REPORT Secularism Violations
FeaturedReligion

You’re objecting to the Pill, not the Bill

Jong Atmosfera
Jong Atmosfera

One of the secular arguments against the RH Bill is that it is unconstitutional based on the premise that certain oral contraceptives pills (OCPs), which the bill seeks to fund and distribute, have an abortifacient effect since they prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the unlikely event of breakthrough ovulation and fertilization. This allegedly violates Art. II Sec. 12 of the 1987 Constitution: The State…shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. Not surprisingly, the pro-life assert that conception means fertilization, the moment the sperm and egg cells meet, quoting Fr. Joaquin Bernas and Dr. Bernardo Villegas, both members of the Constitutional Commission of 1986:

“The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception, that conception takes place at fertilization.” (IV RECORD of the Constitutional Commission 799,cited in Bernas, J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Manila: 1996 ed., p.78)

“In the Philippine Constitution of 1987, conception is defined as fertilization, the moment the egg is fertilized by the sperm. This was the majority decision (32 to 8 ) of the members of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 convoked by the late President Corazon Aquino.” (http://www.mb.com.ph/node/293259/conception-fertilization)

While the above would seem to stop the RH Bill in its tracks, a little research shows this isn’t necessarily so.

Regarding the quote from Fr. Bernas, the complete paragraph actually reads:

“The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception, that conception takes place at fertilization. There is however no attempt to pinpoint the exact moment when conception takes place. But while the provision does not assert with certainty when precisely human life begins, it reflects the view that, in dealing with the protection of life, it is necessary to take the safer approach.” (p.78 Bernas, J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Manila: 1996 ed.)

The last two sentences may seem contradictory: there is no attempt to pinpoint the exact moment of conception and yet it is necessary to take the safer approach. My analysis is that the first sentence clearly expresses what the Constitutional Commission did not do, that is, define the moment of conception, while the second looks like it is meant as a guide in legislation since Article II, where the protection of the unborn clause was placed, is in fact the Declaration of State Policies – not the Bill of Rights.

Moreover, Fr. Bernas wanted to use the term “fertilized ovum” such that “protection of life should extend to the fertilized ovum,” but that was not adopted by the Commission, ending up with “the State shall protect the unborn from conception” instead:

FR. JOAQUIN BERNAS: Perhaps you should say, “protection of life should extend to the fertilized ovum. (Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol.1, p.690)

LINO BROCKA: I do not think that it should be implemented, for the simple reason that medically, there is no clear consensus that the fertilized ovum is considered human life. (Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol.1, p.692)

REV.RIGOS: But our religious authorities sharply differ in their opinions as to when human life can definitely be regarded to have commenced. If we constitutionalize the beginning of human life at a stage we call fertilized ovum, then we are putting a note of finality to the whole debate. (Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol.1, p.693)

MS.AQUINO: Even this Commission cannot settle the question of whether a fertilized egg has the right to life or not. Those experts in the field of medicine and theology cannot settle this question. It is bad enough for us to preempt this controversial issue by constitutionalizing the ovum; it would be tragic for us to provide for ambiguities, which may even disturb settled jurisprudence. (Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol.1, p.695)

As for Dr. Villegas’ claim that there was a 32-8 decision where the members of the Constitutional Commission defined conception as fertilization, there seems to be nothing online that would validate such claim, much less explain the significance or effect of the decision, especially since the Commission intended to leave to Congress the power and mandate to determine the legal definition of conception:

MR. OPLE: We say, “Protect the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.” Is there in jurisprudence anything now that will help us visualize the precise moment, the approximate moment when conception begins and, therefore, the life of this new human personality entitled to all the protection of the laws in the Constitution begins? Is there any standard legislature or jurisprudence that will support an interpretation of the moment of conception?

MR. VILLEGAS: Jurisprudence? None… We believe that the abortion debate from a scientific standpoint must proceed on the assumption that…human life begins at fertilization of the ovum.

MR. OPLE: But we would leave to Congress the power, the mandate to determine.

MR. VILLEGAS: Exactly, on the basis of facts and figures they would obtain from experts.

MR. OPLE: Yes, to legislate a kind of standard so that everyone will know what moment of conception will mean in terms of legal rights and obligations… (Records of the Constitutional Commission No. 86 09-18-1986)

As of today, Congress has yet to determine the legal definition of conception. Until then, all these claims about the abortifacient effect of certain pills as well as the debate on when life begins are irrelevant as far as constitutionality is concerned.

More importantly, the pro-life are actually objecting to the use of oral contraceptive pills and not the RH Bill per se and should therefore focus their efforts in lobbying Congress to define conception as fertilization and have these OCPs banned by the FDA instead of blocking the passage of the RH Bill. Because even without the RH Bill, these pills they deem abortifacient are already available in the market. Conversely, if Congress defines conception as fertilization, these pills will be banned even if the RH Bill gets passed.

To the pro-life, let me say it again: you’re objecting to the Pill, not the Bill, and it is fallacious to equate the two. You are barking up the wrong tree, unless of course your true opposition lies in the use of contraception in general – even if certain contraceptives like condoms do not prevent implantation – because contraception is forbidden by the Catholic Church. But you know too well that religious arguments have no place in public debates since we’re living in a pluralistic society, so you might have decided to come up with a secular rationalization. And if that is the case, I object to your lack of candor.

