Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III asserted that “only” four or five mothers die everyday of maternity complications instead of 11 as claimed by the pro-RH advocates. He further argued, “How many more (mothers) die from cardiovascular, respiratory and other diseases? Why don’t we just concentrate on the 20 deaths a day from other causes and not on this, (which promotes) contraceptives?”
While his lower estimate has already been refuted through showing how the figures were arrived at erroneously, it must be pointed out that even four to five deaths per day amount to about 1,600 deaths per year. For comparison, the following are the number of fatalities in some of the recent disasters in Philippine history:
Typhoon Ondoy – 747
Sinking of MV Princess of the Stars – 800+
Air Philippines Flight 541 plane crash – 131
Cebu Pacific Flight 387 plane crash – 104
Tragic as they were, these catastrophes that shocked our nation for months actually pale in comparison to the maternity-related deaths; even with Sotto’s “low” estimate, annual maternal casualties are the equivalent of two Ondoys, two shipwrecks, or more than a dozen plane crashes.
More importantly, by saying that more deaths are caused by cardiovascular, respiratory and other diseases in order to divert the focus from maternity-related deaths, Sotto is employing one of the dishonest arguments described in Robert Thouless’ book Straight and Crooked Thinking:
Its general form is to discourage action against some admitted evil by pointing to some other evil which is stated to be worse than the first evil, but about which the user of the argument is making no proposal to do anything. For example, as an argument against attempts to abolish war, it has been pointed out that more deaths have resulted from road accidents in this country during some number of past years than the total casualties of the Boer War. This would be a reasonable ground for trying to reduce the number of road accidents, but it is a dishonest argument when urged as a reason for not trying to prevent further repetitions of the Boer War. The dishonesty of this use of the argument lies in the fact that there is no good reason why we should not try to do both: to prevent people from being killed on the roads and also to prevent them from being killed in wars.
So there you have it, Mr. Senator. Just because more people are dying of other diseases does not mean we should no longer provide for the reproductive health of our mothers. If you are pro-life, the more you are expected to protect the very people who bring life into this world. After all, it’s very ironic and hypocritical that you make so much fuss about letting nothing stop the sperm from meeting the egg without giving a damn if those who are actually born ever get the chance to meet their mothers alive, to experience and cherish one of the most precious of human bonds, and to grow up to thank Mom for the gift of life. It takes a lot more than fertilization to achieve that.
_______________
Image from politicalarena.com
.. bobonic-Senator Sotto .. ;p
So that’s 24-25 deaths a day. Why not try to reduce it by 5 (via RH related activities) then start concentrating on the other 20.
I’m not saying death due to maternity complications should be prioritized over death from other causes. It would be tons better if both can be reduced to nil.
If he was so concerned about the other causes of death, why didn’t I hear Sen Sotto advocating to handle those other health problems?
My suggestion, pass the bill now, then write another bill to further improve the health system to handle other causes of death.
Sotto:
“And contrary to (the claims) of my detractors, I placed, established and created a women and children crisis center in the Visayas and I’m putting up one in Luzon, in the process now. I challenge them now to come out and tell me what they have done so far to contribute to the society, to the welfare of Filipino women.
//And contrary to (the claims) of my detractors, I placed, established and created a women and children crisis center in the Visayas and I’m putting up one in Luzon, in the process now. I challenge them now to come out and tell me what they have done so far to contribute to the society, to the welfare of Filipino women. Maybe a lot of talking, but not in deeds Mr. President,” he said.//
A crisis center? As in one. That's it? Is that nearly enough for the millions of pinays in Manila who need RH services? That's like a billionaire CEO claiming to be pro-poor after he donates his pocket change to charity.
ang problema kay Sotto, di nya alam ang pinagsasabi nya.. di daw sya naniniwala sa statistics, eh san nya kinuha yung 20 deaths/ day from other causes… haaaaaaaaaaaay, nawalan ng saysay ang debate sa senado para sa RH Bill dahil sa walang kwentang mga objections at argumento ni bobonic-Senator Sotto. Dapat sa kanya balik na lang sya sa pagiging iskul bupol nya.
