One of the issues delaying the passage of the RH Bill is the question of when life begins, or more importantly, when the protection of life begins. It’s no help that our constitution uses the imprecise term conception, allowing a lot of room for discussion as the pro-life argue that it refers to fertilization while others maintain that it means implantation, and this debate has taken long enough at the expense of the rest of the provisions of the bill which have nothing to do with the fertilized ovum, such as providing for midwives, emergency obstetric care, and maternal and newborn health care in crisis situations.
While the World Health Organization has already answered that “to date, there is no scientific evidence supporting the contention that hormonal contraceptives and IUD prevent implantation of the fertilized ovum,” the pro-life continue to claim otherwise and even assert that since the bill seeks to provide for these contraceptives, the bill is therefore unconstitutional. I have argued in a previous post that they are actually objecting to the pill, not the bill, and this is just a follow up. If we look at two sections from both Edcel Lagman’s House Bill 96 and the final consolidated RH Bill, HB 4244, we will see the important difference that renders the pro-life’s objection moot:
| HOUSE BILL 96 | HOUSE BILL 4244 |
| Sec. 4. Definition of Terms Modern Methods of Family Planning – refers to safe, effective and legal methods to prevent pregnancy such as the pill, intra-uterine device (IUD), injectables, condom, ligation, vasectomy, and modern natural family planning methods which include mucus, Billings, ovulation, lactational amenorrhea, basal body temperature, and Standard Days methods. | Sec. 4. Definition of Terms Modern Methods of Family Planning refer to safe, effective and legal methods, whether the natural, or the artificial that are registered with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the DOH, to prevent pregnancy. |
| Sec. 9. Family Planning Supplies as Essential Medicines Hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe and effective family planning products and supplies shall be part of the National Drug Formulary and the same shall be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national and local hospitals and other government health units. | Sec. 10. Family Planning Supplies as Essential Medicines Products and supplies for modern family planning methods shall be part of the National Drug Formulary and the same shall be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national and local hospitals and other government health units. |
While HB 96 specifically identifies pills, IUDs and injectables as essentials, HB 4244 only uses the general term “modern family planning methods,” which it defines as referring to safe, effective and, most importantly, legal methods. The significance of this is that the protracted debates on the question of when the protection of life begins as well as the alleged abortifacient effects of certain contraceptives can be detached from the debate on the bill itself. If specific contraceptives are proven to be abortifacient and banned by the FDA, they obviously won’t be purchased and distributed by the government even with the passage of the RH Bill since only legal methods shall be provided for.
Fr. Joaquin Bernas, one of the members of the Constitutional Commission of 1986, says:
“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.”
While a sweeping generalization is already irresponsible, dragging the RH Bill into the abortifacients issue and saying that it promotes abortion is downright insane, especially with the final consolidated version. That issue is separate from the RH Bill and should be discussed in another venue. I hope people will see that. Because that means one less objection, and handling objections in congress takes time, and meanwhile mothers are dying for lack of maternal care for which the RH Bill seeks to provide.
Lastly, the bill explicitly recognizes that abortion is illegal and punishable by law. What many people may not know is that about 500,000 induced abortions are happening in the Philippines each year. By providing education and information on reproductive health and access to modern family planning methods, the RH Bill aims to significantly reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and the resulting illegal abortions. So while the RH Bill will not promote the use of abortifacient drugs and devices, it also actually seeks to prevent the need to even resort to abortion.
RCC campaigns on State to accept its position on family planning…
They are citizens and taxpayers. It would be a violation of human rights for the State to ignore their demand.
1) The 'Church' campaigning the State is a legitimate exercise. Substitute NGO, political party, cause-oriented group, any legitimate group for that matter to the word 'Church' in that sentence and it would amount to be a legitimate exercise still. Anyone should be free to campaign the State for that is what democracy is all about. Any group should be free to campaign the state, while the state is under
no compulsion anyway to follow any one groups' campaign as it sees fit. The State has defied Church campaigns anyway in the past already. I see no reason for concern about Church campaigns. Therefore the Church can campaign among its members and it can also campaign to the State. The Church is campaigning worldwide to all democratic states, what the bishops are doing in
the Philippines is no different elsewhere.
2) It is not a human right to be given free contraceptives by the government. Refusal to do so does not constitute a human rights violation on the part of the government. A basic human right must pertain to all persons regardless. In fact you cannot find anything in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that says it is a basic human right for all persons to be subsidized in their option to indulge in frequent sex with contraceptives. It is not the duty of the government to shield its citizens from the consequences of their willful sexual activities even as we note they have the faculty to manage such tendencies without the benefit of subsidies. If those 15% do not want NFP (the only reason being lack of discipline really), then they are free to use contraceptives by buying them on their own. The state has no obligation whatsoever to shoulder the expense of their sexual proclivities. Btw, and why should the state reward lack of discipline?
1) Re your point 1. Note the two parts of what I said: a) the RCC campaigns State; b) RCC succeeds (State adopts RCC policy). I also said previously "you are urging the State to violate human rights". You are arguing that the campaigning, the urging part is legitimate. It may indeed be protected by freedom of speech & related rights. But freedom of speech has also been restricted on certain grounds; e.g., advocating hatred, discrimination or violence against certain groups (for example, against people with "sexual proclivities" that are beyond what the RCC deems acceptable or normal). I am uncertain about the RCC's campaign on FP (protect or restrict, I have to study this further), which is why I used the term "Option". The RCC can certainly exercise good judgment and self-restraint and do Option 1, which I think is consistent with both the letter and spirit of the 1990 joint statement.
If the State adopts the RCC policy (or any religious policy), then the violation of human rights is consummated. At the very least, religious freedom is violated since we are not a theocratic state, people are free to believe & exercise any or no religious doctrine. On FP, other rights will be violated, such as those in point 2 below.
2) Re your point 2. Read the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econv…
"States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women … the same rights to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights;" (Article 16 e)
"States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning." (Article 12)
The CEDAW human rights treaty imposes 2 State obligations that are relevant to the debate surrounding the RCC teachings. One, the State must ensure free decision-making by men and women ("decide freely"). Two, the State must ensure that they have access to the "information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights." State funding for contraceptive services and supplies are clearly covered by the 2nd obligation. Note also the Article 12 State obligation which details further the meaning of the "means to enable" phrase: discrimination in health care must be eliminated, and such non-discriminatory health care must include family planning.
If the RCC restriction (NFP-only) is done voluntarily, the practice is consistent with the "decide freely" language of CEDAW. If the RCC restriction is imposed on everyone by the State, then the CEDAW State obligations outlined above are violated.
3) Your points about "frequent sex", "sexual proclivities" and "lack of discipline" are mere judgmental opinions based on perceived practices of couples using contraceptives. You have no eyes in their bedrooms, and "lack of discipline" is a very sweeping generalization. What if they do not behave as you perceive them to behave? And are there standards of frequency in sex?
