The D Spot

37 responses so far ↓

• the jester-in-exile // Oct 10, 2008 at 9:57 am

  with all respect, dine, i won’t sign the petition — i am convinced (bar a few revisions) the bill is a necessary step our country needs to take.

  that said, i’m glad you still maintain a positive outlook for our country.

  cheers!

• Rosamia // Oct 10, 2008 at 12:31 pm

  thank you and God bless you for this and for your stand dine. i am against hb5043. the proponents have misled so many and have kept so many in the dark about what the bill’s real intent is. economic problems require economic solutions. solve graft&corruption, bad governance and many other ills in government and society and see how people (as in human development) spell the difference in making this country move to progress and development.

• Belle // Oct 10, 2008 at 1:42 pm

  they sidestep the real problems of our country, graft and corruption as the most prevalent one, instead it is misdirected into something else to divert the people’s attention. but, people are no dummy, and they know what is going on.

• Bles // Oct 10, 2008 at 4:02 pm

  I agree with you Dine. It is not overpopulation that is the root cause of poverty in our country but corruption and apathy. Instead of spending millions of pesos in contraceptives, our government should concentrate on creating additional jobs for the people, educating the poor and helping them to become more economically productive and self-sufficient, and increasing agricultural productivity in our country.

  Sad to say that many, if not most of our lawmakers are looking only at short-term and fast solutions but not necessarily effective and beneficial in the long-run.

• sparks // Oct 10, 2008 at 6:10 pm

  In response to the Couples for Christ checklist:

  CLARIFICATION: The bill complements already existing provisions in the Labor Code which mandates employers to provide family planning services and incentives to their employees. The labor code also prohibits employers to deny these benefits to women employees to avoid having pregnancy be a reason for employment termination. The bill expands on these provisions by mandating free RH services and commodities to their employees providing of course that employees request them (Labor Code Article 134 (a-b) and Article 137(a1-a3).

  CLARIFICATION: The bill’s penalties are primarily geared towards preventing health care providers from refusing to offer RH services based on the client’s personal circumstances.

  Those who refuse to render services on account of religious convictions will not be penalized provided that they immediately refer clients to others with the same facilities. Provided also that the client is not in an emergency or serious case as defined by RA 8344.

  CLARIFICATION: The bill does penalize those who refuse to perform vasectomy or ligation on a person of legal age on the ground of lack of spousal consent or authorization. Once a spouse has sought these services, it is assumed he or she has done so in consultation with his or her partner. It is no longer within the purview of the law and the state whether he or she has decided to undergo these procedures without the express consent of the partner.

  A husband does not own his wife’s body and vice versa.

  CLARIFICATION: The bill endorses age-appropriate sexuality education to ensure that young Filipinos have the right information while instilling values for them to exercise responsible decision-making in matters of sex and reproductive health. Section 12 lists the main elements of the proposed sexuality education to be incorporated in school curricula. The bill does not contain specifics on having a “satisfying and safe sex life.”

  The following are the general topics to be taken up in sexuality education class mentioned in the bill:

  1. Reproductive health and sexual rights
  2. Reproductive health care and services
  3. Attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development, sexual behaviour and sexual health
  4. Proscription and hazards of abortion and management of post-abortion complications
  5. Responsible parenthood
  6. Use and application of natural and modern family planning to promote reproductive health, achieve desired family size and prevent unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies
  7. Abstinence before marriage
  8. Prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other STIs/STDs, prostate cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer and other gynecological disorders
  9. Responsible sexuality
  10. Maternal, peri-natal and post-natal education, care and services

  So, yeah. No details on kama sutra.

  Also, only teachers who agree to teach sexuality education will undergo training.

  CLARIFICATION: In accordance with the law, the bill does not curtail every individual’s right of free speech. To express disagreement or dissent against the merits of legislation is the cornerstone of any democratic society.

  HB 5043 does penalize any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of the Act. This includes such acts as claiming that the bill will punish parents who, in good conscience, disallow their children to attend sexuality education class.

• sparks // Oct 11, 2008 at 12:50 am

  Our neighbouring countries also have corruption. China is an example of one of the most corrupt. South Korea before its democratisation in 1987 was also corrupt. So are Thailand, Malaysia and Taiwan.

  All these countries, despite having corruption, have already exited poverty or are about to do so.

  They all share one thing in common = a comprehensive set of developmental policies which include sensible population management.

• annamanila // Oct 11, 2008 at 4:43 pm

  Although I do no regret having any of my seven children, I believe individuals should have more freedom about their reproductive choices.

  There was this film about teenaged pregnancy. I thought this should go the rounds of high schools to warn them of consequences of premature and irresponsible sex. I think this and similar materials are what the framers of the bill have in mind.

• lisaflor // Oct 12, 2008 at 3:13 am

  some of us who know about government projects are well aware that the government will be given grants by foreign agencies for these new policies to be implemented. (so, you can now ask how they’re spending it)

  anyway, most people think the bill is necessary, because the poor are supposed to limit the number of children. While that is true, there are more effective ways to help and educate them. I mean if they say the poor don’t have anything better to do than have sex, then what does that point to? Give them condoms so they can continue doing that? Why not give them jobs? Educate them?

  The poor is always used as an excuse. It all boils down to responsible parenthood. Government policies don’t teach that. go figure.

  Thanks Tita dine, for finally coming up with your stand.

