[Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of other members of the Filipino Freethinkers.]
There are some laws that a country should pass if it is to make progress into the 21st century. The Reproductive Health Bill (RH Bill) is one of them. But there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the said proposed bill. For this we should congratulate the Catholic Church hierarchy, especially the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), for making a controversy out of something that shouldn’t be controversial at all. (Media sensationalism has its role in this one, too.)
Debate rages on. Now, that’s supposed to be a good thing. After all, a world without arguments is a world without truth. However, a lot of time has been wasted on discussions that have nothing or little to do with the very real and urgent problem at hand.
Here are just some of the things that debates on the RH Bill, like the upcoming “Grand Debate” on GMA, shouldn’t be about.
1. Overpopulation and population control: Even if the Philippines were not over populated, the RH Bill should still be passed. Although it is intimately related to the population issue, at the heart of the RH Bill is an issue of human rights, not population control. “Do poor people have the right to have state-supported family planning options and accurate information? Do our young people have the right to scientifically accurate and age-appropriate sex education?” To oppose the RH Bill is to answer these questions with a no. That is, to oppose the RH Bill is to deny poor women of the right to accessible reproductive health options. To say no to the RH Bill is to say that our young people should not be given correct information regarding their reproductive health and sexuality.
Don’t get me wrong. Like any rational person, I would like to see the CBCP get creamed in a debate on overpopulation. But time is running out. We can discuss the population issue some other time. For now, we must tackle the heart of the problem, and the heart of the problem is an issue of human rights, not overpopulation.
After all, the RH Bill is not a One Child Policy. The RH Bill, unlike the Catholic hierarchy, will not impose anything to anyone; it will merely provide options to those who don’t currently have them. The Bill won’t stop people from “going out to the world and multiplying” if they want to. Its goal is to help those who need help. And they need help now.
2. Artificial contraception: Yes, the RH Bill will make condoms and pills available. But aren’t they already? It’s not like artificial contraceptives are illegal in this country. Bottom line: the RH Bill is not about artificial contraception, it is about the right of the poor, especially of poor women, to have access to the birth control method of their choice. This gets buried under many debates, so I will have to stress it again: The RH Bill will give poor women a choice. When the RH Bill becomes law, the government won’t go around forcing women to take birth control pills, or sneaking into people’s houses at night and to perform vasectomies on sleeping husbands. Unlike the Catholic Church, the RH Bill won’t make the state shove anything down anyone’s throat.
However, when the RH Bill gets passed, the poor will then have many options suddenly opened to them. So to be anti-RH is not to be anti-contraceptives but to be anti-poor. If you really are anti-contraceptives, why waste your time fighting the RH Bill? Why not go fight the Big Pharma companies that are producing and distributing those “evil” oral contraceptives. Or why not go fight Captain Condom, the super-elastic superhero who can withstand tremendous stress, strain and pressure, and who will stop at nothing to kill our sacred, God-given sperm cells?
3. Elimination of poverty: No RH Bill proponent or supporter would ever claim that the RH Bill is the answer to all the woes of Philippine society. However, the RH Bill is an essential part of a program to combat poverty. Once the RH Bill becomes law, poor women will gain control over their fertility. This will increase their social mobility and will therefore increase their capability to contribute to the country’s labor force. This will also allow poor families to better allocate their limited resources to the children they chose to have. The end result is that our country’s young will end up being better taken care of. This translates to more Rizals and Benigno Aquinos. Or, if you want, more Pacquiaos.
4. Pre-marital sex: It is not the state’s duty to endorse, much less enforce, a particular religious morality. The only morality that government is mandated to enforce is secular morality. This means that as far as the state is concerned, the morality or ethicality of a sexual act has nothing to do with whether priests, pastors or imams have given their go signal. If the bishops want to meddle with the sex lives of their followers, they must not ask the government’s help to do it. (After all, in some areas, especially in those concerning children, they seem to know just how to do it. And they know how to keep it to themselves as well.)
In fact, based on a secular morality, it is the bishops who are on the immoral side of the issue. Why? Because in the 21st century, sexual intercourse must be considered ethical only if all the parties directly involved have agreed to the act and if they possess accurate knowledge of the consequences. This means that opposing the RH Bill because it aims to improve the state of sex education in the Philippines is immoral, since it will make our citizens ignorant of the consequences and responsibilities that come with having sex. Such ignorance translates to more cases of HIV infections/AIDS and more untimely pregnancies, both of which are truly detrimental to our country’s welfare.
