Whether or not the RH bill is made into law, Filipinos have the right to use contraception. More precisely, they have the Hohfeldian privilege-right, which means they have no duty not to use contraception because there is no law prohibiting them from doing so. According to the Hohfeldian system for describing the form of rights, to say that one has a privilege to do something is to say that one has no duty not to do it.
This is what some of the opponents of the RH bill, including Sen. Tito Sotto, are saying. They also point out that free contraceptives are already being distributed by the government so there is really no need for an RH law.
But such distribution is only happening because the current administration supports it. Moreover, as Karen Davila said in an interview with Sen. Sotto last August 16, in many cities where the mayor or governor is a member of the Opus Dei or Pro-Life, they impose their religious beliefs on their constituents by pulling out all the contraceptives from the barangay hall.
To which Sotto replied, “That’s looking at it on the other side of the fence, Karen. Look at it on the other side…you are removing the freedom of choice of the mayor and the governor and the next president.” He argued that if the next president is against contraception, you will remove his freedom of choice if RH is already made into law.
Which is precisely the point of the RH bill not only as far as contraceptives are concerned, but also in providing for age-appropriate sex education, reproductive health information, midwives, emergency obstetric care, and maternal and newborn health care in crisis situations. For now, all of these are merely privileges or privilege-rights in the sense that there is no law prohibiting people from using contraception, and there is no law prohibiting the national and local governments from giving everything that the RH bill seeks to provide.
An RH law, however, will add to this privilege a claim by imposing on the government a duty to provide qualified people access to free contraceptives, information, emergency obstetric care, etc. To say that one has a Hohfeldian claim-right means that another has a duty to satisfy that claim. In other words, an RH law will take away a mayor’s right to be a douchebag by depriving citizens of RH services in the name of his religion.
And this is one of Sotto’s major objections to the RH bill. It seems that he is more concerned that the mayors, governors, and the next president will have the “freedom of choice” to withhold lifesaving information and assistance, than to grant the claim-right to the thousands of Filipino women who badly need them and whose lives could be saved by an RH law.
Which makes us wonder, is Sen. Sotto really pro-life? He sounds more like pro-choice ― not choice for women, but choice for the public officials.
// He argued that if the next president is against contraception, you will remove his freedom of choice if RH is already made into law.//
Dear Sotto, President Obama has stated that he is PERSONALLY not for gay marriage, because it is against his religion.
However, in the same sentence, he further explained that as a pubic servant, it's not his place to impose his personal religion – and stance on gay marriage – on other people who do not share his belief, hence his administration's move to support it and to repeal DADT.
That is how it's done, Senator.
"if the next president is against contraception, you will remove his freedom of choice if RH is already made into law"
most self-serving, misogynistic statement, ever.
/“That’s looking at it on the other side of the fence, Karen. Look at it on the other side…you are removing the freedom of choice of the mayor and the governor and the next president.”//
So Sotto's pro-tyrant now?
Apparently ordinary citizens are obliged to depend on bureaucrats to make our decisions for us. We have no right to make personal life and health decisions for ourselves lest we go against their whims. Freedom of choice? Don't be silly, that's only for politicians.
And what of the Filipino people’s right to think for themselves? Why should our major decisions about our personal health and life depend on the whims of just a few people? How dare you, Sotto, to take the phrase freedom of choice and use it to mean the exact opposite. Then again, I shouldn’t be surprised, as you have been stealing and twisting words and ideas all this time.
What a lame argument! As lame as his previous speeches!!! Look at the other side of it?? You take away the 'freedom of choice' of the mayor, public official who will succeed office?? Really Mr. Senator??? What a dumb-founded comment!!!
How about the 'freedom of choice' of YOUR CONSTITUENTS which you are, by the way, MANDATED TO SERVE! Dont you think they should be EMPOWERED to be able to make INFORMED CHOICES about their lives? Is there anything really in the RH BILL that puts YOUR CONSTITUENTS lives in danger??
The aim of the RH BIll is to educate and provide vital information and urgent maternal services to all Filipinos. Which the ultimate goal is, for us to be able to improve and enjoy quality of life.
How about you? What's your aim? Or are you just blindly believing whatever JUNK your researchers come up with?