Campaigning the government (regardless who does it) falls under the ambit of freedom of speech. Restriction of this right requires strict scrutiny as to whether a particular expression of such right entails a "clear and present danger". Campaigns on the HR bill directed towards the state, whether for or against, do not present a "clear and present danger" either way. Whatever the State decides at the end of the day is a distinct issue from the right to free speech. There are already laws (eg libel, defamation, inciting to sedition, etc) that spells out limits to free speech and legitimate campaigns are par for the course. Public discourse is not served by restraining campaigns of any one group. Thus, a perceived violation of human rights is not contingent on a "consummation" of whatever state decision associated from prior campaigns.
http://law.upd.edu.ph/plj/images/files/PLJ%20volu…
On the CEDAW, we must note that the recent enactment of the Magna Carta For Women (MCW) was precisely founded upon key items in CEDAW. There is nothing in the RH bill which is not more comprehensively addressed in the MCW in terms of eliminating discrimination for women. Thus, appealing to the CEDAW to justify the RH bill fails on the very realization that the state only needs to implement the MCW to address the concerns of the RH bill in this particular area. The RH bill is therefore redundant and unnecessary as far as women empowerment is concerned. The charge that "If the RCC restriction is imposed on everyone by the State, then the CEDAW State obligations outlined above are violated" is therefore invalid. The MCW is already here precisely. The issue is moot. The state need only to implement. As to why the activists of women empowerment have not raised their hackles to MCW's non-implementation remains a mystery. It is even a greater mystery that the Commission on Women (an agency directly under the Office of the President) , which is tasked to oversee the implementation – is strangely missing-in-action. We have a budget surplus this year, don’t we.They already have the law behind them, what are they doing?
With what I currently know, yes I will side with you and say that the RCC campaign is protected speech. But we are at an impasse here because I think you are sidestepping the RCC option based on self-restraint (reviving the 1990 position) and the human rights violation that will occur if the State agrees to adopt a religious doctrine and/or restrict family planning methods and services.
Your MCW argument is quite weak. If the RH bill is a mere reiteration of existing law, then why oppose the bill at all? It will be hard to convince people that so much passion has been released on the issue of a proposed law being moot. You have actually expressed clearly your side's reasons for opposing the bill in your past posts (e.g., abortifacients, government funding for contraceptives), and it would be best for all to just focus on clarifying those issues.
If the RH bill was all about maternal and child health and nothing besides, it wouldn't create such a controversy. Note that in my very first comment in
your previous earlier post, https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/06/16/crossi…
I agreed with the 4 provisions you listed, only that they have to be "seamlessly integrated with existing DOH systems addressing the same needs". We have no objection to legislation addressing maternal health and women empowerment. However, one has to question the wisdom (or lack of it) in introducing
new legislation that addresses concerns which are already addressed by existing laws, systems and structures. It is allocating precious
legislative resources to an outcome that has no value-add.
Thus if we concede the redundancy aspect (otherwise the legislators have to state what is the value-add of the RH bill on maternal health and women empowerment that is not already addressed by DOH and MCW), we are left with the essence of the RH bill and I believe you got it pinned down: abortifacients and government funding for contraceptives. The only innovation in the bill is that it will classify contraceptives as "essential medicines", thus it will be entitled to mandated and recurring budgets. Note that the sponsors have already stated that the provision of contraceptives is one (note just one) among the many approaches to addressing poverty.
It means all sides can agree there are many approaches. Which approach to prioritize will be a very contentious matter. Countryside development, livelihood programs, education, etc..everyone agrees to them. It is just that the RH bill sponsors insist that the provision of free contraceptives must be a key ingredient in solving poverty. It is a contentious issue with each side presenting contrasting studies. Just today, a report came out with the MMDA planning officer being quoted on the plight of slum dwellers.
“You must arrest the root cause, which is uncompetitive rural incomes." http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/18918/slum-trap-for-…
With these in mind and our prior comments, I propose that there is only one significant thing that may turn the tide in favor of the RH bill. Is the entitlement to state-funded contraceptives an authentic human right? This question would be along your proposal on what is best to clarify.
//If the RH bill was all about maternal and child health and nothing besides, it wouldn't create such a controversy.//
So let's focus on the controversy. The redundancy/moot argument is easy to refute but leads to nowhere. Let's not go into that. (I won't.)
//solving poverty//
We will probably agree on many anti-poverty measures, but will not make a dent on the RH controversy. It is also unfair to judge the RH bill on its ability to solve poverty. E.g., NFP can effectively limit the family size if couples are motivated–should NFP be measured and judged mainly as an anti-poverty strategy?
//Is the entitlement to state-funded contraceptives an authentic human right?//
I answered this one by citing CEDAW. Remember "decide freely" and "means" to do so? Other than formal, legal HR agreements, the other simple answer is women and men who need and want contraceptives have the right to expect help from government. Unless you have a reason to single out contraceptives as an off-limits area for government help.
CEDAW Article 12 – 1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning.
Arm,
Wes has a point when he refers to the term "socialized service". Under this term of reference the state aims for the general welfare of all the people within its means, with a mind towards a judicious use of its scarce resources for the nation's overall interests. Take note that CEDAW Art 12 is couched in very broad terms -"appropriate measures". No international declaration is every prescriptive enough in its language except when primary, inalienable rights are concerned. Thus when we speak of such inalienable rights such as the right to free speech, the right to a fair trial when accused, the right to peaceful assembly, the right to earn a living, etc.., — the state is under compulsion to do whatever it takes to protect those inalienable rights, for that is the primary role of the state. But strain itself just to give free contraceptives? In principle the state already agrees to CEDAW, that is precisely why it enacted the Magna Carta For Women. As far as "access" to contraceptives is concerned, the government has not restricted its availability in drugstores nationwide. For provision of free contraceptives, the record of DOH budget shows it delivered (sabi nila) P2.8 million worth of contraceptives in 2008, P3.7M in 2009, and P8.9M IN 2011. Thus, we can say that in principle we do not violate CEDAW but we manage our resources prudently and judiciously to provide "socialized service" – the entire concept of it. While it is acceptable for the RH bill to appeal to CEDAW, the sponsors' prescription to forcibly allocate 3 Billion for free contraceptives is not justified by the same provision. The state is under no obligation to allocate 3 billion or more to free contraceptives, even as it is already constrained in cutting the budgets of the real basic services that it struggles to support. The state has already cut too much from the essential services, where does the RH Bill propose to get its funds? http://cbcpforlife.com/?p=2281
//the government has not restricted its availability in drugstores nationwide//
TB drugs, vaccines, anti-malarials are all available in drugstores, yet we have public health programs that procure those drugs. To target contraceptives as off-limits to government support, when it has the money to buy other drugs, is discrimination (affecting mostly women, hence CEDAW's special mention). Non-discrimination is a cornerstone of human rights.
//judicious use of its scarce resources//
The economic, social and cultural rights (e.g., health, housing, employment, etc) place this factor under the concept of "progressive realization". Even under this concept, discrimination is prohibited, as stated clearly in this General Comment to the right to health:
"While the Covenant provides for progressive realization and acknowledges the constraints due to the limits of available resources, it also imposes on States parties various obligations which are of immediate effect. States parties have immediate obligations in relation to the right to health, such as the guarantee that the right will be exercised without discrimination of any kind (art. 2.2) and the obligation to take steps (art. 2.1) towards the full realization of article 12. Such steps must be deliberate, concrete and targeted towards the full realization of the right to health." http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/40d0099…
//forcibly allocate 3 Billion//
You are overstating your case. The RH bill says that budgets will be allocated via the annual General Appropriations Act–just the regular budget process. What "forcibly" are you talking about?
//where does the RH Bill propose to get its funds?//
From the country's annual pool of public funds, through the budget process. Now if you are just saying that the "8.9M in 2011" for contraceptives is enough and 3B is too much, then this is an issue for the annual GAA, not the RH bill.