Now, based on their statements, many enemies of the Bill seem to consider morality as synonymous to ignorance regarding sexual matters. For them, a scientifically-informed awareness of human sexuality is detrimental to the country’s moral health. One is reminded of anti-RH signs saying “Values education, not sex education”. What kind of bankrupt minds can think of such an absurd and obviously false dichotomy?
Such moral idiocy on the part of the anti-RH camp makes the old Victorians look broad-minded. Given the desire of our country for economic, social and moral progress in the 21st century, such moral idiocy should not be listened to in the halls of Congress. The RH Bill should be passed, and it should be passed as soon as possible.
No time should be wasted on having useless debates that have little or even nothing to do with the very real and pressing problem at hand.
Anyway its already approved. But just a thought though since the Government had already approved this what we called RH bill. I believe this one is for implementing early parenthood or like a control for the increase of the population in our country. Why dont they legalized also those stuff for abortion like illegal medicines, cytotic or whatever. Why dont they make abortion legal also. Since this RH bill that they approve is almost the same as it!
Has anyone heard of the World Health Organization funding the International Agency for Research on Cancer in its study on the carcinogenicity of artificial contraceptive methods. Results showed that contraceptives increased the risk of getting cancer for women who frequently use contraceptives. Therefore, why should the government encourage, promote a CHOICE endangering the life of its people? 😐
TWO THUMBS UP!!!!!!!!! very good (PERFECT :D) article! continue posting ………………………………..
— buti pa article mo may sense an like sa nagpost dito na anti-RH bill (gosh! pagnabasa mu, super WALANG KWENTA!)
Omg. Haha. watched Grand Debate: Pacquiao PWNED by a housewife.
TWO THUMBS UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! very good (PERFECT! :D) article! continue posting…………………………………………………………………
— pag nabasa mo yung post ng anti-RH BILL dito… MATATAWA KA! SUPER WALANG KWENTA!:@
Yung anti-RH bill na hinahamak mo e magaling ang writer. Bakit hindi mo ba naintindihan? PRO RH Bill din ako pero dpat hindi mo nilalait ang mga sinulat nila.
So which was better "Harapan" or "The Grand Debate". They love doing this late on a Sunday night I have better things to do.
Both were good. "Harapan" was more of a rumble. I enjoyed it more. 🙂
I was very happy with the result of the debate. The RH Bill backers were able to articulate key provisions as well as concerns addressed to them while at the same time show the weaknesses in the arguments of those who are staunchly against the RH Bill. In fact, if you had a copy of the RH Bill next to you while the debates were on-going, you would find that specific provisions being attacked by the anti group are completely and clearly addressed already on the bill, if not noted as provisions to be amended. It is also apparent that those against the RH Bill simply will not listen to scientific rationale, or points already addressed as seen in the repetitive use of the same arguments they have been rehashing since the debate started.
It was also quite apparent that our favorite Superathlete-billionare-actor-singer-congressman M. Pacquiao is spilling out canned dogma fed to him by the RCC without understanding any of the key provisions of the Bill and its intended purpose.
There was also Bishop Bacani who was simply incomprehensible with his arguments. He even failed to answer (or avoided) one of the questions regarding the RCC's attempt to dvide and galvanize public opinion on the matter. Regardless of that, I would think twice before eating a cake when I'm offered one by Bishop Bacani…
We should not only use the RH bill as a means to control population but to educate our countrymen on sex education and proper practices. Maternal health must be addressed and women empowerment so that our female population will have a bigger say in whether they want to have more children or not. The only downside is that the cost of implementation will be a burden on the taxpayers and the RH bill will be used as another excuse for our "honest" lawmakers to make another buck.
[We should not only use the RH bill as a means to control population but to educate our countrymen on sex education and proper practices. ]
Do read the RH Bill. There is a reason that sex education is optional, and why the bill only seeks to educate, and not impose.
[The only downside is that the cost of implementation will be a burden on the taxpayers and the RH bill will be used as another excuse for our "honest" lawmakers to make another buck. ]
The same can be said of virtually any other law in RP. The question is, is it worth investing in? In the case of this Bill, I believe the answer is Yes.
IMO, there is no need to make responsible parenthood/reproductive health into a law. As the bill targets the poor, I would think it is more relevant to make sex/health education and information accessible by the poor. Presently, don't we have a choice as to what kind of family planning we would like to follow? Does the country need a new law to educate and inform the people? Appropriate government agencies can just step up efforts in promoting family planning. Then it wouldn't raise the hackles of the CBCP and anti-life moralists.
Whether the bill gets passed or junked doesn't make any difference. On the other hand, what is needed is the will to educate and inform, and these do not require a law to be effective.