Sotto said, “How many more (mothers) die from cardiovascular, respiratory and other diseases? Why don’t we just concentrate on the 20 deaths a day from other causes and not on this, (which promotes) contraceptives?”
>> wow naman, talk about having a God-complex. Who died and gave Sotto the right to decide who lives and who dies? Are the lives of mothers who die from maternal complications worth less that those who have heart diseases?
Are not those who trumpet the "11 mothers die everyday" mantra a tad dishonest too? How come all these heavy analysis of the stats came out ONLY now? 11 sounds like a nice rounded figure though…
Your link to the other post points out that "Based on official government statistics, an estimated 6.5 to 11 maternal deaths occurred per day in 2010". Ayun naman pala eh. Now it beats me why the wide gap in the range was admitted by the pro-Rh advocates only now – just when the figures are being questioned.
Why not 6.5 instead of 11, or why not the average figure of 8.75? Why on earth did they not say that "6.5 to 11 mothers die everyday", or even acknowledge the caveat that there are actually three methods used to arrive at different figures? The new statistical model (again quoting from that post) says WHO computes it at 5.8 maternal deaths per day based on 2008 data. Why did they not use this more recent figure? The 11 figure was based on year 2000 figures, right? Did Sotto say that a lesser figure of maternal deaths was acceptable? (NO he did not). He just questioned the data. On hindsight he was right, and the insinuations on his persons are just that – insinuations. See that most hysterical reactions would be to accuse him of not caring for the death of even one mother. Oh cmon Jong.
Hi WillyJ!
I suggest you repost your comment on that other article with the statistical data https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/09/05/anti-r… so the author (ARM) can answer you. My article focuses on Sottos dishonest argument, namely that which "discourages action against some admitted evil by pointing to some other evil which is stated to be worse than the first evil, but about which the user of the argument is making no proposal to do anything." If you have a comment related to that, please post it here. 🙂
Jong,
It would be quite unfair to judge the disposition of Sen. Sotto based on those interpellation statements alone. On the DOH budget session, he specifically said the DOH programs were enough to prove the bill is not needed, noting the programs of DOH as Sec Ona defended his budget. Those maternal and child health programs were not objected to in the Senate, justifying their huge budgetary increase for 2012. It did increase likewise for 2011, if we look at the budget.
Let us not isolate his statements and try to picture him around those alone. Let us hear it from the man in another session:
“RH is already being carried out by the DoH (Department of Health). We do not need to make it into a national policy. The only reason why it is being pushed is because, from what I gather, and I’m still trying to confirm this information, is that this is being imposed as a condition by some groups abroad for the Philippines to pass the RH bill,” he [Sotto] said.
During the plenary session, Sotto took the floor to denounce criticisms hurled at him for standing firm in opposing the passage of the bill and for supposedly being anti-women’s rights.
“They’re completely wrong. I always place women in the pedestal. If you will check on history (records), my mother was one of the founder of the women’s rights movement in the country. My grandfathers, Senator and Rep. Filemon Sotto and Sen. Vicente Sotto were the principal authors of the women’s right to suffrage. You can check in the journal of the history of the Philippines.
“And contrary to (the claims) of my detractors, I placed, established and created a women and children crisis center in the Visayas and I’m putting up one in Luzon, in the process now. I challenge them now to come out and tell me what they have done so far to contribute to the society, to the welfare of Filipino women. Maybe a lot of talking, but not in deeds Mr. President,” he said.,
//They’re completely wrong. I always place women in the pedestal. If you will check on history (records), my mother was one of the founder of the women’s rights movement in the country. My grandfathers, Senator and Rep. Filemon Sotto and Sen. Vicente Sotto were the principal authors of the women’s right to suffrage. You can check in the journal of the history of the Philippines.//
So basically, Sotto thinks he can get a free pass at being the CBCP's anti-RH bitch because his relatives are pro-women. This is no different from an anti-gay senator pushing for Prop 8 who defends himself by saying he has gays friends.
