alabang Ordinance 01-2011 and some of them cannot speak for themselves because they are scared of how society will brand them. I am writing this letter on behalf of these women and oppose Barangay Ayala Alabang Ordinance 01-2011.
For my entire life, I have been blessed to live in a country where I can receive a university education, choose a career, and participate in elections. I can wear whatever I want and I am not required to cover myself head to toe in cloth. Arranged marriages are a thing of the past – I can actually choose my own husband and I can marry when I please. I have been so privileged compared to my female ancestors, but one thing that has not changed is that I still live in a culture of reproductive oppression.
I believe this ordinance will continue to uphold this culture of reproductive oppression instead of eradicate it. By censoring the sex education I and other residents in this village would like to receive, I will be deprived of my right to learn about my sexual rights. The first time I heard about sex was in 5th grade, in a conversation with classmates. The school I attended for my elementary and high school education forbade sex education to be taught. My mother did eventually tell me about sex, but again, it was very limited. I have learned about the process of conception but I have yet to arm myself with the right information to protect myself from sexually transmitted infections, defend myself from unwanted sex and sexual harassment, or avoid pregnancies. When this ordinance is passed, it will become illegal for me to learn about birth control – other than natural means – in the confines of this barangay. I will continue to be a victim of dishonest sex education.
In this day and age, I believe it is my right to plan my pregnancies in the way that I choose, through both natural and artificial means. Yes, I included artificial birth control because I do not share the same sentiments you have. I believe that women deserve to be in control of their bodies and to exercise their own conscientious choices when it comes to reproductive health care. We have the right to all the information we need to make decisions about sex. This barangay institution, which is meant to safeguard and provide care for its residents, will systematically block women from being fully informed.
Mr. Xerez-Burgos, what offends me the most about this ordinance is that it aims to damage my reputation when I go to the drugstore to purchase birth control and a logbook has to be filled out with my private information that is nobody’s business and certainly not the barangay’s business. I will be labeled as an abortion practitioner if I use FDA-approved non-abortive contraceptives. Is this the 17th century where my information in this logbook will essentially become a scarlet letter, a badge of shame that will be pinned on my person? And because most artificial contraceptives were created to be used by women such as birth control pills and intra-uterine devices, the reputation of all women who choose to use artificial birth control will be in danger.
This ordinance upholds a culture of reproductive oppression against anyone who can get pregnant: women. This oppression is unfortunately scarily invisible, even to us who experience it, because it continues to be normalized and institutionalized. Being raised a devout Catholic without any reliable or scientifically accurate information about birth control or sex, thereby risking my health and the health of my future children, is a form of oppression. Needing a prescription to purchase a condom, is oppression. Having my decision to use artificial birth control judged as abortion is oppression. Being treated with hostility and shame for using artificial birth control is oppression. Not being able to get proper sex education from the barangay is oppression.
I oppose this ordinance because I believe the lives of women matter.
I oppose this ordinance because women should have the right to decide when and if they get pregnant, give birth, and raise children – not the barangay, nor the Church.
I oppose this ordinance because I believe that the right to control your own reproduction is a fundamental right and is protected under the Constitution and basic human rights ideals. I believe that the fundamental right includes the right to prevent pregnancy and the right to get pregnant, whether through natural or artificial means.
I oppose this ordinance because I do not believe that anyone should be legally compelled to expose their sex lives to the public.
I oppose this ordinance because I realize that my rights to birth control, to have children, and to make my own decisions hinge on my basic ability to decide when and if I reproduce.
I oppose this ordinance because I do not believe that people should be criminalized for exercising reproductive freedom and freedom of speech.
I oppose this ordinance because I am a woman and women deserve better.
Mr. Xerez-Burgos, thank you in anticipation of your kind consideration and I look forward to your reply*.
Best,
Marie Gonzalez
[*} Republic Act 9485 (2007), also known as the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007, mandates that public officials must respond to letters of citizens within 5-10 days from receipt with a report on the action taken on the matter. This is to promote integrity, accountability, proper management of public affairs and public property.