• Flor P. Velasco // Oct 12, 2008 at 9:39 am

  We are creating our own problems…If we do not have this Bill, there is no problem!! So, to our leaders in this governement…there are so many “good and important” bills passed already..Pls review, relook and push for a good implemention of these bills before you will create “another” problem for this country….and pls be reminded always – whenever you propose a bill, pls be guided with your spiritual and moral values and pray to HIM for enlightenment…

• sparks // Oct 12, 2008 at 12:03 pm

  some of us who know about government projects are well aware that the government will be given grants by foreign agencies for these new policies to be implemented. (so, you can now ask how they’re spending it)

  Since Marcos’ time foreign donors foot the bill on contraception. The government has not spend a single cent for a major component of its health program. Ever. . USAID, the largest donor, has pulled out its last shipments of condoms in 2003. Other family planning commodities have been on a phase out. Now before anyone has bogey claims that US multinationals just want to create FP commodity markets here, let me tell you they in turn imported their donations from South Korea and Japan (that I’ve seen).

  In short, the Philippines will now have to procure for itself FP commodities to be distributed free to those who want them.

  If the Church is so insistent on natural family planning, they should be more proactive in teaching them. Let the Church spend billions of pesos to see their preferred method truly succeed. As of now less than 1 percent of currently married women of reproductive age use natural family planning.

  To reiterate, the RH bill will also include NFP among other methods to be taught in sexuality education.

  H’wag magpadala sa emosyon at sa ‘di kumpletong impormasyon. Mag-isip po tayo sa ikabubuti ng nakararami. At ang nakararami po ay hind tayo’ng mga nagsusulat at nagbabasa ng blog na ito.

• sparks // Oct 12, 2008 at 12:16 pm

  anyway, most people think the bill is necessary, because the poor are supposed to limit the number of children.

  According to the NSO’s family planning surveys, Filipinos at the lowest wealth quintile express wanting only 2 to 3 children but end up having more. There has been an expressed need for the last few decades from people who have no purchasing power. This bill merely answers the need of those who need it most.

  The RH bill is not coercive. Unlike the Church officials, who only endorse one method, the State would leave the choice up to parents. The Philippines is not a Catholic country. We have religious minorities. Muslims have endorsed a fatwa (religious ruling) endorsing contraceptives as early as 2004. Other smaller denominations such as the INC have also endorsed the bill.

  If the Church has its way, then that is a sure sign of suppression of religious expression.

• Meg // Oct 12, 2008 at 6:18 pm

  from Atty Romulo Macalintal

  REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL INCONSISTENT WITH LAW THAT ABOLISHED DEATH PENALTY

  When Leo Echegaray was convicted for the crime of raping his ten-year old daughter in April 1994 and meted out the supreme penalty of death under R. A. 7659, commonly known as the Death Penalty Law, most of our lawmakers realized that death penalty is not in accordance with God’s plan for men and society. Thus, on June 24, 2006, Congress passed R.A. 9346 which prohibited the imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines even on heinous crimes.

  Surprisingly, however, some of these legislators are now pushing for the passage of what is now popularly called the “Reproductive Health (RH) Bill” which would allow the use of family planning or birth control methods through the use of contraceptives some of which, based on some medical tests, could cause abortion. As reported, a provision of the said bill talks about “post abortion complications” which proves beyond doubt that it promotes abortion for, otherwise, the said provision would not have been included in the said bill.

  If such contraceptives or birth control methods introduced in the bill could cause abortion or could kill the unborn child, then how could these legislators easily forget their position against the imposition of death penalty even to criminals who committed heinous crimes? In other words, why spare the life of and allow these criminals to enjoy the gift of life, but deny the same right to the innocent and sinless unborn child or prevent the seed of life that God gave to mankind to grow and multiply? For sure, it is not for us to interfere with the recipe of the Lord.

  If we opposed the death penalty because of our spiritual belief that only God could take the life of anyone, then with more reason that an unborn child should not be penalized by putting its life in danger or be an innocent victim of abortion. If we believe that God has His own plans for allowing these criminals to exist, then, for sure, God has also His own divine plans why He allows a child to be born, even to the extent of being allegedly “overpopulated” which is the main reason for the RH bill.

  After all, what have we done as a nation and as a people for the past so many years to solve this “overpopulation” issue”. Have we run out of God given talents and competence to solve this problem that we should now sacrifice the lives of innocent unborn children because of our own failure or ineptness in addressing this problem from the very first day of its inception?

  If we recognize “animal’s rights” to the extent of having our pets or animals “blessed” during the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi, should not the unborn child be entitled to a higher degree of care and protection from all of us who have already received and tasted this gift of life ?

  Being a Christian nation and a Christian people, I would submit that the best test to resolve this controversial issue is ask ourselves: “What Would Jesus Do” under the circumstances? Being the sole Master of Life, would Jesus allow the use of contraceptives or such birth control methods as a means to solve the alleged problem of “overpopulation” in our country?

  Your answer is as good as mine. God bless the Philippines.

  ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL
  Lector/Commentator
  Last Supper of Our Lord Parish
  Las Pinas City

  Tel. 0918-910-7454

• donG hO // Oct 12, 2008 at 8:44 pm

  same here. it’s a no for this bill. maybe a revison will do. i think sex education is enough without including the use of contraception.

• sparks // Oct 12, 2008 at 8:58 pm

  One cannot kill something that doesn’t yet exist. The law does not confer rights on something that doesn’t yet exist.

  RH bill does not endorse abortifacients, unless you consider putting on a condom, taking pills and using IUDs “abortion.”

  One other thing regarding spousal consent for vasectomy or ligation. Unmarried individuals of legal age can undergo such procedures without asking the permission of anyone. Getting married should not suddenly dissolve the rights and privileges earned in adulthood.

  And on parents “losing” authority of their children:

  Sec 21 a)3 states that any healthcare provider will be penalised for refusing services to an abused minor “whose abused condition is certified by the proper official or personnel of the DSWD or to duly DSWD-certified abused pregnant minor on whos case no parental consent is necessary.”