(Special thanks to WillyJ for the very interesting discussion on another article which helped me come up with the idea for this post.)
* * * * *

Note: Someone accused me of attacking a strawman when I said that “one of the secular arguments against the RH Bill is that it is unconstitutional on the premise that certain oral contraceptives pills (OCPs), which the bill seeks to fund and distribute, have an abortifacient effect since they prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the unlikely event of breakthrough ovulation and fertilization,” saying that that was never an argument made by secularists. The problem is that he defined ‘secular’ too narrowly and equated it with atheism or even objectivism so that only atheists and objectivists can make secualr arguments. That’s where he got it wrong. But if he can find the fallacy in the following argument, I’ll yield to him:

Premise 1: ‘Secular’ is defined as “not concerned with or related to religion.”

Premise 2: An argument about the RH Bill’s possible violation to the constitution is not concerned with or related to religion since it does not cite any religious doctrine. It cites only the constitution.

Conclusion: An argument about the RH Bill’s possible violation to the constitution is a secular argument.

Related content

85 comments

  3. Sorry albertohurtado, I'm more of a thinker than a doer, hehe. Well I guess by writing articles I can convey my ideas to those who can actually act on them. 🙂

  4. All I ever hear about from the Pro-Life side is their insistence on being concerned with the status of the fetus as a human life. News Flash: The woman is also a human being, and one that has been continually denied proper medical care because some fucked up religious dogma disguising itself as "morals" dictates that the life she carries is more important than her:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18703442

    • Twin_Skies,I am sorry but I must call you out for misrepresenting Church teaching.

      " The most common dysfunctions that may set a mother's life against that of her preborn child's are the ectopic pregnancy, carcinoma of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the ovary. Occasionally, cancer of the vulva or vagina may indicate surgical intervention.
      In such cases, under the principle of the "double effect," attending physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child. If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the mother's life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the preborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby's life, the baby will of course die. But this kind of surgery would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death."
      http://www.hli.org/index.php/abortion/400?task=vi…

          • "Vatican rejects believers who pick and choose their issues" 😡

            The archbishops basically told the people to stop thinking for yourself and just accept what they tell you OMg haha.

            and of course the pedo step-father wasn't excommunicated, birds of the same feather then?

      • 1. I call you out for (yet again) citing a questionable source for your quote. http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/right/human-life-in…

        First Vincenton, then Berlinski, then Human Life International. I'm getting a pretty good idea of what counts for your reading material now.

        2. Your source fails to cite when does it ethical to endanger a mother's life when the miscarriage is already in its advanced stages, and the fetus is certain to die within hours of being born. Do yourself a favor willy, and read the source material from NCBI before you flap your gob again:

        "Catholic-owned hospital ethics committees denied approval of uterine evacuation while fetal heart tones were still present, forcing physicians to delay care or transport miscarrying patients to non-Catholic-owned facilities. Some physicians intentionally violated protocol because they felt patient safety was compromised.

        Although Catholic doctrine officially deems abortion permissible to preserve the life of the woman, Catholic-owned hospital ethics committees differ in their interpretation of how much health risk constitutes a threat to a woman's life and therefore how much risk must be present before they approve the intervention."

        Now to help you along, here is the complete report: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC26364…

        "Because the fetus was still alive, they wouldn't intervene. And she was hemorrhaging, and they called me and wanted to transport her, and I said, “It sounds like she's unstable, and it sounds like you need to take care of her there.” And I was on a recorded line, I reported them as an EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act] violation. And the physician [said], “This isn't something that we can take care of.” And I [said], “Well, if I don't accept her, what are you going to do with her?” [He answered], “We'll put her on a floor [i.e., admit her to a bed in the hospital instead of keeping her in the emergency room]; we'll transfuse her as much as we can, and we'll just wait till the fetus dies.”

  5. Thank you for the citation, Jong.

    Perhaps we can continue the discussion at this point. I looked back at the record of the Commission's proceedings at the link you pointed, and upon closer examination I found out that the discussion on the impact of the Constitutional provision in Art 2 Sec 12 on the population programs reveal what I can only see as an implicit understanding among the commissioners:
    /
    MR. GASCON: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
    My second question is with regard to the population program. How would this provision affect the existing population program being implemented by the Population Commission? Second, if there is an approval of this provision here, because Commissioner Villegas said that he shall make a motion for deletion of that provision on population at the proper time, does it necessarily mean that the provision in the General Provisions Article on population will have to be deleted?
    MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, not necessarily because family planning is consistent with the provision in Section 9 that there should be protection to the unborn. Before this proposed provision was formulated, taking into account the pertinent provision of the 1973 Constitution, family planning would include preventive pregnancy and even killing the fertilized ovum. But now, if we adopt the second sentence of Section 9, family planning would refer respectively only to preventive pregnancy as stated by Commissioner Azcuna.
    /
    Please take note: "In the 1973 Constitution..family planning would include..even killing the fertilized ovum. But now, if we adopt the second sentence of Section 9, family planning would refer respectively only to preventive pregnancy as stated by Commissioner Azcuna.". The above transcript clearly does not support the hypothesis that the commission left any doubt that "killing the fertilized ovum" was to be allowed with the new provision. Apparently, the commission did not leave room to accept that the unborn should be protected only from the moment of implantation. I searched for other references to the impact on the population programs and here is more of what I found : http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/population/datab…