The image used for this article was printed on shirts anti-Ordinance advocates wore at the public hearing. It was created by Julian Rodriguez.
dear mr chester,
boy, you would loooove my dad. he and my mom basically taught me about sex (and it was scientific, not the dirty thing most priests would have you believe) and contraception when i was in high school. they felt that since schools were not providing it, they might as well do the job. they told me it was for me to understand my body, how it works, and the responsibility that goes with it. it was also about trust, that, armed with what i know, i’ll make the right decisions for me when the time comes. knowing what they taught me and being armed with all that information made me feel the weight of my parents’ trust in me. i did not take it as a go-signal to go out and fornicate. it did exactly the opposite. i am thankful and loved them even more for that. i have a son now. i had him when i was 33 already (and called a habitual abortionist, but that’s another story), and i plan to educate him in the same way my parents did, but with the added subject on how not to be you, to treat women with respect because they may turn out to be smarter than he is, and if he does have daughters someday, he’ll make sure they’re treated with even more respect and given more credit than what you’re giving your daughters now.
@Mr. Lastica,
I do understand where you are coming from as a father but I hope you have tried to think about what your daughters choice are… Just like Ms. Marie, the author of this article, she has made her choice and still you are trying to instill something to her based solely on what you believe in and what you want. Please remember we are all givin are own mind and own freedom to choose, which are being violated by these rules implemented by some government ordinances and the church.
I am a woman, ang yes I support the RH Bill because It's about my right.
i personally read everything you posted. I am your avid fan because im also a christian freethinker .by the way bawal sa pari ang mag-asawa pero d bawal ang fuck!
TO REALLY UNDERSTAND TRUE SCIENCE LOG ON TO CREATION SCIENTIST IN AMERICA. A BIBLICALLY BASED ORGANIZATION OF MANY CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST FIGHTING AGAINST THE FALSE GUESS OF EVOLUTIONARY CHANGES OF DARWIN. WE ARE CREATED BY GOD. WHO CREATED THE MIND OF BOTH KARL MARX AND CHARLES DARWIN. AS WELL AS HIS APES. THE BIBLE IS A SCIENCE BOOK ALSO. BUT MORE It IS his-story book. THE ORIGIN OF THE FILIPINO IS IN THERE.
It's not a guess. It's a careful observation of the natural world as Darwin understood it during his time.
I'm afraid you're mistaken the definition of a scientific theory over that of a lucky guess.
Isabelo,
You are misguided. The Bible is not a book on science. When Jesus said the mustard seed was the smallest seed, he was wrong, we now know of much smaller seeds that exist. But he wasn't there to teach botany. He was claiming that a little faith can go a long way.
The people back then wouldn't have understood Jesus if He had to harmonize everything He said to be able to look scientifically consistent in the eyes of future generations.
If this is sarcasm, I like it. If this is serious, I pity you.
I'll believe you if you can answer me this question with sense:
"Who/What created God?"
OUR CHURCH CRIES OUT ALWAYS AGAINST THE ABUSES OF THE PRIESTS AND PASTORS AS WELL.
ALSO OF THE POLITICIANS. THE NAME OF OUR CHURCH IS "FILIPINO FREEDOM KINGDOM CHURCH"
WE ARE ADVOCATING THE PRINCIPLES OF YEHUSHUA CHRIST AND DR. JOSE RIZAL.
WE MUST FOLLOW THE LAW OF GOD NOT OF THE CHURCH NOR THE CIVIL GOVERNMENT. THE LAW OF GOD IS BOTH MORAL AND ETHICAL. THE DESIRE OF ANY INDIVIDUAL TO DEPART FROM IT IS A HUMANISTIC ONE. MAN WANTS TO BE HIS OWN GOD DETERMINING BOTH GOOD AND EVIL BY HIMSELF.
Dear Marie,
Greetings!
You need not go to a drug store to buy a condom and learn about your sexuality. If you are for safe sex "Abstenence" is the best alternative then reserve the adventure of perfecting it together with your loving legal husband. Please calm down Marie, ultimately you will understand that your local barangay ordinance is for your own protection especially among women. As a matter of fact women should be the one fighting against RH Bill 4244. Because there is a better alternative (Natural ) Your right as a woman can be better understood if you understand how your body works. Thank you for expressing your concern; for my concern is for my only two daughters as well.
Yours Truly,
che' m. lastica
This seems to primarily be an argument in support of abstinence, but you haven't pointed out why Marie shouldn't have the option of using contraceptives. Humor me.
Dear Chester,
The choice to abstain, to have sex freely, to use natural family planning methods, and / or to use artificial birth control is up to the individual and should not be regulated or restricted by the government. This ordinance does NOT protect women. We need accurate sex education covering all topics. If I want to learn how to use artificial birth control, I should be able to receive it. If I want to use natural family planning, let that be my decision too — not some bill's or ordinance's.