  In the ideal world parents protect their children. If a child has been abused (sexually) then we can assume the parents did not do their job well. If parents cannot step in and protect their children, what other authority will do so? And in the cases where it is the mother or father (or any relative) who perpetrated the abuse?

  Following the same principle of a spouse not owning his/her partner’s body, parents do not have absolute authority over their children either.

• bianca detovilla // Oct 15, 2008 at 1:42 am

  Dine, I agree with you fully.

  Understanting the Catholic Stand: Why Pills Cause Early Abortion

  Here’s a way to learn more why we should defend our Catholic faith’s stand against the Reproductive Health Bill.

  The Church is against the bill because, among other things, the Reproductive Health Bill will allow abortion. How? The Catholic Church has always taught that “Life begins at conception” that is, upon the union of the sperm and the egg.

  Population Control groups are now insisting now that “life begins at implantation.” This gives them the excuse to destroy the fertilized egg (3-5day old fetus/baby) before implantation which is what most contraceptive pills do. Some 15 years ago, oral contraceptive pills had 400 mcg. of ethinyl estradiol to prevent ovulation (ovary’s production of a mature ovum) but caused nausea and headaches, which made it unpopular. They reduced ethinyl estradiol to less than 10% (30 mcg), to make it more popular. Oral contraceptive pills today have reduced contents of ethinyl estradiol, which allows ovulation (production of a mature egg and the union of the sperm with the egg). BUT why won’t you get pregnant? Oral contraceptives now have an added chemical, levonorgestrel, that prevents implantation of the fertilized egg ( 3-5day old fetus/baby). This causes early abortion.

  Share this with friends!

• Nica Mandigma // Oct 16, 2008 at 4:12 pm

  I’m in generally in favor of the bill. Given the high birth rate in the country, I believe that we need to take strong measures to take control of the situation, even if it means going against the teachings of the Church.

• Nica Mandigma // Oct 16, 2008 at 4:13 pm

  I’m generally in favor of the bill. Given the high birth rate in the country and the miserable condition of the larger part of the population, I believe that we need to take strong measures to take control of the situation, even if it means going against the teachings of the Church.

• aleihs // Oct 24, 2008 at 11:31 am

  sexy mom, i beg to dis agree sa mga pinagsasabi mo. during our training in UP i really admire you because you’re such a good speaker. but now, as i read your post i was so dis-appointed.

  i’am for RH BILL 5043. (sparks) is right, it doesnt promote abortion. dine, have you read the bill fully?

  please try to understand what this bill is talking about. and for all those person who is not favor for this bill, please open your mind.

  sigurado ako mayayaman kayo o kaya naman ay may kaya. wag nyo sana isara ang isip nyo at itali sa simbahang katoliko. isipin nyo naman ang mga taong kapos ang buhay ang mga mahihirap, na kahit gusto nilang limitahan ang pagdami ng kanilang anak ay wala silang magawa dahil hindi nila afford bumili ng pills, condom, injectable (DMPA) o magpa IUD at ligation. dahil kung sa pagkain nga kulang pa ang kinikta nila bibili pa ba sila ng mga bagay na ito?

  at sa pananaw ko, hindi nila kasalanan ang maging mahirap. hindi nyo pwedeng sabihin na wag silang mag-sex para hindi mabuntis. TAO lang po tayo lahat may pangangailangan even those PARI they also have sexual desire thats why some of those priest engages in sexual abuse. tayo pa kayang mga simpleng tao lang.

  wag po tayo magpaka-impokrita. buksan natin ang isip natin, at kung ang sinasabi nyo na ang mga tax na binabayad nyo ay ayaw nyo mapunta sa budget for this bill, saan nyo gusto mapunta? sa bulsa ng ilang mga tao lang kagaya nyan ni DELA PAZ? ginagamit lang ng ilang mga opisyal ang pera natin para sa pamamasyal nila, pero hindi kayo nagrereklamo. tapos para dito sa mga makabuluhang contraceptive na makakasagip ng maraming buhay ng mga kapwa natin pilipino tinututulan nyo.

  and for youe information hindi lang kayo ang nagbabayad ng taxes kami rin, at kahit yang mga mahihirap na yan they also pay their taxes kahit sa simpleng pagbili ng sabon, toothpaste at shampoo nakakabayad din sila ng tax. at saan nga ba napupunta yung binabayad natin?

• rosie // Oct 27, 2008 at 12:48 pm

  while discussions on the RH bill continue, may i quote from an online discussion something which was written in Tagalog. This makes sense re the crucial issues with regard to 5043.
  ——————————————————————————————-

  “1. Ano ba talaga ang pangunahing layunin ng HB 5043? Di ba population control o ang mas bagong terminong population management? Itinataguyod ng may-akda na ang problema ng kahirapan ng bansang Pilipinas ay nag-uugat sa over-population kaya ang solusyon ay population control, samantalang ang bansa ay number one sa corruption. Ang mahirap sa mga pinunong bayan at opisyal ng gobyerno natin, tayong mga mahihirap ang sinisisi sa problemang kanilang nilikha. Sila naman ang may kagagawan ng corruption sa bansa natin tapos ngayon sasabihin ang ang ugat ng kahirapan ay ang maraming mamamayan.

  Di ba lohikal lang na kung ano ang problema o ugat ng problema ang siyang dapat tugunan o lapatan ng lunas? Kung corruption, kapabayaan at kapalpakan ng pamahalaan ang pinagmumulan ng kahirapan, lohikal lang na iyun ang lutasin. Ang masaklap sa HB 5043, tayong mga mamamayan ang sinisisi.

  2. Sinasabi ninyo at binabanggit sa Constitution na natural and primary right ang pagmamagulang at pagtatayo ng pamilya, at tungkulin ng Estado na pangalagaan at ipagtanggol ito. Bakit ngayon pinakikialaman ng HB 5043 ang ideal na bilang ng anak, mandatory sex education, pamamaraan ng pagkokontrol ng panganganak at may kaparusahan pa ang di-umayon?