    "On Section 9, Mr. Azcuna agreed that by institutionalizing the term "the life of the unborn from the moment of conception" would, in effect, unconstitutionalize the use of certain contraceptive which are already being encouraged at this point in time….On Mrs. Quezada’s inquiry relative to certain contraceptive methods which are considered abortifacient and on whether these shall be banned from approval of the Constitutional provision, Mr. Nolledo replied that "protection to life" does not refer to preventive pregnancy. He noted that preventive pregnancy would be covered by "population control policy" but stressed that the moment there is life, that life must be protected". (Con. Com Journal, Nos. 87089, Sept. 19, 1986, p. 11)
    /
    Please note: "the moment there is life, that life must be protected". Thus, it would be untenable to claim that the Commission left out an opportunity to Congress to mandate in the future that life begins at implantation. For if life begins at implantation, it would follow that the fertilized ovum (prior to implantation) was declared lifeless by the Commission. There is nothing to that effect on record. Again, looking back at the transcript, the commission clearly did not allow for "killing the fertilized ovum". It categorically recommended "preventive pregnancy" which is clearly taken to define the prevention of fertilization – not the prevention of implantation. The accepted definition therein of the fertilized ovum is the human being that is just about to implant to the womb. On the basis of this alone, I am convinced that when the framers wrote "conception", they unmistakably meant fertilization.

    There is also the matter of the 32-8 vote we paid attention to, and which seemed to be contradicted by that particular exchange between Mr Ople and Dr Villegas that you pointed out. I personally emailed Dr Villegas to seek clarification even though I thought there was a slim chance of him responding – he must be receiving hundreds of mails a day. To my surprise, he replied. Here is his response (I can forward you the email if you want):

    "The exchange between the late Blas Ople and myself was not subjected to a vote. Therefore, it was just a personal opinion expressed by each one of us. While the vote of 32 to 8 was precisely on the definition of conception as fertilization."

    Bernardo Villegas
    /
    I now leave you to your own conclusions.

    At any rate I have a strong hunch that this legal question will be elevated to the Supreme Court. Ultimately the verdict would reflect on us Filipinos.

    • Thank you, WillyJ, for that enlightening comment. This means that the pro-life should work double time for the banning of these potentially abortifacient pills – and IUDs as well. As for the RH Bill, such banning (and such definition of conception as fertilization) will have no conflict since Sec. 2 or House Bill 4244 states that:

      "The State likewise guarantees universal access to medically-safe, LEGAL, affordable, effective and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information and education thereon even as it prioritizes the needs of women and children, among other underprivileged sectors."

      If these pills (and IUDs) become illegal (or pronounced unsafe and/or ineffective), they won't be funded by the RH Bill. Maybe in the end the RH Bill will provide only two choices for family planning: condoms and NFP.

        • Happy or not, that's still beside the point of the constitutionality debate.

          As for the RH Bill running the gauntlet at the Supreme Court, as long as the sponsors and advocates make it clear that the question of constitutionality is about the Pill and not the Bill (since it's not specified in the Bill that the State shall provide for OCPs and IUDs in particular but only access to medically-safe and LEGAL modern family planning methods in general), I think the Bill will survive.

          • It will, but at a greatly decreased capacity. My concern would be for women who will need access to contraceptives due to their circumstances, such as victims of rape.

          • Twin_Skies,
            Your concern on rape victims is understandable. However I want to understand you better. Do you propose that in the event that abortifacients are ruled out, exceptions must be provided specifically for rape victims?

          • [Do you propose that in the event that abortifacients are ruled out, exceptions must be provided specifically for rape victims? ]

            I'm not sure.

            However, that I've heard enough reports of rape incidents to know that as it stands, a women's welfare is being put at risk because of a doctor's personal religious belief that life begins at conception, resulting in them denying the victim medical help
            http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/ns/health-wo…

          • A doctor denying immediate medical attention has to be prosecuted. It does not matter whether it is a rape victim, a woman suffering from complications of an abortion, or any person for that matter that has another serious condition requiring immediate medical attention. I person needing treatment has a right to emergency care. I believe this is already covered by the code of ethics of physicians, and enforced by RA 8344. It is illegal now as it is, even without he RH bill, to withhold emergency treatment to a patient who requires it. If this still needs to be strengthened by a new provision in law, then I am all for it.

          • [A doctor denying immediate medical attention has to be prosecuted.]

            Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do recall that a doctor can opt not to treat a patient if it's against their personal ethics, and can instead direct the patient to another physician.

          • @Twin_Skies:

            [My concern would be for women who will need access to contraceptives due to their circumstances, such as victims of rape.]

            If a legislation or jurisprudence about the definition of conception as fertilization ever comes out, that would be the case. Dura lex sed lex. Well, at least it's a real law truly applicable to all citizens, not some "divine law" imposed by old bachelors who claim to have direct access to the will of God.