//Btw, and why should the state reward lack of discipline? //
now this is just plain bad rhetoric. contraceptives are by no means a "reward" any more than, as @arm pointed out, overpasses are made to "reward" jaywalkers. If people are hard-headed and wont follow basic safety rules by themselves, the government has to step in and use more direct methods to create a safer environment for its citizens – whether it be crossing the street safely or engaging in safer sex.
//Btw, and why should the state reward lack of discipline?//
By that reasoning, shouldn't we just deny medical treatment to car accident victims if it's found to be their fault?
I'd add solidarity, cost-effectiveness and efficiency as other reasons for government to step in, other than dealing with hard-headed folks. WillyJ argues that each should take care of his/her contraceptive needs–kanya-kanya. If applied to all, it is an argument for stopping all public works and services, and maybe just giving people tax rebates to spend as they wish. (Sounds close to Ayn Rand's vision.) I think he'll have a hard time justifying this vision to deal solely with contraceptives.
[If applied to all, it is an argument for stopping all public works and services, and maybe just giving people tax rebates to spend as they wish. (Sounds close to Ayn Rand's vision.) I think he'll have a hard time justifying this vision to deal solely with contraceptives. ]
Then I invite WillyJ to play Bioshock 1 and 2, so he can see firsthand where that idea will take a society.
Cmon folks, let's face the funding issue squarely. When the RH bill says contraceptives will be classified as "essential medicines" (btw, what does it cure anyway?), the DOH will be forced to stock them in the national drug formulary. Contraceptives will be bought and stocked along with anti-tuberculosis drugs, hypertension drugs, diabetes, cardio, etcetera drugs that combat the top 10 mortality causes. That is the nice trick about the classification. Note that our really essential drugs are already woefully lacking. This will cost. It was Lagman himself who computed 3 Billion in the initial year of implementation, aren't we taking his word for it? Anyway, I thought the amount was peanuts, considering the bill has a LOT of objectives aside from giving out free contraceptives. I'll let you guys to do the math. I count roughly 4.7 million poor males in the 15-49 age bracket, while there are 5 million females in the same bracket. Those are the poor people only. Now how much does pills, condoms, injectibles, etc cost. and how much quantity each would be reasonable to cover the 'human right' to state-funded, no-worry sex of those 9.7 million males and females?
would have been a *lot* cheaper if IUD were an option diba?
but then again, its you guys that are also against its use 🙁
//what does it cure anyway?//
Prevents pregnancy complications, that may lead to hospitalization or death. Prevents infant deaths from too closely spaced pregnancies. NFP does the same thing. I find the pregnancy-is-not-a-disease argument in bad taste since the answer is quite obvious.
//DOH will be forced to stock//
Yes, because the DOH executes laws–just regular workings of government. The RH bill does say that the supply and budget of the DOH will be based on demand (see Sec 11). If demand is low, then budget is low, just like other government stocks.
//Contraceptives will be bought and stocked along with … drugs that combat the top 10 mortality causes//
This is an argument for rational budgeting, not for pegging contraceptives budget to zero. Dengue is not among the top 10 causes of deaths–are you proposing to give it zero budget? Maternal deaths probably rank among the top-12 causes of females deaths–are you saying "Tough luck, you didn't make the cut."
//our really essential drugs are already woefully lacking//
Contraceptives are really essential drugs, together with anti-infectives, etc. The problem with the extremist position you're taking (zero for contraceptives), you cannot concede the obvious solution: rationally budget the available funds. If contraceptives end up with 10M or 1M after carefully balancing needs, then so be it.
//I count roughly 4.7 million poor males in the 15-49 age bracket, while there are 5 million females//
Major mistake (or maybe not if the intent is to scare people with inflated figures). You should only count people who are married or sexually active, who want to stop having children or space the next pregnancy, and not infertile. Adding men and women also inflates the figure–one method can be used per couple.
//no-worry sex//
Effective NFP brings the same benefits. What's your problem with this?
So, how much do you think is appropriate? Remember 2.6 billion was already released for Family Planning purpose for the past 3 years even in the absence of the bill. If the RH bill sponsors were already contented with that amount, you think they would still push for the bill? But wait, the 2.6 billion seems to have evaporated into thin air http://www.tribuneonline.org/headlines/20110513he…
Hmm, PNoy was quite right in saying "kung walang kurap…".
If you claim "carefully balancing needs", the government has already been doing that, not exactly with high marks. Look into the the 2011 GAA and you will find no less than 12 billion in the DOH budget for new appropriations, http://randomthoughtsmusings.blogspot.com/2011/04…
which according to Cong Mitos Magsaysay was crafted particularly in line with the maternal health concerns addressed in the Magna Carta for Women.
You say "inflated figures". I ask you how much do you think the pro-RH legislators want over and above the current 12.07 B in the GAA and the 2.6 B in FP supplies already being currently granted?
and how much billions are lost to DEPED, DOJ and AFP?
and your side insists we should invest more into those departments. do remember one scandal of DEPED they imported English books from VIETNAM and THAILAND (non-english speaking nations) WTF indeed. now they are asking for P380 billion.
repeat the cycle next year where we'll have another 2million babies to worry about, 60:1 student teacher ratios and countless graduates with nothing to look forward too.
and do we even need to go into DOJ and AFP?
that 2.6 billion you are crying about? small pickings in a bigger ocean.
no point in talking statistics and numbers to you. for fundies like you, all math and sciences are all in the bible. we get our data from more specialized sources thank you very much.
The estimates for various models have been made in 2008. To get effective family planning to all women at risk of unintended pregnancies, the figures are as follows:
– all using NFP only : 2.9 B
– all using the current method mix (i.e., w/ traditional methods like withdrawal and rhythm): 2.7 B
– all using modern methods (i.e., current method mix without the traditional methods; NFP classed as modern): 4.0 B
Source: http://www.likhaan.org/content/meeting-womens-con…
These expenditure estimates are from a baseline amount of 1.9 B since people and some LGUs do spend for FP. These are also ideal demand scenarios since some/many may decide to risk unintended pregnancies, especially those who want to postpone but not stop altogether. Budgeting will therefore be a mix of all things we know: ideal demand, actual demand, demands of other services, etc.
Thanks for the info.
So by the 2008 Likhaan conservative estimate cost for "effective family planning", Lagman's proposal of 3 Billion could only roughly cover financing the FP methods.
and none of the other objectives maternal/child health/sex education/Philhealth upgrade. I suppose sooner or later he will be required to explain the funding issue and mechanisms in the continuation of interpellation period. Bakit kasi kinomplicate nila Lagman ang bill sana Family Planning bill na lang for contraceptive state promotion. Ang hirap ngayon i-analyze.
//Lagman's proposal of 3 Billion could only roughly cover financing the FP methods//
Not true. 3 B would be too much for contraception alone. Let's use the NFP-only scenario (you do agree with providing NFP training to people who want to avoid pregnancy?) so that your method-related objections do not complicate the analysis.
2.9 B would be needed to NFP-train all at risk for unintended pregnancies. From this ideal number, you must deduct the following 3 major items:
1) peso valuation of users of permanent & long-term methods (ligation, vasectomy, IUD) and NFP
2) peso valuation of users of other supply methods (pills, injections, condoms) who are paying for their own use (middle and upper class folks; in general, out-of-pocket health spending amounts to 50% of total health care costs, so this can serve as a rough estimate)
3) peso valuation (in terms of NFP training in this exercise) of users of traditional methods or no methods who will not voluntarily shift to a modern method (NFP) despite government support (coercion is a punishable act in the RH bill).