This ordinance bans sex education. How can I understand my right as a woman better, if I won't be taught how it works due to this ban?
Chester,
Unfortunately a lot of people don't share your beliefs and mindset, and you have to respect that. Ultimately you will, or should, understand that this ordinance usurps women's rights and freedom to decide for themselves. It's hard to hope that people like you will ever be able to grasp the concept of civil liberty, but I try hard to be optimistic.
Ayala Alabang Village is not Barangay St. James the Great.
Dear chester,
I suppose you are a man. What gives you the right to impose your believs on any other person, especially women? How condescending can one be to actually claim to understand or know what is best for women or how her body works. I pity your daughters.
The local officials of the barangay ordinance in Alabang want to turn the village into Alabangistan.
I suggest you take a trip to Afghanistan. There are also a bunch of cavemen who claim to know what women need and want or what is best for them, locking them up under the Burqa, denying them access to education, stone them for choosing what they think is best for them. They call it protection. You and these people over there are not much different – both of you claim to know the universal truth, only your faith is under a different label.
what is next? Should people from different faiths should wear colored T-Shirts? Should they be locked up in villages for atheists, moslems or jews? Might be good for their own protection.
Carsten ….. Well said and I know that you have experience about Afghanistan …… First hand ….
Dear Chester,
The barangay ordinance is NOT for anyone's protection. On the contrary, it is oppressive, it promotes discrimination, robs us of our right to privacy, usurps the functions of the DOH / FDA, violates RA 5921 & 9711, amongst other things.
Firstly, the ordinance violates the Constitution, it violates our unalienable right to life, liberty or property & the right of equal protection of the laws. (Art. 3 Sec. 1)
Secondly, the ordinance dictates the policy of the Catholic Church on birth control. Thus a violation of Freedom of Religion & exercise thereof (Art. 3 Sec. 5) & the right of equal protection of the laws. (Art. 3 Sec. 1) Corollary to this it is a violation of Dignitatis Humane Vatican II – Freedom of Religion
Thirdly, requiring prescription for contraceptives (condom included) & logged on to a prescription registry of prescriptive drugs usurps the powers of RA 5921 & RA 9711. Furthermore, inspection of the barangay of said prescription registry is a violation of the privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable. . . (doctor / patient privilege) (Art. 3 Sec. 3)
I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want my rights to be trampled upon.
Dear Chester,
Further to my earlier reply and for your own thoughts.
If the barangay AA ordinance is allowed, what will prevent barangays in Muslim areas to make their own ordinance enforcing the Qur'an and its practices including no raising of pigs and no eating of pork. Would you cry uncle for those Catholic & Christian communities there?
So, before an ordinance must pass it must be fair to ALL and must pass the equality test:
regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, marital status, disability, religious or political affiliation, age or sexual orientation
Mr Lastica …. Dear Sir. I have been very happily married for a short time of 33 years, to the same woman I might add and always thought it was the job of the Husband to protect and care for his wife …. NOT THE CHURCH !!! Believe in what you believe and NOT what someone else told you to believe in !! G-d gave you a brain …. Use it !!
Dear Chester,
Here's another one for you:
The current Pope, Benedict XVI, wrote in 1976 (as Josef Cardinal Ratzinger) that one’s own conscience is primary, even over the Church, when considering matters of morality:
“Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else. If necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and now which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism.” *
*Herbert Vorgrimler, ed. Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, v.5, 1976
Furthermore, Cardinal Rosales once said:
“You don’t have to dictate on morals. Morals are guided of course by the Word of God, by the Lord Jesus Christ, it cannot be legislated.”
[…] I stand for women and oppose Ayala Alabang Barangay Ordinance 01-2011 […]
"deliver us from the Dark Ages" indeed…
it's like FUCK: "Fornication Under Consent of King",
but here its FUCC: "Fornication Under Consent of Church" 🙁
… so a big FUCC YOU to Mr. Xerez-Burgos and company for bringing people back to the Dark Ages
People are not machines. Period.
Prescription to attend mass kaya gusto nila?
This is an excellent letter! I share your sentiments and though I don't live in Ayala Alabang, hope for the best. This ought to be taken higher than the barangay ordinance – we should rally for the actual bill. Best of luck to all.