          • Jong, pardon me, your slip is showing 🙂

            There is only one truth, no one creates or promulgates it, we merely discover it. It should not matter who it is coming from. The gist of real "free thinking" means we go wherever the truth leads. Even if it leads to us to share the same beliefs with strange bedfellows;)

          • [The gist of real "free thinking" means we go wherever the truth leads. Even if it leads to us to share the same beliefs with strange bedfellows ]

            Freethinking also meant questioning all ideas and putting them under scrutiny. If the idea does not measure up or fails to make sense, there's not point in following it. I think you're mistaking "Facts" with a metaphysical truth.

          • [There is only one truth, no one creates or promulgates it, we merely discover it. It should not matter who it is coming from.]

            I totally agree. But my point is, some people claim to have exclusive access to that truth without any proof of such access, and that's what I'm objecting to. Which reminds me of Philosophy Bro's tweet: People get down on Divine Command Theory – "Because God said so" isn't a bad excuse if He really said so – proving that is the hard part.

          • Do not forget though that all ideologies require some "faith". Even atheism requires faith. The faith that science can answer everything even if it cannot be proven so.

          • [The faith that science can answer everything even if it cannot be proven so. ]

            Strawman Fallacy, willy. None of the blokes I have met ever say this.

          • Who says atheism requires the faith that science can answer everything? Even scientists accept with humility that science cannot answer everything.

          • Willy, you're asking us to take the word of David Berlinski, a notorious Creationist crackpot and spokesman of the Intelligent Design movement, seriously.

            Kindly explain why we should take you seriously at this point.

          • That's because scientists are not all the same. But a naturalist is one who believes "that only natural laws and forces operate in the world and that nothing exists beyond the natural world."

            Since naturalists not only advocate methodological naturalism but will also say that methodological naturalism is the only way we can know anything, then yes, scientists who are naturalists, would tend to think that, given enough time and technology, science can know everything there is to know.

          • Saying that methodical naturalism is the only way can know 'anything' is definitely not the same as saying that science can know 'everything'.

          • Well if by 'anything' you mean 'everything –which is what the naturalist will say, since he believes that nothing exists outside the natural– then yes, if you believed naturalism is the only way to know anything, then that's saying science can know everything, assuming that it's the conventional kind of science we're talking about where methodological naturalism is the only method by which hypotheses are formed.

            So, my point was that naturalists would tend to think that science can know everything since nothing exists beyond the natural, and thus is susceptible to human scrutiny (with enough time and technology ofcourse).

            But this is a huge digression from what you guys were discussing, so I'm sorry. I'm keeping my mouth shut from now on.

          • Ah, I missed the *tend* there. Sorry. 🙂 And yes, you better shut up now unless you have something to say about the constitutionality of the RH Bill, hehe. Sorry, the forum's still down but our guys are working double time to restore it (right guys?). I know you missed debating with me.

          • [That's because scientists are not all the same.]

            Agreed. Unlike most others, Berlinski is full of it.

          • I suppose so. Personally I am not above letting a few provisions to squeak in. For what is that among friends and fellow countrymen. Dyahe naman kung completely shut-out diba?

            Anyway, what do you think of the redundancy issue as I pointed out on the other thread? I thought you would look into this, not pressuring you though. As I see it, the implementing arm of the good things in the bill falls on the lap of DOH, an agency which already has the mandate and the funding to do the very same things (maternal and child health, primarily). It is fine by me to increase the resources of DOH for these purposes if that is the intention, but then again, new legislation is not required for that. I am told for example, that the 2011 "new appropriations" budget of the DOH was crafted precisely with the Magna Carta law in mind. I account a minimum of 12.07 billion already allocated for the very same purposes. Whereas the Bill seeks only a 3 billion initial budget in the event of implementation. I can not figure it out.

          • Jong, ok I read it already. Makes sense. I suppose a minimum recurring expenditure really need to be set aside for maternal and child health. Along this line, it is imperative to audit the existing funds and programs and see where our agencies stand on performance. The Senate actually started investigating the alleged "ghost deliveries" of contraceptives, as we all know.

          • [As I see it, the implementing arm of the good things in the bill falls on the lap of DOH, an agency which already has the mandate and the funding to do the very same things (maternal and child health, primarily). It is fine by me to increase the resources of DOH for these purposes if that is the intention, but then again, new legislation is not required for that.]

            But does DOH have provisions for comprehensive sex education programs for schools?

            I'd wager that if people knew better about their sexuality, we wouldn't be facing such an enormous issue with maternal complications and child abandonment in the first place.

            To cite an example, Chile has attributed the marked decreases in its infant and maternal mortality rates to an aggressive RH program. The country still faces increasing cases of teen pregnancies however, leading to the implementation of mandatory sex education in public schools.
            http://www.santiagotimes.cl/news/education/20976-…

          • Twin_Skies,
            I don't think there is anything wrong with sex-ed per se, even the Catholic Church has been teaching sex ed all along. http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/11/20/08/cbcp-o…
            As long as opt-out clauses are there, and religious schools are allowed to run a faith-compatible version of their sex-ed, I think a compromise can be ironed out. It will be coordinated with DECS, I dont think this should pose a problem. It will still be "mandatory" but in a sense that honors rights. The Church is also for responsible parenthood, science awareness of sexuality, and responsible planning for the number of children and spacing of childbirths. I hope an agreement can be ironed out where academic freedom and the primary right of parents will be honored in a compromise that will be acceptable to all.