Items 1 and 2 form part of the 1.9 B baseline spending, and the baseline spending in turn is part of the 2.9 B ideal estimate. Items 1 & 2 should be deducted from the 2.9 B since government need not spend for them anymore (no recurrent cost, or they can fend for themselves). Item 3 should be deducted from the 2.9 B since the ideal will, in real life, not ever be reached.
The roughest estimate would be to just deduct baseline spending from the ideal total spending: 2.9 B less 1.9 B = 1.0 B. Budget specialists from the DOH will of course do more refined estimates. Then comes the reality check and balancing all public health interests—which we also support—and the budget will be trimmed further down. So between zero (discriminatory) and 3 B (way too much), there is a reasonable figure that can be decided based on facts and estimates.
Arm,
Guttmacher, then. I think our baselines are different.
Note too that Guttmacher uses understated figures for its estimated cost of artificial contraceptives. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/MWCNPmethodology.p…
For example, its basis for the cost of pills is P24.50 per cycle of DKT pills (at 2008 prices)
The current cost of DKT pills is at P40.50 per cycle. http://www.mims.com/Philippines/drug/info/Trust%2…
Note also that one should not net out your factor #2 from Guttmachers ideal baseline spending of 2.9 B.
"middle and upper class folks" should not expect contraceptive dole-outs. The deduction does not apply.
My baseline simply considers the target population in the 15-49 age bracket. http://www.nscb.gov.ph/secstat/d_popn.asp
This is 2000 NSO data but I can't find any demographic statistic that is based on a more recent census. I count the population again in the 15-49 age bracket and I come up with 19.71M males and 19.39M females in this age bracket. I apply the 1/3 poverty percentage and I come up with 6.57M poor males and 6.46M poor females (my original comment of 4.7M males and 5M females was wrongly calculated) Now since this is Year 2000 data let us assume a 2% annual population growth then we adjust the figures to 2011 levels.
We come up with 8.03M females and 8.17M males. This figure represent poor population only – the supposed target of artificial contraceptives subsidy.
If you include the middle class in your target the figure can go even higher.
Now let me just use a very conservative 1/2 of this figure to take into account your points #1 and #3 so then I arrive at a target population of 4.02M females and 4.08M males. Any reasonable artificial contraceptive dole-out plan should cover this target population sector.
Note that Guttmacher itself used a much higher figure as they say: "10.2 million women at risk for unintended pregnancy". I wonder how it arrived at that figure.
No matter how I swing it, an allocation of 3 billion pesos for the RH bill is still way off.
WillyJ, you really should get A for patience and persistence from FF folks 🙂
I can immediately see why we get different figures, but rather than comment piecemeal, I'll try to do 2010 or 11 estimates using Guttmacher's methodology and point out where we differ.
uh thanks. I'll wait for the adjusted figures. Meanwhile I give you an A+ for the same 🙂
//Likhaan conservative estimate//
Clarify lang, the authors are from the Guttmacher Institute and the UP Population Institute. Likhaan helped via comments. "Guttmacher estimate" is the accurate short description.
The bishop is right from a theological point of view. He is not at variance with Church teaching when he said that. Maybe you meant the Bishops are not emphasizing this point nowadays in the heat of the discussions and maybe you are correct if that is so. But there is no contradiction. Tell me of a more recent church pronouncement that goes against this and I will be glad to clarify. The church recognizes conscience even if it is in variance with its moral tradition, but that does not mean it endorses the variance. It will tolerate those positions that are at variance, but it will constantly and vigorously oppose government policies that coerce the people, especially on matters that go against inherent human rights. The right to be born, once conceived, is one such inherent right. All other rights precede from this right.
I was not referring to theological teachings; there is no trap at the end of my questions that will show theological inconsistency. My point is all about public policy, so I'll just focus on your last 2 sentences and comment on its parts.
// It will tolerate those positions that are at variance [with its moral tradition]//
Agreed. This is the expected behavior for all citizens and organizations in a democratic society.
//it will constantly and vigorously oppose government policies that coerce the people, especially on matters that go against inherent human rights//
Agreed. But maybe this is where we start departing. On family planning, RH bill advocates support the rights of people to (a) determine the number and spacing of children; (b) to choose legal and safe means to do so, or choose nothing at all; and (c) to have a government that respects, protects and fulfills human rights a & b. All these 3 (a, b, c) are in the RH bill (I can cite if you ask).
I think the RCC has no problem with (a) but has set limits to (b) and (c) that has absolutely nothing to do with your "right to be born, once conceived" argument. Why can't the RCC follow its 1990 statement, slightly revised as follows: "In a pluralistic society and recognizing the freedom of those who disagree with Church principles, the Church respects the government's toleration of [tubal ligation, vasectomy, condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps and spermicides] that the conscience of others may not object to and that the law on abortion does not forbid."
By insisting that the State conform to RCC policy on licit birth control methods, you are urging the State to violate human rights a, b & c. Your totally legitimate option, since the RCC has objections to contraception and sterilization, is to direct your intense campaign not at the State, but at all RCC members so teachings are accepted and followed voluntarily.
//The right to be born, once conceived…//
I have many points here, but it will be on the other issues (e.g., your deer hunting principle, my bridges analogy, etc.) we can tackle after this one.
and btw, look at the PDR.
The Physician’s Desk Reference is the most frequently used reference book by physicians in America. The PDR, as it’s often called, lists and explains the effects, benefits, and risks of every medical product that can be legally prescribed. The Food and Drug Administration requires that each manufacturer provide accurate information on its products, based on scientific research and laboratory tests. This information is included in the PDR.
This is the PDR’s product information for Ortho-Cept, as listed by Ortho, one of the largest manufacturers of the Pill:
Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus, and changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation.
The analogy on bridges do not apply. There is no willful trade-off of the value of life between the means and ends. Bridges are specifically designed to consider the safety and the well-being of those who cross it as well as those who don't.
//The burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies.//
Agreed. You are asserting that products currently classified as contraceptives be reclassified as abortifacients; currently classified as legal be declared illegal. These classifications are supported by evidence from medical authorities. Millions of users will be affected, restrained by the State from pursuing their chosen action. Clear, concrete harm (human rights, health, economic wellbeing of families, etc) will be done to people. Question: what evidence will support the radical changes you want done?
//Clinical Research for Wyeth//
This is a dead-end for you. If there is a manufacturer with a different description of their product's mechanism of action, will you accept that specific product?
//Physician’s Desk Reference is the most frequently used reference book by physicians in America//
This implies that you accept medical evidence. Why do you accept PDR, a commercial entity, and dismiss WHO, an intergovernmental authority?
The building/bridge analogy is appropriate. We have products (contraceptives, buildings/bridges) that answer many people's valid needs. The products may cause harm both to users and bystanders. The products are regulated by the State precisely to ensure safety, quality, efficacy (efficacy–"capacity to produce a desired effect"). The regulatory bodies are staffed by professionals competent in the field. The regulatory bodies have concluded, weighing available evidence in their fields of expertise, and using reasonable standards to pass or fail products, that the products are safe. You want to implement another pass/fail standard: absolute proof beyond any doubt that the product will not harm a bystander/user. I was asking, is this a standard meant for contraceptives only? If yes, why the special treatment? If no, can you reasonably argue that this standard exists or can be done for other products, such as buildings and bridges.