  3. Ayon sa depinisyon ng reproductive health ay para magkaroon ng “safe and satisfying sex life”. Ano ba ang layunin ng sexual act? Procreation? Pagpapahayag ng pag-ibig o pagmamahal sa pagitan ng mag-asawa o magkapareha (para sa mas liberal, pagpapasarap?) Mapapansin na ang lahat ng nabanggit na layunin ay puro positibong kategorya. Sa kabilang banda, ang “safe” o para maging “safe” ay nangangahulugan ng pagbabadya ng kapahamakan o kamatayan. Kung positibong phenomenon ang sex bakit kailangan mag-ingat? Okay sasabihin ninyong may STI/STD na dulot ng sex. Hindi kaya ang STI/STD ay nature’s way nang pagsasabi na mali ang makipag-sex kahit kanino at sinasabing isa lang ang dapat ang partner o asawa. May pagkakataon bang nagkasakit ng STI/STD ang tapat na mag-asawa? Wala yata akong alam na nagkasakit ng STD ang mag-asawang tapat sa isa’t isa. Nakipag-sex na ba kayo sa asawa ninyo, tapos nagkasakit ng STD? Magaganap lang ito kung isa sa inyo ay nakipag-sex sa ibang tao.

  Ang pagbubuntis ba ay isang negatibong pangyayari sa buhay ng babae? O ang pagiging ama ng lalaki ay negatibong pangyayari? Kung iresponsable siguro, negatibong pangyayari, pero sa isang responsableng lalaki o babae, positibo ito. Kung magkagayon, ang pagiging safe sex ay para sa mga iresponsable. Ang paggamit ba ng contraceptive o safe sex ay magiging responsable ang isang lalaki o babae? Ang usapin ay ang iresponsabilidad, samantalang ang solusyon ay contraceptives. Parang malayo yata ang dalawa. (slippery slope?)

  3. “Satisfying sex life.” Satisfaction o happiness ay isang subjective phenomenon. Paano ngayon maapektuhan ng isang social act ang subjective phenomenon na happiness? I may be healthy but not happy or satisfied. Halimbawa, tumigil akong uminom dahil pinagbawal sa akin ng doktor, hindi ibig sabihin na happy ako. Maaring happy ako kung umiinom ako. Paano yun, gustong tiyakin ng HB 5043 na magkaroon ako ng satisfying sex life, pwede ko bang ihabla ang asawa ko kapag hindi ako sexually satisfied?

  4. Gayundin ang pagtatakda ng “ideal family size” na dalawang anak. Ano ang kahulugan at implikasyon ng ideal dito? Ideal sa anong konteksto at pamantayan o panuntunan? Sino ang nagtatakda? Isang subjective category na ginagawang batas. Pwede ba yun? Ang pagkakaalam ko ang batas ay dapat malinaw at ispesipiko. Sabi ni Lagman, wala naman daw itong parusa at hindi sapilitan. Kung magkagayon, bakit niya nilagay pa sa HB? Ano ang gusto niyang palabasin? Marahil ito ang gusto niyang total fertility rate ng bansa, ibig sabihin, walang ideal dito kundi population control lang ito. Ideal siya sa konteksto ng population control. Hindi kaya pakikialam ito ng Estado sa natural and primary right ng parents na ginagarantiyahan ng Constitution?

  5. Palagi na lang pinag-uusapan ang paggamit ng contraceptives at abortion. Ewan ko, conclusive na ba ang pag-aaral sa direct correlation ng contraceptive prevalence at abortion? Sang-ayon kina Lagman, directly proportional ang dalawa. Kung totoo ito, bakit sa USA na kung saan ay 9 out of 10 babaeng reproductive age ang gumagamit ng contraceptive pero 1.5 M ang abortion kada taon? Kapansin-pansin din na sa ilang mga bansang may mataas na contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) ay may mataas din ang abortion rate o legal ang abortion o habang tumataas ang CPR tumataas din ang abortion rate. Sa kabilang banda, may mga bansa ding inversely proportional ang dalawa. So hindi conclusive at maling sabihin na ito nga ang katotohanan sa relasyon ng dalawa.

  6. Basahin nyo ang contraceptive guide ng US FDA, halos lahat ng contraceptive drugs at devices ay hindi nag-prevent ng STI/STD liban sa condom. Gayundin, ang condom ay hindi epektibo sa HPV. Hindi po Simbahang Katoliko nagsabi nito, US FDA po.

  7. Bakit ang Simbahang Katoliko ang palaging pinagbibintangan ng pagtutol sa RH Bill? Nakatutuwa o nakalulungkot isipin na kapag tutol sa RH bill at moral ang batayan, mabilis ang pagtatatak ng relihiyosong doktrina ang dahilan o propagandista ng relihiyon. Hindi ba maaring mangyari na may parehong pagtingin ang isang atheist at relihiyoso sa isang sosyal na usapin? Bakit pareho ang pagtingin ng katoliko sa barbaric nature ng Kapitalismo sa sinabi ni Lenin na ang kapitalismo ay barbaric dahil kalikasan nito ang pagkamal ng tubo na sumasalanta sa kapakanan ng mga manggagawa. Binansagan ba si Lenin bilang propagandista ng Katoliko?

  Magkagayon, ako marahil ay pagbibintangan ding propagandista ng Simbahan. Kawawa naman ang Simbahang Katoliko.