          • I'd contest that the CBCP's sex ed measures are flawed at best, given just how often abstinence-only and NFP programs have been proven to fail when applied realistically.

          • I am charitable with your suspicion and would just say it is a healthy suspicion coming from you. Anyway, I have said that the sex-ed module will be coordinated with DECS for accreditation, I dont think there is a problem with this. If it passes the DECS minimum criteria, then there is nothing more we can protest. Anyway, private schools only account for 20% coverage of all primary and secondary students. 80% are already covered by public schools. You should already be happy with that percentage as far as the scope of secular sex-ed is concerned. After all, it is the poor who is the target, right?

          • This is more of my personal musing, but I wouldn't be happy with the church getting away with teaching kids sex ed methods that they fully know won't work in the real world, regardless if their schools "only" make up 20 percent of all primary and secondary students.

            Shitty research should not be exempted at all.

          • haha. The State can not prevent you from being unhappy, its ok man. Let me ask you a question. We are endowed with inherent rights to be wrong, right? I know you guys have a big thing with conscience (same as we do). As long as our right to be wrong does not go against compelling state interests, that is the way it should be. Now the bill is all about rights, if I remember the explanatory note. It says pretty clearly it is rights-based.

          • And how exactly is misinforming a student about something as vital as sexuality in any way helping their right to education?

          • Your question is loaded with presumptions. The Church teaching on human sexuality is the most voluminous than any organization on earth. It is 2000+ years in development. If you think it is wrong, then that is acceptable.

          • [The Church teaching on human sexuality is the most voluminous than any organization on earth.]

            Argument from tradition. Regardless of how old or how comprehensively explained an idea is, if its premise if flawed, I'm not obligated to respect it.

            [If you think it is wrong, then that is acceptable. ]

            I doubt institutionalizing bigotry and hate would be considered acceptable by anybody. Except the Klan.
            https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/04/07/rcc-at…
            https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/03/31/its-no…

          • Sure, sure you are not obligated by anybody to respect the teaching. You are however, expected to respect the rights of people who pursue their values within the bounds of the law.

            Again, your last sentence is loaded with presumptions. The Church would have long been extinct if that were true.

          • [You are however, expected to respect the rights of people who pursue their values within the bounds of the law. ]

            I'm not expected to respect a lie, willy, or hate speech.

          • Again, please. We are all entitled to our presumptions. What I consider truth may be a lie in your opinion. What I consider love may be hate to you. We can reverse the equation and it won't matter. We must honor the right to be wrong, either way. As long as we do not run into compelling state interests. You are making me sound like broken record. Please change your tone, otherwise we can not discuss reasonably.

          • You being entitled to your presumptions does not make them free from criticism. That's the whole point of free speech. And no matter how many times you will repeat it, teaching bigotry, even under the guise of faith, will always be bigotry.

          • You are free to criticize but not prevent those you criticize from conscientiously acting on their own beliefs. Compelling state interests.

          • @willyj77
            On a related note

            When the Magna Carta for women was enacted as law in 2009, the CBCP protested against it because it would outlaw their practice of expelling pregnant students. Should we honor their rights when their practices lead to that sort of discrimination?

          • That is a tough question, but I think I have encountered the ramifications of the issue long ago. I agree that the pregnant woman is in a difficult situation, but oftentimes we have to balance these things out. The guiding principle is we weigh which "right" is of a graver nature and decide accordingly. Let me see if I have something in my files on this issue, I still have to check out the facts.

      • [The State likewise guarantees universal access to medically-safe, LEGAL, affordable, effective and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information and education thereon even as it prioritizes the needs of women and children, among other underprivileged sectors.]

        Given that clause Jong, even NFP programs will have to be ruled out given that they and Abstinence-only programs have a notoriously high failure rate:
        http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2007/04…

    • @WillyJ: why can't all anti-RH guys be like you, civil and professional? 🙂

      As for the issue of conception = fertilization, I found the following on Fr. Bernas' blog http://fatherbernasblogs.blogspot.com/2011/02/bac…

      The opponents of the RH Bill will make a constitutional issue out of it arguing from various constitutional provisions. Likely starting points are two constitutional provisions found in Article II. We might, therefore, begin by asking what the binding force of Article II is.

      The article is titled “Declaration of Principles and State Policies.” Sections 7 to 28 are called “State Policies.” Except for one or two of them, they do not yet contain commands that must be followed. Unlike the provisions of the Bill of Rights, they await implementing legislation from Congress.

      Two provisions in Article II will play a starting role in the constitutional debate. They are Sections 11 and Section 12.

      Section 11 says: “The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.” But this provision will not give the judiciary a handle for passing judgment on the constitutionality of the RH Bill. It is a motherhood statement. And the supporters of the RH bill will simply say that this is precisely the reason why they have made an effort to make the Bill reflect this non-debatable value.