"I would think it is more relevant to make sex/health education and information accessible by the poor."
Congratulations. Your concerns will be addressed.
SEC. 22. Pro Bono Services for Indigent Women
Private and non-government reproductive health care service providers, including but not limited to gynecologists and obstetricians, are mandated to provide at least forty-eight (48) hours annually of reproductive health services, ranging from providing information and education to rendering medical services free of charge to indigent and low income patients, especially to pregnant adolescents. These forty-eight (48) hours annual pro bono services shall be included as pre-requisite in the accreditation under the PhilHealth.
The need for an enabling law is for the government to be authorized to appropriate the necessary funds to implement the program which includes, as you observed, making sex/health education more accessible to the target beneficiaries – the poor. Without an enabling law, congress will not be able to appropriate the necessary funds for the RH bill implementation. Even simple bills that seek to rename streets have to be passed into a law so the necessary funds can be legally appropriated by congress before implementation by the executive branch.
"On the other hand, what is needed is the will to educate and inform, and these do not require a law to be effective."
To paraphrase Carlos Celdran, the gov't had nearly 16 years to find a way to help address the Philippine' population issues.
And in 16 years, we now have one of the highest incidences of maternal deaths in the region, a rising incidence of AIDs infections, a high percentage of teen mothers (10 percent of mothers here are 15-19 years old, according to USAID), and roughly 560,000 illegal abortions occurring annually as of 2008.
I think it's fair to presume that given these facts, it's obvious that we need something more solid to address our problems, namely a law.
I believe that this has been addressed by the House Minority leader Edcel Lagman. provisions being addressed by the proposed bill are already being taken, but these actions are subject to the whims of the ever changing administration or the influence of the Catholic Church on the administration. A law on responsible parenthood will assure that the changing opinion of different administration and the influence of the Catholic Church will not deny the people our right to informed choice (this isn't a direct quote)
Nice one!
I believe it would be foolhardy for anyone to try to convince the RCC, thru the CBCP, to change its stand and agree to the RH bill. It simply will be a waste of time. Its entire existence and foundation, including its dominion over its flock, is premised on these non-negotiable tenets:
(1) artificial birth-control methods are evil, abortifacients and causes cancer (ergo, a condom, which prevents conception where life presumably begins, is still considered abortive, whereas the NFP methods, which the church espouses and which likewise prevents conception, are not! Same way that if a candy-flavored condom is used during oral sex, that is still considered as an abortifacient!)
(2) sex between married couples should only be for procreation, nothing more! (this is rammed down our throats by the clerics who are vowed to be celibate for their remaining 'saintly' lives! Wait, isn't this a contradiction by itself – sex during a woman's safe period as defined by the church?!)
So, instead of focusing our efforts towards changing the church's stand (cause that would be next to impossible), perhaps it would be more productive to simply convince its followers to have a more open mind (and not blindly follow what the clerics say) and let their enlightened conscience dictate their actions.
[So, instead of focusing our efforts towards changing the church's stand (cause that would be next to impossible), perhaps it would be more productive to simply convince its followers to have a more open mind (and not blindly follow what the clerics say) and let their enlightened conscience dictate their actions. ]
Another angle I've been trying (with some success) is laying out every one of the church's current acts of hypocrisy, such as their hiding of molesters, or their excommunication of a medical team that performed an emergency abortion on a rape victim.
Yet another way perhaps is to write a serious article that will refute all their objections, point for point (not in a satire form as previously done for obvious reasons) and spread it thru the internet (facebook, twitter, yahoo mail, etc). If presented properly and devoid of sarcasm, perhaps more anti will be enlightened and shift sides…
You've done a good job bringing the focus back to the real issues, Pecier. Thanks for the awesome post. 🙂
I have seen a lot of grammatical errors in my article. I tried to rectify them, but the updated version does not replace the old version. Can someone with editorial powers please help me with this? Thank you very much in advance.
Not sure if somebody addressed your request earlier, but I just took a look at your piece, and have just made some minor tweaks to the punctuation.
On a related note, kudos for the piece :D. Grammar Nazi out.
I can't find those pesky erroneous sentences anymore. Thanks Twin_Skies! Thanks everyone else!
Since I don't have a Facebook account of my own (and I refuse to make one), can I also request you and everyone else to share my article to as many people as possible? Thanks a lot.
Great post Percier. I've wanted to write post especially about overpopulation/population control being a red herring for pro RH people to use as a reason to pass the bill. I just never got around to doing so and your article also touches on views in the RH bill debate that I agree with.