I have problems with your deer shooting analogy. I understand "something in the bushes" stand for the life that may be harmed. But who is the shooter, the woman contraceptive-user? The gun is the contraceptive? Then what does the deer or the shooting/killing of deers represent? Where is government regulation in your analogy? Not in the licensing of guns because your analogy focuses on the use of the gun, not the gun per se. Are you saying contraceptives per se are ok, but women must be careful using it–e.g., taking pills on time religiously so that ovulation does not occur.
1. Any misperformance of the FDA through incorrectly classifying certain drugs (intentional or otherwise) do not redound to legality.
2. If a contraceptive manufacturer honestly labels its products and complies with due screening procedures, and if such passes the regulatory guidelines to the letter, I do not see any reason for refusal of accreditation of their products. Perhaps medical science can discover something along the line in the future. But until then…
3. I have no problems per se with WHO, only that we be choosy in the application of its recommendations to conform with our independent legal system and culture.
There is no special treatment, only that FDA performs according to its mandate. If FDA (then BFAD) banned POSTINOR in 2001 on constitutional grounds, it makes you wonder why it has not applied the same standards to all products in like manner.
4. The deer hunter principle says when human life is at stake, take the safest side. There is always the choice to take the safest side. Deer hunting has regulations too, and you don't shoot at will with the mindset that 99% of the time, you are going to kill a deer instead of a human being. If government regulations in deer hunting allow
you that, there is something grievously wrong with the regulations. On the other hand if the regulations don't allow it but the forest rangers don't police, then there is something grievously wrong in the enforcement. The forest is for everybody, not just the deer hunters. The woman deserves care and protection but so does the unborn, who is a separate, defenseless entity. The regulations/constitution say so. There are also bird-watchers in that forest. Now if the bird-watchers are exposed to a 1% chance of being on the receiving end of a double-barrel (while the forest ranger allows it in spite of the regulations against), wouldn't that be a grave injustice?
Getting too thin. Posted my reply here: https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/06/21/aborti…
Stop shoving logic down peoples throat!
You people make me sick, how do you expect religious fanatics and fundametalist to debate when you keep using logic in your arguments!
People have the right to blindly follow other people wearing clerical clothing who claims to know and understand "God".
:p
[dragging the RH Bill into the abortifacients issue and saying that it promotes abortion is outright insane, especially with the final consolidated version. That issue is separate from the RH Bill and should be discussed in another venue. I hope people will see that.]
In 1990, the CBCP agreed (with the Cory Aquino government) to the above solution. Maybe a reader close to the CBCP can explain their change of stance. In a statement still available here http://www.cbcponline.net/documents/1990s/1990-fa… , the issue of alleged abortifacients was handled this way:
"4. The means allowed under the [Family Planning] Program are limited to what is legally available in the Philippines. Abortion being illegal, any practice found to lead to or to induce abortion would also be deemed illegal on the basis of medical evidence evaluated by government authorities.
5. The means allowed, which include natural family planning, IUD's, sterilization and oral contraceptive pills, are made available to those who opt for them. If any of these methods are determined to be abortifacient, they will be disallowed.
The Church reiterates its objections to contraception and sterilization and expresses its reservations about the moral acceptability of certain aspects of the Program. But in a pluralistic society and recognizing the freedom of those who disagree with Church principles, the Church respects the government's toleration of other means that the conscience of others may not object to and that the law on abortion does not forbid. Nonetheless, the Church seeks a greater emphasis on natural family planning as consistent with moral teachings and religious beliefs."
Bishop Varela prefaced the above with the following caveats, but I still think their position now is extremely harsh compared to their 1990 statement:
"The statement, contrary to the understanding of some, is neither an agreement nor an accord. Rather, it is a statement which merely identifies points of dialogue, including common and divergent concerns."
I'm not close to the bishops, but my guess is senility.
Now, now Ster, don't shut the door too soon 🙂 I was thinking maybe some of our visitors like WillyJ can explain (I also meant close in spirit when I said close to CBCP; no offense intended). And if WillyJ does reappear, I'm also interested in getting his response to my somewhat related question here: https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/06/16/crossi… which also deals with flip-flops, contradictory messages from Catholic leaders.
I thought I heard a prayer 🙂
Jong, Arm. Let me ask you two a simple question. If the premise of the RH bill is that life begins at implantation (insisted upon and affirmed time and again by Lagman et al) what would would be the premise of FDA's regulatory parameter when the bill passes? Fertilization or Implantation? Remember, HB 4244 has a repealing clause for regulatory agencies, and that includes FDA.
If the RH bill states in any of its sections that life begins at implantation, then that would be the FDA's regulatory parameter. But this debate is immaterial to contraception because all methods act prior to fertilization. See these 2 WHO statements: http://www.likhaan.org/content/who-expert-opinion… http://www.likhaan.org/content/who-official-reply…
Unless you have a health authority better than WHO saying otherwise.
The implantation – fertilization debates will impact on other procedures currently done in the country like IVF and removal of ectopic pregnancies. The prayer was not mine; maybe God has an FF subscription 🙂
Arm, I read the 2 WHO opinions in their entirety. It does not claim that OCPs and the like are 100% effective in the prevention of ovulation. It does not deny the possibility of breakthrough ovulation. It does not categorically deny either that the resultant thinning of the endometrium inhibits implantation. Further, we also have to understand that WHO defines the start of life at implantation. On IVF, we will cross the bridge when we get there.
Jong, you did not answer the question and neither did Arm. IRRs are eventually guided by the spirit of the law more than its letter. Arm however says "If the RH bill states in any of its sections that life begins at implantation, then that would be the FDA's regulatory parameter.". If Arm agrees that the subsequent IRR would be guided by the spirit of the law, then he has already answered my question. I could cite you jurisprudence on this if you want.
Let me restate then. Lagman etal insists that life starts at implantation at the official congressional hearings. In the absence of a specific provision in the RH bill that life starts at fertilization, once the bill passes, how would the FDA regulate OCPs that have the potential (even the slightest) of inhibiting implantation?
I'll tackle the WHO position. I think Jong and I agree on the provision of the law part.
Thinning of the endometrium is a _consequence_ of suppression of ovulation. If suppression of ovulation fails, and the cervical mucus block fails as well, then the fertilized egg implants and you have a pregnancy. Combined pills, even with correct and consistent use, have a failure rate of 0.3% (3 per thousand get pregnant). I understand you doubt me or WHO, but how about keeping an open mind and reading this explanation from a pro-life doctor: http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2008/06/does-thin-ut… http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-informat… http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2008/06/dangers-of-o…
Ectopic pregnancies also disprove the hostile endometrium theory. Blastocysts can implant within the tube, cervix, ovary, abdominal cavity–sites with no endometrium at all.
Arm,
Your last link says:
"3. There is indirect evidence that causes some to believe that OCs can cause changes to the uterine lining that would decrease the chance of embryo implantation in the cases in which breakthough ovulation occurs
4. Direct evidence does not exist that would prove that OCs can never act via a post-fertilization mechanism.
5. Both the package insert and the PDR lists the hostile endometrium theory as a possible mechanism of action of the pill. This is not surprising, considering #4 above."
Again, neither WHO nor that prolifer categorically denied the possibility of inhibiting implantation. Even the manufacturers say so.