      Section 12 has a little more to say. It says: “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”

      The first sentence has been the subject of a number of Court decisions which clearly declare that how to protect the family is for Congress to decide. The Constitution makes no specific prescription.

      As for the second sentence, the protection given to the unborn is only “from conception,” that is, from the earliest moment of life. The earliest that life begins is the moment of fertilization. This is enough to justify the prohibition of abortion clearly repeated in the RH Bill. But it says nothing about what to prohibit before life begins.

      This brings us to the use of contraceptive methods. There are those who argue that contraception kills life. That is true if the contraceptive means used have the effect of expelling a fertilized ovum. Those who argue that contraceptives currently in the market kill life must be able to point to the precise contraceptive devises that are abortive. A sweeping generalization is irresponsible.

      • [why can't all anti-RH guys be like you, civil and professional? ]

        He's also disingenuous. Really willy, David Berlinski? What? Think citing the Vincenton Post wasn't enough to damage your credibility?

        • Twin_Skies,
          Ok calm down, I think I touched your raw nerve again. Kasi sabi mo you haven't heard of anyone tapos nung nag-banggit ako ng isa nagalit ka naman. Ano ba. Anyway, I take it back and will think of another example. Wait lang.

          • And what makes you think I'm angry? 🙂

            You've just presented me with two solid reasons why reasoning with you is a fucking waste of time 😀

          • At least one that does not use "God wills it" as a final argument. That's kinda new. a slight tinge of respect there.

            But agreed with Twin, taking Vincenton and Opinion righting hacks as serious sources of information does damage credibility.

            /readying the sarsi and popcorn. long reads ahead.

      • I have no argument opposing that article of Fr Bernas, though I dislike his tone. ugh.
        Anyway, I think the whole point of his rather lengthy piece boils down to his last statements.

        "Those who argue that contraceptives currently in the market kill life must be able to point to the precise contraceptive devises that are abortive. A sweeping generalization is irresponsible".

        For all those who understand and stand by the state policy, this should be an equal responsibility. In fact, I would say that the weightier burden rests on the pro-RH
        legislators rather than on those who oppose it. Anyone who proposes must be the one responsible for justifying, rather than turning the table around and leaving the burden
        of proof to the other side. They say leave it to FDA to regulate. I say the repealing clause effectively dictates the parameters of regulation according to the premise of the authors. The authors' premise is not a secret: Life starts at implantation and therefore the bill intends to protect life at the moment of conception. It is all over the Congressional records, no one can deny their statements. You see, when they "SAFE", they redefine that too.

        Congress would enact implementing legislation, yes. But Congress cannot possibly define something that goes against the very intents of fundamental law. Again, he intent of the law prevails upon the letter of the law, while statutes flow from fundamental law and not vice-versa. They have the greater responsibility to justify in detail the constitutionality of "the full range of contraceptives" that they propose, having duly sworn themselves to uphold the Constitution.

        • It is my understanding that the Declaration of Principles and State Policies is there to guide Congress to avoid creating laws that go against such principles and policies.

          So far I don't see any provision in the RH Bill that goes against the protection of the unborn from conception even with the assumption that conception = fertilization. The bill only seeks to make available LEGAL methods of family planning. It does not state that the State shall give away OCPs and IUDs in particular.

          • Yes, there was an amazing flip-flop on the part of the authors on that one. In the previous
            incarnation of the bill (HB 96), there was a specific reference to "pill, intra-uterine device (IUD) and injectables ". Now that the specificity is gone, do the authors mean that those will not be included anymore? I would be more comfortable if Lagman takes back his official statement on record at one of the Congressional hearings that the bill intends to protect the unborn from the moment of implantation. In his sponsorship speech he repeated something to the effect as well. You fault us if our alarm bells are ringing out loud? It would be so naive of us to think otherwise, don't you think so.

          • I think the authors intend to leave to further legislation or jurisprudence what constitutes abortifacient drugs and devices, providing only for methods that are legal and safe.

          • There is no jurisprudence I see except what is forthcoming from an imminent SC decision. I believe they shouldn't be surprised if we petition the SC for an injunction and subsequent decision, in the event that this Bill passes. That is, if the SC does not intervene of its own accord. Its going to be a looong drawn-out battle. btw, there is still the Senate…

            I am thinking now that the pro-RH legislators have embarked on a seriously flawed strategy. If only they had conceded categorically that the bill won't include drugs that harm the unborn prior to implantation, I see no serious legal challenge to the bill. They could still procure abortifacient drugs, after all the challenge will be relegated to FDA, and only by individual, specific branded formulations. Meanwhile they can
            buy all sorts of contraceptives they want. While this is going on, they could use up the time to prepare and move for a repeal of Article II, Section 12. Whoever conceived that strategy for the pro-Rh side deserve to be hanged upside down by his team mates. What do you think?

          • Well that's the beauty of rational discussion. The willingness to adjust – or even abandon altogether – one's position if proven wrong, to trim down the excess fats in order to allow for the passage the important parts. And what you call the "amazing flip-flop on the part of the authors" when they removed the specific reference to pills and IUDs is one of the results of those discussions.

