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 one of the greatest senators of our republic, the “Filipino people are worth dying for”, aren’t they worth properly citing, reliably researching, and thoroughly analysing for?
Enrile questions the use of contraception for preventing pregnancy, putting forward the question: “Is pregnancy a disease that needs to be cured?” While Enrile prefaces his question with the case of the birth control pills I think its fair to extend his question to other forms of birth control as well. Why should some women need to prevent pregnancy if its not a disease?
The following is a timeline (a web log, if you will) of the events on Sotto’s apparent plagiarism.
Updated as of September 7, 7:20 AM (added the accusation from Feminists for Choice blogger of plagiarism against Sotto)
Sen. Sotto turned his own personal tragedy into fair game when he used his son's death as an example for his plagiarized argument on the health hazards of contraceptives.
Senator Tito Sotto suffered a personal loss with the death of his son. We understand his grief. What we cannot understand is why he chose to rely on an unknown blogger to explain his son's death.
Right before asserting that he lost a child due to contraceptives, Sotto said he has scientific proof about the “damaging effects to children born from mothers who were using contraceptives prior to their pregnancy.” He then went on a lengthy explanation about gut imbalance, opportunistic flora, exposure of the fetus to toxins and zinc depletion.
His scientific proof was copied entirely and almost word-for-word from an article by a blogger calling herself “Sarah, the Healthy Home Economist.”