  8. Sa konteksto naman ng limitadong rekurso o resources ng bansa, ang usapin ay kung paano gagamitin ito. Ibibili ba ng contraceptives ang P 2 billion o ipantatayo ng mga bagong silid-aralan, ibibili ng mga libro, o iuupa ng mga bagong guro o ibibili ng ascorbic acid, gamot sa TB, malaria control, subsidyo sa mga mahihirap na may sakit, o tutugunan ang 10 nangungunang sakit o sanhi ng kamatayan ng kababaihan (para sa inyong kaalaman, wala sa top 10 causes of morbidity and mortality ang maternal death)?

  9. Wala namang batas na nagbabawal sa babae na gumamit ng contraceptives. Ano pa ang gustong gawin ng HB 5043? Available naman sa market. Sabi nila para raw magkaroon ng contraceptives ang mahihirap. Kung may pambili ng gin o pangtong-it ang mahirap di may pambili rin sila ng condom. Sang-ayon mismo sa family planning survey ng NSO, 9 out of 10 ay handang bumili ng kanyang supply ng contraceptives. Bakit gagastos ang gobyerno ng bilyong piso para magpakasarap sa sex ang mga iresponsableng mahihirap na ito? Dapat turuan ng gobyerno ang mga mahihirap na mga teknikal na kaalaman at kasanayan para magkaroon ng hanapbuhay at lumikha ng mga oportunidad para magkahanap-buhay.

  10. Sangayon sa liberal kapitalistang doktrina, hindi dapat makialam ang gobyerno sa pamilihan. Bakit nakikialam ngayon ang gobyerno sa merkado ng contraceptives? Dagdag pa, hindi naman welfare State ang porma ng pamamahala ng Pilipinas, bakit ngayon isusubsidyo ang pagkikipag-sex ng mga tao? Bakit hindi isubsidyo ng gobyerno ang pagsasaka ng mga magsasaka lalo na ngayong napakataas ng presyo ng mga farm inputs at mababa ang farm gate price ng mga produktong agrikultura lalo nang palay.

  Ako po’y simpleng tao lang at nagtatanong lang po.”

• Sheila // Oct 27, 2008 at 3:29 pm

  ms D,

  ako po ay simpleng tao lang din na sasagot sa tanong nyo ayon sa abot ng aking kaalaman:

  1. corruption? oo tama ka, corruption ang pinaka unang dahilan ng kahirapan at ito ay talamak ngayon sa ating bansa. sumasang-ayon ako sayo pagdating sa bagay na yan. dahil nasaksihan ko ang gantong kalakaran nung SK pa ko kahit sa lokal na pamhalaan (SK) tinuturuan din kami ng sistema na magkaroon ng corruption. ngunit sa gantong pagkakataon na gumagawa ang mga mambabatas ng kaukulang batas para sa ikabubuti ng mamamayan diba dapat natutuwa tayo. sige ginagalang ko kung ayaw nyo mang gumamit ng contraceptive, pero sana ginagalang nyo din ang mas nakakaraming tao na GUSTO AT NANGANGAILANGANG gumamit nito.

  2. HINDI po population control ang bill na ito, malinaw na isinasaad sa bill na ito ang FREEDOM OF CHOICE. nasa mag-asawa kung ilan ang gusto nilang anak at sa pagkakatanda ko walang nakasulat sa bill na dapat ay 2, 3 o ano pa mang numero na nagdidikt na dapat ganito lang ang dami ng anak. WALA PONG IDEAL NUMBER SIZE OF CHILDREN sa batas na ito. kung nais ninyo balikan nyong muli at isa-isahin.

  3. ang pagbubuntis at pakikipag-sex. hindi ito kasalanan, hindi ito masama at hindi ito pinagbabawal, malinaw yan dahil bahagi na yan ng pagkatao natin, ngayon sinasabing kailangan ng pag-iingat, BAKIT? kasi hindi lahat ng tao parepareho, maraming tao ang hindi kuntento sa isa, at hindi natin sila pwedeng pigilan sa ginawgawa nila. sa pagbubuntis at panganganak, kung nais mo handa kaming ipadala sa iyo ang mga nagawa na naming research at interview sa mga babaeng mahihirap. lahat ng pag-iingat ginagawa ng iba, lahat ng kailangan binibili nila, nagpapa-check-up sila, NGUNIT tulad ng laging sinasabi ng mga medical person na ang panganib sa pagbubuntis at panganaganak ay hindi nahuhulaan ngunit kayang iwasan. kaya kung pwede namang hindi na magbuntis sa pamamagitan ng paggamit ng contraceptive bakit kailangan pa nating pabayaan ang mga kapwa nating babae na malagay sa panganib ang kanilang buhay?

  4. sapilitang pag-gamit at pag-aaral? hindi nga po sya sapilitan, FREEDOM OF CHOICE nga diba? kaya both natural and artificial method ang pinopromote diba kasi alam ng mga mambabatas na hindi lahat ng tao gusto ang artificial method at hindi rin lahat gusto ang natural method. atleast sa bill na ito MAY PAGPIPILIAN, UNLIKE SA PINOPROMOTE NG CHURCH, ito ang malianw na sapilitan mandatorry talaga dito na dapat natural famili planning method lang. so saan ba mas may kalayaang pumili ang mga tao?

  5. hindi dapat makialam ang gobyerno kung saan saan? fyn if the law says so, why not. pero diba malinaw din na nakasaad na hiwalay dapat ang relihiyon sa politika? bakit ngayon nanghihimasok ang simbahan sa pamahalaan, nananakot pa sila, bakit takutan ba to? hindi talaga maintindihan ang tao, pag nakikialam ang gobyerno tinatawag silang pakealamero, pero pag di sila nakikialam sasabihin inutil sila walang silbi mga walang pakealam saan po ba sila dapat lumugar?