          • And I am sure the majority of these people have good intentions. They are just quarreling over the means and too much damage and animosity is created along the way. I can't help comparing it to kids who fight over a toy, one ends up the winner with a blackeye in the fight but the toy is now broken in the struggle. Worse is winning an argument but losing a friend. If only rational discussion as you say, really leads people to realize: I'd rather be inconsistent with myself rather than be inconsistent with the truth. I hope "civilized ruthlessness" does not prevail.

            I think we are done here. Will you write another interesting article? Hope you do. Say hi to Twin_Skies for me, who seems to be so upset. Peace, man. I promise I won't ever mention Vincenton or Birlinksi again. oops

          • "Civilized ruthlessness"? Hmmm…I wonder where I heard that before, hehe.

            Yes, I totally agree with everything you just said. I'll try to write another article but for the meantime you might want to check the latest post by fellow FF writer ARM. It's about maternal death risks.
            https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/06/16/crossi…

            I also have an older article you might be interested in. You and I have been discussing about the Constitutional Commission of 1986, but this old article of mine talks about the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control. 🙂
            https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/03/20/why-th…

          • [While this is going on, they could use up the time to prepare and move for a repeal of Article II, Section 12. ]

            Repeal it? Why? We're protecting it by ensuring the woman gets the proper measures she deserves in planning her family responsibly.

            [Whoever conceived that strategy for the pro-Rh side deserve to be hanged upside down by his team mates. What do you think?]

            I think whoever thinks that it's worth their time to waste pointless quibbling over protecting a "possible" human being, thereby denying health services to a very real woman, should take a good long look at Barangay Addition Hills, Tondo, and any other squatters area in Manila.

            Seriously willy, you never cease to amaze us with how far up you can stick your head up your ass. Do you do card tricks too?

  6. Question To A Christian?

    I was born in a ghetto
    I was unwanted
    I was uncared for
    I was abused and beaten
    I was sexually molested
    I was raped
    Now, I'm 14 and pregnant
    When does my life begin?

  7. Thank you for the read Jong 😀

    The way I see it, the Pro-Life's emphasis on the pill is nothing more than a drawn-out red herring.

  8.  Records of the Constitutional Commission

    R.C.C. No. 86

    09-18-1986

    MR. OPLE: The answer is satisfactory. I would like to proceed to the next sentence closer to the heart of Commissioners Bacani and Villegas which reads:

    The State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.

    Yesterday, I had the good fortune to listen to some of the interpellations precisely on this sentence. Commissioner Villegas on behalf of the committee then said, “This could be related to some statements in the general provisions on family planning.” Does this mean that, in providing for the protection of the life of the unborn from the moment of conception, this is going to be taken as a signal to dismiss the relevance and validity of all family planning programs in the Philippines? Is that how the committee views this?

    MR. VILLEGAS: No. As we made it very clear yesterday, any contraceptive that is not abortifacient can still be legal, according to this specific provision.

    MR. OPLE: I will vote for this provision, Madam President. I think that in writing a constitution, we write not only provisions of a fundamental law. We set the tone whether we like it, or the tone of a whole civilization, and that is why I also voted for the elimination of the death penalty under certain conditions, subject to certain powers of Congress to provide for exceptions in the case of heinous crimes. Overall, we should raise the tone of our public and social morality through a constitution; and the reverence for life, that time and life is, of course, being rendered cheap by all the threats to our safety in a very disorderly environment. Still a commitment to the protection of life, even in its incipient stage, is a declaration of a commitment to a higher tone of our civilization. But at the same time, I would be very concerned if the committee now taking off from its forthcoming victory on this Section 9 will start considering this as a mandate to discredit, to actually dismiss family planning programs in this country. I heard Commissioner Villegas say that purposeful programs to limit the size of families have failed everywhere. He quoted President Reagan, whose wisdom might lie in other fields than in family planning, as having said that social and economic development is the only key to the reduction of human populations. He referred to the new U.S. policy, which is driving Mr. Salas and his UNFPA to a new lookout. He has applied to be transferred to Tokyo because of this new restrictive atmosphere on family planning in the United States.

    But, of course, may I say that family planning is not a rigid idea. May I tell the body that in the Soviet Union, which I know a little bit since I have travelled there no fewer than seven times, even within that vast country, there are two kinds of population crises. In the European part, it is the crisis of a steadily diminishing population; and, therefore, the State holds up medals of heroism for heroic mothers who would give birth to more than eight children. But in the Asian part of the Soviet Union, there is a reverse problem. They are reproducing at a faster rate. This possesses momentous political and economic implications for the Soviet Union after the year 2000, when the Asiatic population begins to match the European population. And what will we have — crisis of leadership about distribution of leadership and power, especially in the higher strata of the Soviet policy and bureaucracy. But India is different. Japan is different. The Philippines is different. We are a developing country. If my data are still current — I used to sit in the Population Commission — about 10 years ago, our population growth rate was 3.5 percent according to the University of the Philippines. Then it declined over 10 years to only about 2.6 percent. The NEDA now says it is 2.4 percent if I am not mistaken. And yet, these were years of stagnation in manufacturing. As a matter of fact, Philippine manufacturing has never exceeded 14 percent of the total employed force of this country since 20 years ago. Commissioner Villegas is an authority on that. He uses this argument very fiercely in the debates on protectionism.