//RH is already being carried out by the DoH (Department of Health). We do not need to make it into a national policy. The only reason why it is being pushed is because, from what I gather, and I’m still trying to confirm this information, is that this is being imposed as a condition by some groups abroad for the Philippines to pass the RH bill,” he [Sotto] said. //
Sotto fails to realize that the Anti-RH side is heavily fueled by the Catholic Bishops, who in turn take their orders from the Vatican.
I'm confused.
what specific line in this article do you object to?
//On hindsight he was right, and the insinuations on his persons are just that – insinuations. See that most hysterical reactions would be to accuse him of not caring for the death of even one mother.//
Hello willy. Before you go making a further asswipe of yourself (again), your forgot to read Sotto's line regarding the maternal mortality rate of women:
"How many more (mothers) die from cardiovascular, respiratory and other diseases? Why don’t we just concentrate on the 20 deaths a day from other causes and not on this, (which promotes) contraceptives?"
A death is still a death Willy, and it's more tragic if it could have been prevented with the proper health care services. And it borders on despicable when assholes like Sotto try to deflect the issue by saying that it should be ignored because worse things happen.
Hi Twin_Skies,
Thank you for the pleasantries 🙂
I don't remember Senator Sotto saying it should be ignored. I agree that those could have been prevented with the proper health care services.
I think I covered some response in my comments below.
//I don't remember Senator Sotto saying it should be ignored. I agree that those could have been prevented with the proper health care services.//
From the first paragraph of the article:
"Why don’t we just concentrate on the 20 deaths a day from other causes and not on this, (which promotes) contraceptives?"
It does not say MMRs should be ignored. MMRs are best addressed with the proper prenatal, delivery, and postnatal care. That's what DOH should do, (it is its mandate, right?) and its ever increasing budget is justified on the very premise. When Sotto says "this", I understand it to mean he is referring to the RH bill. Can we not address MMRs without the RH bill? That is what I can glean from Sotto's argument. We already allotted billions to DOH budget precisely to adress MMRs and child care, at least we should make them accountable. Have anyone took the DOH to task? Audited them? Made a performance evaluation of the billions given them for the purpose? Why not…before we consider this bill which seeks to do precisely the same thing that we taxpayers are ALREADY paying DOH to do?
Geez… Let me guess, you do not know that the increase of DOH's budget will now be shadowed by the large portion of it going to an insurance company (does the name Philhealth ring a bell?).
please cite your reference, and assuming so, is that objectionable by itself? How?
http://headphilippines.blogspot.com/2011/08/2012-…
How? Let's see, less funds for the projects, Philhealth does not cover the entire hospital bill, the budget is only less than 10% of what should be allocated for the Health services.
hmm, that is strange. Considering PNoy's heavy public endorsement of 'choice' and 'responsible parenthood', how come he did not direct Sec Ona to align DOH funds according to his policy? Does it mean PNoy did not put the money where his mouth is? Or is it a simple case of scarce funds? The report does not add up.
He follows the footsteps of his mother in pushing for privatization. However, he still wants a separate project, with separate funds for reproductive health since it is one of the neglected aspects of social health care.
Hi Willy. I replied to your post above on the stats here: https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/09/05/anti-r…
Too much focus has been made on the actual maternal deaths, with anti-RH advocates categorizing these as insignificant, thus, not entitling it to government support/funding. But, how about health complications, infant deaths or complications due to lack of medical care, etc., etc.? If all these were quantified as well, then the problem that the bill is hoping to address will be more magnified and, hopefully, these oxyMORONic pro-life advocates would stop opposing a bill that tends to save lives.
By the way, somebody please tell these idiots that if they see other high death-causing problems in society, then by all means propose a law that will address these, not kill a law that will actually save lives, something that they ostensibly value!
Sens. Pia and Miriam, compassionate as they were, only put handcuffs on Sen. Sotto. The reason being, that in an intellectual battle, a battle of wits and brains, they don't fight against those who are unarmed.
[“only” four or five mothers die everyday of maternity complications instead of 11 as claimed by the pro-RH advocates]
Mothers are still dying. It is still a concern. So much for being "pro-life". Then again, "pro-life" is just a name of a group.