  6. para magpakasarap sa sex ang irresponsableng mahihirap? teka parang nakakpikon ata itong sinabi nyo, nagpanting po talaga ang tenga ko. wala po kayong karapatang tawaging iresponsable ang mga taong ito. at hindi lahat ng mahihirap ay nasarapan na sa pakikipag-sex. maraming beses ko ng nasaksihan ang ganitong eksena lumaki po ako sa isang e=squatter area, at ipaglalaban ako kahit saan man ang ganitong debate. maraming kababaihan lalo na sa depress area ang bikta ng marital rape at domestic violence so wag mong sasabihing irresponsable sila. hindi mo alam ang tunay na kwento sa likod ng pagkakaroon nila ng maraming anak. kahit ayaw na nila makipagtalik pero kung lasing ang kanilang asawa wala silang magagawa, dahil TURO ng GINAGALANG MONG SIMBAHAN
  na ang babae ay dapat magpasakop sa kanilang asawang lalake, at kung dumating man ang pagkakataon na tumangi sila alam mo ba kung ilang suntok, sipa at katakot takot na bugbog ang tinatangap nila? hindi mo yun alam sahil isinilang kang may pilak na kutsara sa bibig. kaya naman sila nag-nanais na magkaroon ng libreng access sa mga ganitong serbisyo.

  7. at yung tungkol naman sa pambili nila ng gin at pangsugal? sino po ba ang may ganitong bisyo? hindi po ba lalaki, pero pagdating sa paghihirap sa pagbubuntis sino ba ang tunay na nagdudusa? hindi po ba babae? sila ang nagnanais gumamit ng contraceptive dahil sila ang nagdudusa at hindi nila hawak ang pero inshort hindi nga nila hawak ang buhay nila eh, wala silang control sa ganitong sitwasyon kaya labis nilang ipagpapasalamay kung dumating ang panahon na magiging libre na ang ganitong serbisyo hindi na nila kailangang mangupit para lang may ipambili.

  8. ang pakikialam ng simbahan, bakit sila ang sinisisi? nasubukan mo na bang umattend sa congresso sa pag-dinig ng bill na ito? marahil hindi pa kaya hindi mo alam ang pinagsasabi mo na bakit sinisisi ang simbahan, sa buong panahon na dinidinig ang bill na ito nandoon po kami at makikita mong ang pinaka tumutuligsa sa bill na ito ay ang simbahang katoliko, lagi silang PRESENT FULL FORCE PA NGA SILA, pati mga STUDYANTE sa mga CATHOLIC SCHOOL ay ginamit din nila. ilang beses na din ba silang nagbanta na ang sino mangmambabatas na susuporta sa bill na ito ay hindi na kailan man makakakuha ng KUMONYON, have you heard that news? so pano mo masasabi na hindi sila ang nasa likod ng pagtuligsang ito? sana po next timy kung gusto nyo mag comment, aralin nyo po lahat ng side. yun lang at nawa ay nakatulong ako upang malinawan kayo…..

• rosie // Oct 27, 2008 at 9:07 pm

  i quoted an online discussion and i agree with the comments which i quoted. pasyensiya na po kayo ms sheila.

  ako po ay nag a-attend din ng congress sessions.
  katulad po ng mga anti RH, puno din po ang gallery ninyong pro RH bill at naisipan po naming interbiyuhin ang mga nakapila na mga naka white t-shirt bago mag session. ang sabi po sa amin ay napagutusan lang po silang mag attend ng session. ang tanong po namin ay kung bakit sila nandoon. ang sagot po nila ay di po nila alam at sila ay nautusan lang pong mag-attend. karamihan po ng nandoon sa gallery na anti RH ay alam nila kung bakit sila nandoon at sa palagay ko po ay hindi sila ginagamit.

  sasagutin ko pa po sana ang inyong ibang mga inilahad pero ang sabi po ninyo ay “nakakapikon” at “nagpanting po ang inyong tenga” kaya di na po ako susulat pa at ayoko naman pong mainis kayo ng tuluyan.

  isang request lang po, pakibasa lang po ninyo ulit ang bill. nandoon po ang recommendation nila na ang ideal size ay dalawa lang ang anak (nasa Section 16 po). at nandoon din po ang punitive provisions (Sec.21 and 22) pag hindi sumunod.

  siyanga po pala. hindi po siguro nakikialam ang simbahan na wala sa lugar. pag tungkol po sa faith and morals, ang simbahan po ay dapat i-guide ang kanilang flock.

  marami pong salamat sa oras ninyo sa pagsagot dito sa blog ni dine. God bless po.

• Ging // Oct 28, 2008 at 7:11 pm

  Misinformation about what the Catholic Church’s doctrine on Marriage really stands for leads to all this confusion about why the Church is so hot on the subject of the Reproductive Health Bill.

  Additionally, fear that the Church might ACTUALLY be right about the whole thing leads to denial and refusal to actually study and learn about why the Church has it’s stand.

  And neither is the Church lacking in its efforts to educate people about its doctrine. Despite what some may say, it’s everywhere.

  While I think some parts of the bill have good points, I know and believe the reasons why my Church is against it and support the Church’s efforts to prevent the bill’s passing.

  Thanks for this post!

• Sheila Conde // Oct 29, 2008 at 2:03 pm

  rosie,

  hindi ako napikon sa ibang mga points nyo, napikon lang po ako dun sa sinabing IRRESPONSABLE ang mga mahihirap. other than that everything is fine. actually i like this kind of conversation kasi napaka fruitful nya. diba we both learn from each other.

  about po sa SECTION 16: its not mandatory nga diba? ENCOURAGE THEM TO HAVE TWO CHILDREN…. hindi po sinasabing FORCE THEM TO HAVE TWO CHILDREN… magkaiba po yung term na yun as i know.

  at sinasabi din sa section na iyon na: the state shall assist couples, parents and individuals to ACHIEVE THEIR DESIRED FAMILY SIZE. so meaning nasa mag-asawa pa din ang desisyon kung ilan ang gusto nilang anak.

  one more thing obout the punishment: NO PUNITIVE ACTION SHALL ON PARENTS HAVING MORE THAN TWO CHILDREN.

  in short po walang iniimpose ang bill na ideal family size (2) gaya ng sinasabi nyo.