    Since we did not really grow spectacularly in those 10 years, still the rate of growth of the population dropped precipitously from 3.5 to only 2.4 percent at this time. Will we not give the population policy of the government and of the nongovernmental organizations some credit for having accomplished this small miracle in population control?

    MR. VILLEGAS: That is one of the most statistically debatable issues. Although this is a completely separate question which is not related to Section 9 of the Article on the Declaration of Principles, still my position is that it is subject to the flux and the changes in economic policy, in urbanization and in industrialization. It should be something that should not be found in a constitution, but should be subject to legislation. If family planning is found necessary, let it be in the legislative process. However, as I said, that is a completely separate question. LLphil

    MR. OPLE: This is a slight revision of the views which the Commissioner gave yesterday, but I hope this is the official one.

    MR. VILLEGAS: What I stressed yesterday was to support in the separate discussion on the Article on the General Provisions the idea of deleting any reference to population policy precisely because today it may be that we want to limit population. Tomorrow it may be that we want to increase population.

    MR. OPLE: Thank you very much for that clarification.

    I want to ask now: Does this belong to the province of Commissioner Villegas or Commissioner Bacani? We say, “Protect the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.” Is there in jurisprudence anything now that will help us visualize the precise moment, the approximate moment when conception begins and, therefore, the life of this new human personality entitled to all the protection of the laws in the Constitution begins? Is there any standard legislature or jurisprudence that will support an interpretation of the moment of conception?

    MR. VILLEGAS: Jurisprudence? None. Precisely, this is one thing that we have to obtain from the declaration of natural scientists. In this regard, I would like to read this specific statement by natural scientists about when human life begins. This is taken from the Handbook on Abortion by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Wilke. The most distinguished scientific meeting of recent years that considered this question of when human life begins was the First International Conference on Abortion held in Washington D.C. in October 1967. It brought together authorities from around the world in the fields of medicine, law, ethics and the social sciences. They met together in a think tank for several days. The first major question considered by the medical group was: When does human life begin? The medical group was composed of biochemists, professors of obstetrics and gynecology, geneticists and so forth, and was represented proportionately as to academic discipline raised in religion. For example, only 20 percent were Catholics. Their almost unanimous conclusion, 19 to 1, was as follows:

    The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg which is the fertilization or, at least, the blastocyst stage and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life.

    Parenthetically, the blastocyst stage is shortly after fertilization and would account for twinning. They continued:

    The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week-old child or a mature adult, are merely stages of development and maturation.

    There has not been before a more important or a more qualified body of natural scientists who, as a group, has thoroughly discussed and come to conclusion on this subject until such time as some other groups of equal scientific importance might possibly come to a different conclusion. We believe that the abortion debate from a scientific standpoint must proceed on the assumption that this is human life. So, human life begins at fertilization of the ovum.

    MR. OPLE: But we would leave to Congress the power, the mandate to determine.

    MR. VILLEGAS: Exactly, on the basis of facts and figures they would obtain from experts.

    MR. OPLE: Yes, to legislate a kind of standard so that everyone will know what moment of conception will mean in terms of legal rights and obligations…

  9. Records of the Constitutional Commission

    R.C.C. No. 85

    09-17-1986

    MR. AZCUNA: Commissioner Villegas is not in the hall at the moment, but the committee will be willing to answer.

    MR. GASCON: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

    As I mentioned in my speech on the U.S. bases, I am definitely pro-life, to the point that I would like not only to protect the life of the unborn, but also the lives of the millions of people in the world by fighting for a nuclear-free world. I would just like to be assured of the legal and pragmatic implications of the term “protection of the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.” I raised some of these implications this afternoon when I interjected in the interpellation of Commissioner Regalado. I would like to ask that question again for a categorical answer.

    I mentioned that if we institutionalize the term “the life of the unborn from the moment of conception,” we are also actually saying “no,” not “maybe,” to certain contraceptives which are already being encouraged at this point in time. Is that the sense of the committee or does it disagree with me?

    MR. AZCUNA: No, Mr. Presiding Officer, because contraceptives would be preventive. There is no unborn yet. That is yet unshaped.

    MR. GASCON: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, but I was speaking more about some contraceptives, such as the intra-uterine device which actually stops the egg which has already been fertilized from taking route to the uterus. So, if we say “from the moment of conception,” what really occurs is that some of these contraceptives will have to be unconstitutionalized.

    MR. AZCUNA: Yes, to the extent that it is after the fertilization, Mr. Presiding Officer.

    MR. GASCON: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

  11. oh please prolifers are looking for reasons to ban anything that the old farts think are evil. they would call condoms abortifacients if possible and ban the as well.

    So far they even went so far as to make a study linking condoms and cancer, despite the clear lack of reports of cancer caused by condoms since 1920. so maybe if you wear condoms 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, just maybe. so if chain smokers will get lung cancer. will chain sexers get penis cancer?

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

SUBSCRIBE

Stay Updated

Subscribe now

REPORT

Secularism Violations

Report here

one who forms opinions on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief; one who doubts or denies religious dogma

Contact us at [email protected]

© 2021 Filipino Freethinkers. All rights reserved.

Menu

Blog

Featured Articles