Go on. I'm keeping an open mind 🙂
So you are arguing that "indirect evidence … that would decrease the chance of embryo implantation" is enough for you to declare something as abortifacient? Even if, as the doctor says: "There is no direct evidence that OCs cause "chemical abortions". In other words, there is no direct evidence that OCs effect the uterine lining to cause an embryo that would otherwise implant not to."
The manufacturer argument is a dead-end for your position. Other manufacturers not stating the hostile endometrium theory would simply be allowed. FDA CPRs are issued per product, not per chemical entity.
Arm, I already enunciated our principle in an earlier comment in another article. It's called the deer hunter principle. When you see something in the bushes which looks like a deer but might be a human, don't shoot. We have the highest regard for life in all of its stages. All of them. mother, father, child, unborn, elderly, sickly, strong, intelligent or otherwise..whatever. We don't unnecessarily endanger them.
Anyway, I am arguing basically on the basis of constitutionality. If chemical contraceptives can be ABSOLUTELY proven beyond any doubt that it does not harm the unborn at any stage, then there is no constitutional challenge to speak of. I agree that FDA rules by product or probably specific formulations. Also, manufacturers would be wary of non full disclosure, as it may lead to lawsuits and is violative of consumer protection laws.
[ABSOLUTELY proven beyond any doubt]
The WHO stand is contraceptives do not prevent implantation. A falsifiable claim. To disprove this, only 1 documented case is necessary. None exist. (Unless you know of one.)
You are saying, "Prove that contraceptives absolutely do not prevent implantation, beyond any doubt." How can this be done? Test 100 women, you will simply say, "How about the 101st woman?" Test 1000, "How about the 1001st" and so on.
How about providing us that 1 case that falsifies the claim? Or even just an estimate on the rate that contraceptives cause failure of implantation–1 per thousand, per 100000, per million, per billion? Or any evidence at all other than the endometrial thinning that is adequately explained as an effect that flows from the suppression of ovulation (which leads to the non-formation of the corpus luteum which secretes progesterone which prepares the endometrium for implantation).
Lives are also at stake for users of buildings, bridges. Do you think it is rational to make a similar demand, "Prove absolutely beyond any doubt that this structure will not collapse and kill people"?
but the viability of IVF hinges on leaning towards the definition of implantation as the legal start of life. else no doctor would even perform it for fear of a malpractice suit if they could easily be blamed for the fertilized egg not taking hold (eg. the doctor was not "careful" enough in handling the egg outside of the mother's body, resulting in the murder of a human life)
Wes, I'll respond in a while. just want to concentrate on one issue for the time being.
You have a good point for discussion. Thanks
I only pursued the issue to highlight the main reason why the scientific community has a leaning toward the implantation side – that is, the potential benefits it could reap – IVF, surrogate parenthood, stem cell research… all these tech hinge on the issue.
If nothing was at stake, then people wouldn't care so much about pushing for the implantation-conception issue. Don't you think all the potential cures stem cell research could address – nerve disorders, cancer, cellular regeneration… outweighs the arbitrary definition of life-at-conception which has no more basis other than philosophical?
Ok. I appreciate your honesty. It is a form of utilitarianism after all. I take exception though that life-at-conception is just another philosophy. The U.S. SC values life at "viability" (roughly 20 weeks). In Canada, not until it is born. It is legal there to abort even 1 minute prior to being born. WHO says implantation, yet does not equate any rights. Our constitution says conception, where the pros and antis are divided over fertilization vs implantation. Who among them are correct? All of these "philosophies" cannot be true at the same time. There must be an empirical, verifiable determinant of life. Only one can be true. Btw, I have no objections against adult stem cell research, which has so far yeilded real gains than the promises (yeah, promises) of ESCR.
Personally, I'd side with a consensus from the international medical community.
Just my two cents.
[Jong, you did not answer the question]
You mean this question:
[If the premise of the RH bill is that life begins at implantation…what would be the premise of FDA's regulatory parameter when the bill passes?]
I don't think FDA's regulatory parameters will be based on a mere premise of the RH Bill especially if such premise is not stated in any of the provisions.
[IRRs are eventually guided by the spirit of the law more than its letter.]
Then the IRRs will most likely be guided by the spirit of Art. II Sec. 12 of our constitution – or by a legislation or jurisprudence that establishes the legal definition of conception. Take note that unlike the constitution, nowhere in the RH Bill is the question of when the protection of life begins is remotely answered, so you cannot claim any spirit of the law here as far as the fertilized ovum is concerned. Like I said in the article, such question should be discussed separately from the RH Bill.
[Arm however says "If the RH bill states in any of its sections that life begins at implantation, then that would be the FDA's regulatory parameter.". If Arm agrees that the subsequent IRR would be guided by the spirit of the law, then he has already answered my question. I could cite you jurisprudence on this if you want.]
Please cite the jurisprudence and we'll see what we can conclude from it.
//Then the IRRs will most likely be guided by the spirit of Art. II Sec. 12 of our constitution – or by a legislation or jurisprudence that establishes the legal definition of conception. Take note that unlike the constitution, nowhere in the RH Bill is the question of when the protection of life begins is remotely answered, so you cannot claim any spirit of the law here as far as the fertilized ovum is concerned. Like I said in the article, such question should be discussed separately from the RH Bill.//
Jong, here is what I actually foresee, where I think both our positions will be reconciled. The theoretical scenario: RH bill passes both chambers and is signed into law despite our objection to its constitutionality vis Art II Sec 12. The IRR rules that the FDA follows the spirit and allow the full range of contraceptives, including chemical contraceptives that have the potential for inhibiting implantation. The anti-RH side petitions the Supreme Court
for an injunction, challenging its constitutionality. The SC grants the injunction and conducts proceedings towards a definitive resolution. That eventual SC decision is the jurisprudence you are searching for. Is that ok?
As to jurisprudence about the spirit vs the letter, here are some SC decisions. http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/jan…
//
However, the one that embodies the spirit of the law and the true intent of the legislature prevails…
We need not belabor that what is within the spirit is within the law even if it is not within the letter of the law because the spirit prevails over the letter…
The spirit, rather than the letter of a statute determines its construction, hence, a statute must be read according to its spirit or intent. For what is within the spirit is within the statute although it is not within the letter thereof, and that which is within the letter but not within the spirit is not within the statute. Stated differently, a thing which is within the intent of the lawmaker is as much within the statute as if within the letter; and a thing which is within the letter of the statute is not within the statute unless within the intent of the lawmakers.
// http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurispruden…
When the intent of the law is not apparent as worded, or when the application of the law would lead to absurdity or injustice, legislative history is all important.In such cases, courts may take judicial notice of the origin and history of the law, the deliberations during the enactment, as well as prior laws on the same subject matter, to ascertain the true intent or spirit of the law.
// http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/aug2004/…
It also applied the well-established rule that what is controlling is the spirit and intent, not the letter, of the law:
//
note: "the deliberations during the enactment"
[Jong, here is what I actually foresee, where I think both our positions will be reconciled. The theoretical scenario: RH bill passes both chambers and is signed into law despite our objection to its constitutionality vis Art II Sec 12. The IRR rules that the FDA follows the spirit and allow the full range of contraceptives, including chemical contraceptives that have the potential for inhibiting implantation.]
Like I said earlier, if the FDA follows the spirit of the law due to ambiguity in the letter, it will follow the spirit of Art. II Sec. 12 of the constitution instead of the whatever spirit is assumed in the RH Bill.