• audrey // Oct 29, 2008 at 9:20 pm

  Not everyone has seen the bill, so for those concerned, here is the text concerning “ideal family size”:

  —————————————

  Sec. 16. Ideal Family Size — The State shall assist couples, parents and individuals to achieve their desired family size within the context of responsible parenthood for sustainable development and encourage them to have two children as the ideal family size. Attaining the ideal family size is neither mandatory nor compulsory. No punitive action shall be imposed on parents having more than two children.

  ———————————————–

  Doesn’t anyone else find such a provision an insult to our intelligence? “… shall assist couples, parents and individuals to achieve THEIR desired family size…” “…encourage them to have TWO CHILDREN AS THE IDEAL FAMILY SIZE…”

  Assist us to achieve OUR ideal family size, then encourage us to have 2 kids as THE ideal family size?? Pleeease, “ideal” is subjective. Don’t the govt say it’ll assist me and my spouse achieve our (my spouse and my) desired ideal family size then go on to say that it’ll encourage me and my spouse to have the number of kids that it deems as ideal.

  What’s more — what kind of government would push for a provision like this, wherein whether people comply or not is okay? It’s not compulsory and no punitive action will be imposed. What kind of a law will that be? Okay lang if we obey, okay din if we don’t? When a legislative measure is proposed and it’s enacted into law, there are no half-measures, as in we make it into law TO BE IMPLEMENTED.

  So, if it’s not mandatory or compulsory, then it’s stupid to include it in this bill and enact it into law.

  This HB4053 has many questionable provisions but this one about ideal family size shows how ridiculous the mentality is regarding legislation.

• Sunnyday // Oct 30, 2008 at 9:36 pm

  Hi there,

  It’s good to find another place where the issues surrounding the RH bill are being discussed.

  Napansin ko na ang isang dahilan kung bakit sang-ayon ang ilan sa pag-provide ng contraceptives ay ang kapakanan ng mga kababaihan, lalo na ng mga mahihirap. Ang marami sa amin na tumututol na isabatas ang RH bill ay tutol dito dahil din ang kabutihan ng babae ang pinapahalagahan namin. Ngayon, hihingi ako ng pasensya dahil isinulat ko na ang pananaw ko tungkol dito sa ibang forum, pero sa wikang Ingles. Copy and paste na lang ang gagawin ko — sana okey lang sa inyo — dahil sobrang tagal pa bago ako matapos kung ita-translate ko ito sa Filipino.

  ————–

  I wonder if anyone here realizes that a woman taking contraceptives is relinquishing her power of self-control. She is letting her lack of fertility awareness (if she is indeed unfamiliar with the workings of her own feminine cycle), her lack of self-control, control her. Instead of her being in control, it is something else controlling her.

  Cases involving abusive husbands who come home drunk or stoned night after night have been cited as the reasons that point to the desperate need to equip women with contraceptives to protect themselves. I ask, against what? Against pregnancy? Against their husbands? Against being beaten up?

  Contraceptives are being presented as the solution to these? That will be effective — if you want to perpetuate this violence against women. It’s telling them, give in, sige lang, tutal hindi ka naman mabubuntis. Wala ka nang magagawa. This measure actually encourages men to be irresponsible, to get sex whenever they want it.

  I believe one of the solutions, if this situation is being cited by those who are concerned about women’s welfare as the reason why free and easy access to birth control is desperately needed, is GENUINE WOMEN EMPOWERMENT. Get them out of the situation. Inform them about the already existing laws/legislative measures against violence against women. Provide them skills-training. Educate them on life principles, character-building and, yes, include fertility awareness and genuine responsible parenting.

  There’s no single solution to all the problems that we and our countrymen are facing, but each has to do his part. Share what he has with others, be it material things or knowledge or time. I could be wrong but probably some people who are fervently backing the RH bill for its population control purposes and methods is that doing so would mean less efforts on the part of everyone and less need to share one’s own with others. But being true to the principles of love and charity, and being in solidarity with the poor, would require all of us who have more to give, to part with our hard-earned money and sacrifice some of our time.

  ———–

  Btw, the piece of anti-violence against women legislation I mentioned above is R.A. 9262 — the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.

  Don’t we have enough laws, ordinances, and republic acts already? Shouldn’t the emphasis be on proper implementation and adequate funding of these already existing laws rather than formulating new ones?

• Sunnyday // Oct 30, 2008 at 10:09 pm

  As for the “ideal family size” that is “not being imposed” through the bill, sure it’s not being imposed EXPLICITLY. But think about it — imposing an ideal family size (whether it’s 2, 1, 5… whatever the number) on the people would have generated numerous protests from the public. The State has no right to impose something like that on the people. So start by “encouraging” it, and probably in a few years, Filipinos will have gotten used to the idea of 2-child families so that finally establishing a formal policy such as a 2-child policy would hardly create a ripple (of course, except for those among the more vigilant citizens who know better). That’s because the people’s minds have been conditioned for it starting with being “encouraged” to have an “ideal family size” of 2 kids.

  Btw, I agree — this provision is silly and shouldn’t even be considered. Whether the people obey or not is fine? And taxpayers’ money (that’s OUR money) will fund efforts to carry out such silly programs.