[The anti-RH side petitions the Supreme Court for an injunction, challenging its constitutionality. The SC grants the injunction and conducts proceedings towards a definitive resolution. That eventual SC decision is the jurisprudence you are searching for. Is that ok?]
Of course. Although it would be wise for the pro-RH side to make it clear to the SC that the issue of conception/fertilization is separate from the RH Bill and that the latter only provides for legal methods of family planning.
[When the intent of the law is not apparent as worded, or when the application of the law would lead to absurdity or injustice, legislative history is all important. In such cases, courts may take judicial notice of the origin and history of the law, the deliberations during the enactment, as well as prior laws on the same subject matter, to ascertain the true intent or spirit of the law…note: "the deliberations DURING THE ENACTMENT"]
Is the RH Bill being enacted already? 'Enact' is defined as "to establish by law; to perform or effect; to decree." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ena…
Here's another one: "enactment is the act of formally proclaiming or declaring a new statutory or administrative law as in effect after it receives final approval." http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/enact
As far as I know the RH Bill is still being deliberated and not yet enacted, and whatever intent is there is just the intent of Lagman and the other authors, not the intent of Congress as a body enacting the law.
There are cases wherein IRRs have been known to go either beyond or short of the intention of the law. In these cases, the IRR is defective, for its only role is to draft detailed guidelines according to the letter and intent of the statute in question. Granting it liberal power for a judicial decision – for it to interpret by its own authority certain ambiguous provisions – is simply beyond its authority. For us to say that the technical body crafting the IRR would be in a proper and authoritative position to render judgment based on its own appreciation of the intent of Art 2 Sec 12, would be equivalent to assigning authority where there is none due.
Enactment is more of a process than a single event. I am not saying your definitions are exactly wrong here but there are semantics involved. The deliberations would be a significant factor in the process. For example, in the case wherein the HB 4244 sponsor defines certain ambiguous provisions upon interpellation, the intent is established. Likewise, in cases where a vote materializes midstream to resolve a conflict in definition such as what happened in the 1986 Constitutional Commission. Also, deliberations that do not have the effect of firmly establishing intent may lead to amendments later on in the process. When jurisprudence says part of the intent may be gleaned from "deliberations during the enactment", it refers to the process. and btw, the intent of Lagman etal is carried upon the majority vote for the bill. The body is carried.
Thus if you investigate the footnote of that jurisprudence mentioning "deliberations during the enactment" it will lead you to the source jurisprudence, wherein it states:
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurispruden…
"The history of events that transpired during the process of enacting a law, from its introduction in the legislature to its final validation has generally been the first extrinsic aid to which courts turn to construe an ambiguous act…an examination of the deliberation of the lawmakers in enacting R.A. No. 2632, convinces us…"
Whoah. I just realized we've gone in too deep. Anyway, I will maintain that the FDA is under compulsion to adjust its regulatory guidelines favoring the "full range of contraceptives" based on the intent of HB 4244, once it passes. The IRR will make sure it happens, as its final output is also approved by congressional oversight.
[There are cases wherein IRRs have been known to go either beyond or short of the intention of the law. In these cases, the IRR is defective, for its only role is to draft detailed guidelines according to the letter and intent of the statute in question. Granting it liberal power for a judicial decision – for it to interpret by its own authority certain ambiguous provisions – is simply beyond its authority. For us to say that the technical body crafting the IRR would be in a proper and authoritative position to render judgment based on its own appreciation of the intent of Art 2 Sec 12, would be equivalent to assigning authority where there is none due.]
Then the proper action would be to question the IRR before the courts, not the RH Bill.
["The history of events that transpired during the process of enacting a law, from its introduction in the legislature to its final validation has generally been the first extrinsic aid to which courts turn to construe an ambiguous act…an examination of the deliberation of the lawmakers in enacting…]
It seems that jurisprudence you cited works in my favor. Let me quote some parts:
1. "Congressional records disclose that when Senator Pedro Sabido first broached the possibility of regarding insanity as a qualifying circumstance in rape, he described it as perpetual incapacity or insanity."
2. "Significantly, the words perpetual and incapacity were not retained by the legislators. They merely used the word insanity. It is well-established in legal hermeneutics that in interpreting a statute, care should be taken that every part or word thereof be given effect since the lawmaking body is presumed to know the meaning of the words employed in the statute and to have used them advisedly. Applied inversely, the courts should not interject a condition, make a distinction, or impose any limitation where the legislators did not opt to do so.
Thus, it is without any doubt that when the legislators included the victims resultant insanity as a qualifying circumstance in rape cases, it did not intend or impose as a condition that the insanity must be of permanent nature, or that it should have been manifested by the victim before the filing of the complaint of information, before, during or after trial. Otherwise, it would have been so expressly stated, especially so, that Senator Sabido had initially suggested perpetual incapacity or insanity, As the Congressional records reveal, the legislators chose not to include the word perpetual in the bill enacted into law."
So there you have it. No. 1 is analogous to Lagman's premise that the unborn shall be protected starting at implantation, but No. 2 is analogous to Congress choosing not to include Lagman's premise in the bill enacted into law. (Which reminds me of the Constitutional Commission's 32-8 decision that conception is defined as fertilization. Just as the jurisprudence you cited says, "Otherwise, it would have been so expressly stated, especially so, that Senator Sabido had initially suggested perpetual incapacity or insanity," I guess we could say, "Otherwise, it would have been so expressly stated, especially so, that Fr. Bernas had initially suggested that the protection of life should extend to the fertilized ovum." I'm thinking that a consensus and not just a majority is needed in order for such definition to be incorporated in the constitution.)
[Whoah. I just realized we've gone in too deep.]
Why, don't you like it? Thanks to you, I'm learning a lot of new things. By the way, you've earned my deepest respect, WillyJ. I know you're a pro-life Catholic but you never used the terms "sanctity of life" or "God's design" in your arguments, sticking to the law instead. While all these may just be secular rationalizations of your underlying religious objection, you're still doing a great job.
[Anyway, I will maintain that the FDA is under compulsion to adjust its regulatory guidelines favoring the "full range of contraceptives" based on the intent of HB 4244, once it passes. The IRR will make sure it happens, as its final output is also approved by congressional oversight.]
I will answer this if you can refute my argument about Congress choosing not to include Lagman's premise in the bill enacted into law because we're talking here of the intent of HB 4244 as enacted by Congress and not just Lagman's intent.
Ok, I will think of something as a last shot. Exacting a confession from you is like squeezing a drop of water from a coin. ugh.
I don't mind it though, as I Iearned a lot from you too. Why can't all pro-RHers be like you, civil and professional? Arm too.
Anyway, lets call a short ceasefire. I think I will put my two cents on Wes thread as I promised. Isa-isa lang ha. mahina kalaban 🙂
WillyJ, I was clearly referring to the letter of the law when I said "If the RH bill states in any of its sections…"; you need not interpret the spirit of what I said 😀
I think you are overreading the intent of the RH bill, and maybe dialogues like this will help (thanks!). The RH bill need not provide additional legal cover for contraceptives (through the backdoor via "spirit of the law" as you assert)–they are already legal now. It does want–openly, through the letter of the law–consistent government funding/support for contraceptives, just like any other public health medicine. Why not focus on "letter of the law" issues first so the provisions you object to are clearly spelled out?
Arm,
I will address this response to you and Jong. Please do not fault us for being extra wary and careful of the not-so-obvious matters in this bill. Jong maybe right in his legal analysis but it does not give us any comfort. The recent passage of the Magna Carta for Women is already a lesson. We fought to include the word "ethical" in the final version because we eerily found agenda similarities in the RH bill. By providence we managed to squeak it in, amidst the tantrums of Lagman. You guys tell me why Lagman was hopping mad over the word "ethical". The final provision in question now reads: "safe, legal, effective, ethical means of family planning". Something like that, I am just quoting from memory. Please understand that a dominant principle in statutory interpretation is that: what is not expressly prohibited is allowed. Interpreters do not have the liberty of prohibiting beyond what the statutes expressly declare so. If the words have plain meaning, then the literal interpretation is preferred. If it has an ambiguous meaning, the surrounding words are taken and if that is not enough, the context of the entire bill is taken into account consistent with the intention of the majority legislators. The spirit always prevails. There is no such thing as consensus in legislation. All bills are passed by force of majority. We will be vigilant all throughout. This is a corollary of the deer hunter principle and our attitude is consistent. with that. Finally I want to cite a bible verse to buttress my argument, the very first time I will be doing so and I hope you two do not recoil. In Matthew 10:16, Jesus told us :"Behold I am sending you out as sheep among wolves. Therefore be meek as doves but wise as serpents".
Ok, I'll drop this point and let you be with your heightened alert. Just be aware that this may create unnecessary conflicts. Gumagawa ng sariling multo is the apt Filipino phrase. And do you have any biblical quote portraying us as ants or grasshoppers instead of wolves–I sort of like those insects. 🙂 Honestly, the verse did not buttress your argument, but instead painted your side as having a self-declared messianic mission. Just my 2c opinion of course.
[All bills are passed by force of majority. We will be vigilant all throughout. ]
Wasn't Jesus nailed to a wooden plank via majority vote?
//1. Any…// I did not get you point here.
//2. … I do not see any reason for refusal of accreditation of their products//
There are contraceptive manufacturers that do not include the hostile endometrium theory in their full product description. The change simply reflects advances in knowledge; the lack of change in other product literature may simply indicate lack of effort to update to the latest information. Note the Wyeth article you cited was 1988.
//3. … to conform with our independent legal system and culture//
The WHO position I'm referring to is: Contraceptives work prior to fertilization. Are you saying this does not conform to our legal system and culture? If it does conform, why reject their expert opinion? This inconsistency fuels the doubt that a) your bottomline is to follow Humanae Vitae; and b) you will only use scientific work and statements that further the cause of Humanae Vitae.
//3. … FDA (then BFAD) banned POSTINOR in 2001//
This supports the article's argument, and the CBCP's 1990 statement, that settling the issue of alleged abortifacients should be done at the FDA. BTW, any idea why the CBCP changed its 1990 position?
//4. The deer hunter principle …//
There are studies that theorize that some of the efficacy of full breastfeeding (LAM) in preventing pregnancy comes from interfering with implantation. Of course the WHO does not classify LAM as abortifacient, and recognizes that the main proven mechanism is suppression of ovulation. But using your standards, will you say that LAM should be classified as abortifacient until there is, in your words, "absolute proof beyond any doubt" that it does not interfere with implantation?
I think I'll jump to that other article of yours. thanks
//I think I'll jump to that other article of yours//
I was talking about this (Jong's) article.
1. The FDA's laxity in enforcement of regulations should not be construed that abortifacients are legal under the law.
2. Please cite concrete examples. If certain manufacturers don't warn of adverse endometrium effects, while other manufacturers do so (with essentially the same formulation) then something is awry. FDA should get to the bottom of this.
3. I have maintained time and again that contraceptives have secondary effects that inhibit implantation in the event of breakthrough ovulation. As to the legal system: Art 2 Sec 12. Why can't we ever come to terms on this aspect even if we disagree on our divergent premise? Again, our constitution prevails over any external 'expert' opinions.
4. I can't see any reference to CBCP's 1990 statement in Jong's article.
5. What is the theory and what is the scientific basis for the theory? LAM is nature's way of postponing ovulation while the mother is nursing. When the typical six-month period for LAM is over, the mother goes back to her normal reproductive pattern.
Arm, we are tackling too many issues all at once and most above do not have any bearing on Jong's article here. That is why I suggested to move the discussion to your other post. I kindly request you to choose which one is relevant to the post here and which ones are relevant to your other post. I would gladly go along with your assessment and hope I will have the time to address them all. Ang daming sanga ng discussion natin I defer to you to choose one or two that is most relevant to Jong' post here.Thanks.
I think we are still on track. This thread comes from a comment I made on this quote from Jong's article, his core argument I think: "dragging the RH Bill into the abortifacients issue and saying that it promotes abortion is outright insane, especially with the final consolidated version. That issue is separate from the RH Bill and should be discussed in another venue. I hope people will see that."
I then quoted a 1990 CBCP statement that I said supports Jong's point, and wondered if someone close to CBCP can explain the change of heart. And voila! you suddenly reappear 🙂 The CBCP link: http://www.cbcponline.net/documents/1990s/1990-fa…
I'm ok to tackling points one at a time until we reach a settlement or impasse. So the 1990 CBCP position first. Can you explain why you do not want that approach now? (I'll go back later to your points 1, 2, 3, 5 above.)
The repealing clause states that "All other laws, decrees, orders, issuances, rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the PROVISIONS of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly." [emphasis mine] The operative word is 'provisions', not 'premises', so even assuming that the premise of some of the authors of the RH Bill is that the protection of life begins at implantation, such premise does not appear in any of the provisions, hence, the repealing clause is irrelevant as far as the definition of conception and the protection of the unborn are concerned.
Arm,
I do not see anything wrong nor inconsistent with the Bishops' stand in that August 14, 1990 statement. If you read that statement carefully, it was written as a form of "minutes of the meeting". There are 5 essential points of the government presentation (points 4 and 5) which you listed that Bishop Varela simply echoed in the statement. It is just a rundown of the government presentation, not a summary of what was agreed upon. In fact before enumerating, the statement says
"In sum, all agreed that the Program is in substantive consonance with the following points: …:
They did not say they agreed wholeheartedy with the program, they said they agreed on an understanding of what the Programs contained as was present. It appears the statement caused some confusion at the time. The subsequent clarificatory letter dispels the misunderstanding
1. The statement is not an endorsement by the Church of the Family Planning Program of the government:
2. The Church, with constant firmness in its long standing teaching, condemns contraception, sterilization, and abortion. This teaching will be reemphasized in the forthcoming CBCP pastoral letter.
The statement, contrary to the understanding of some, is neither an agreement nor an accord. Rather, it is a statement which merely identifies points of dialogue, including common and divergent concerns.
I follow this quote from Pharyngula http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/the_fe…
What I'm concerned with is how you develop. I know that you all think about it perpetually that you come from one single cell of a fertilized egg. I don't want to get involved in religion but that is not a human being. I've spoken to these eggs many times and they make it quite clear … they are not a human being.
Lewis Wolpert – developmental biologist/embriologist, rationalist
Now as a rational human being, who will I believe the biologist or an old man in a dress?
but off course since wolpert is not catholic his studies are therefore moot, lies, heresy, witchcraft, and the ubiquitous term: the-devil's-work by catholic anti-choicers.