• Alan // Nov 2, 2008 at 3:59 am

  QUOTED FROM THE PHIL STAR Article of JOSE C. SISON

  Actually, it is not the lawmakers sponsoring the bill but an NGO called the Philippine Legislative Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD) that is responsible for drafting it. PLCPD is a foundation housed in Congress that lobbies and acts on behalf of, and enormously funded by foreign interest groups and foreign governments out to promote through coercion and deception a population control program that is anti-life and anti-family. From 1998, this kind of bills has been introduced in both Houses of Congress and lately has penetrated our legislative system down to the local level. Over the years because of objections, the versions have changed so that various provisions have been disguised under seemingly good intentions but ultimately have dire consequences on individuals, the family and society.

  Here is the complete text:

  Crucial questions on the RH bill
  A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison
  Friday, October 31, 2008

  House Bill 5043 or The Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development Act of 2008 (RH bill) is being propagated in mass media as promoting programs that will benefit women’s reproductive health by offering to millions of poor women the right to choose between natural and artificial birth control methods and by providing access to artificial contraceptives. According to the proponents and their mass media supporters, this a right choice offered by the bill to women who most need the information for family planning. In pushing for the bill they even attack the Catholic Church for blocking it by using religion to dictate national policy and for depriving the faithful of their free will.

  The power to choose freely however must be exercised for the common good. It does not give man the right to choose and commit something wrong. In blocking the bill, the Church is just trying to point out what is wrong with it. Ironically, it is the bill itself that prevents the exercise of the free will by employing coercive methods in limiting the family size. It imposes imprisonment and or fine or both on those who would violate or refuse to carry out its program on providing access to the artificial methods of birth control.

  Actually, it is not the lawmakers sponsoring the bill but an NGO called the Philippine Legislative Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD) that is responsible for drafting it. PLCPD is a foundation housed in Congress that lobbies and acts on behalf of, and enormously funded by foreign interest groups and foreign governments out to promote through coercion and deception a population control program that is anti-life and anti-family. From 1998, this kind of bills has been introduced in both Houses of Congress and lately has penetrated our legislative system down to the local level. Over the years because of objections, the versions have changed so that various provisions have been disguised under seemingly good intentions but ultimately have dire consequences on individuals, the family and society.

  The bill uses such terms as “women’s rights”, “right to health”, reproductive rights”, “reproductive education”, “fertility regulation”, “family planning” “satisfying and safe sex” so that people may eventually accept these terms to mean something good. Its very title “Reproductive Health” is a misnomer because in the UN language the term is taken to mean universal access to abortion, while Population Development is a euphemism for Population Control. Its proponents and supporters have even redefined the word “conception” or the start of life in order to prove that some artificial contraceptives to be offered by the government are not abortifacients.

  But whether abortifacients or not, the plain truth is that in every country where contraceptives became widely available, abortions increased because women still get pregnant unexpectedly. When they acquire the mentality that a new birth is unwanted, they turn to abortion as a back up for contraceptive failure. The best example here is USA where 54% of women who had an abortion were using contraceptives when they became pregnant and where one in three women has had at least one abortion in their lifetime. This unfortunate US situation is best described by its Supreme Court which said that: “In some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception. For two decades of economic and social development, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail” (Planned Parenthood vs. Casey).

  Contraceptives made available at the expense of the government and for the benefit of pharmaceutical companies are also the causes of many diseases and infirmities rather than reproductive health. Dr Carl Djerassi himself who developed the contraceptive pill in 1960 found its “adverse effect on virtually every organ system of the human body, interfering as it does with the normal functioning of the woman’s vitally important reproductive system”. It also results in lower bodily resistance to infection, hepatic adenoma that could cause death through abdominal bleeding, nervousness and excessive irritability. IUD causes leukemia, pelvic infection, uterine perforation and ectopic pregnancy. Depoprovera is already banned in the US because they cause bone cancer and congenital malformation of babies. Tubal ligation causes severe bleeding, pelvic infection and ectopic pregnancy. Vasectomy results in hemorrhage and infections, greater risks of thyroid disorders, diabetes and heart and circulatory disease. There are more AIDs cases in countries with greater availability of condoms.

  The social consequences are direr. Due to pill use excessive irritability results, leading to child abuse and wife battery. Women’s status is lowered and couples split up due to women’s feeling of being used as sex objects to satisfy their husbands’ sex drives. In the US, more than 50% of marriages where couples use contraceptives end up in divorce.

  The RH bill does not even spare our children. In the name of reproductive health, sex education is required to be given to children from Grade 5 to fourth year high school to insure “safe and satisfying sex”. It is contended that such kind of education is a legitimate interest of the State that should be balanced with the primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the children. But as shown again by experiences in other countries sex education in schools has only promoted promiscuity resulting in unwanted teenage pregnancies. This contention is thus erroneous. In Portland, Maine, USA where schools have adopted sex education in their curriculum, recent news came out reporting that the State School Board voted to provide birth control to their school children because several middle school girls (ages 11-13) have been found to be sexually active. Hence there is also a soaring incidence of STDs among the youth as found the World Health Organization.

  The questions that every Filipino, Catholic or non-Catholic, particularly the 14 Ateneo Professors, should therefore ask in connection with this bill, are: Shall we allow our people to suffer all those physically, morally and socially harmful experiences of people in those countries that use artificial contraceptives? Is it ok to expose the life of helpless unborn to danger simply because men have redefined the meaning of the start of life? Is it ok to have a safe and satisfying sex life even outside of marriage for as long as we use artificial contraceptives to prevent the natural consequences of the act? Is it ok to disobey our parents provided we are within the bounds of human legislation?

• Alan // Nov 2, 2008 at 4:04 am

  And here’s another one:

  Facts, fallacies and counter facts on RH Bill
  FROM THE STANDS By Domini M. Torrevillas
  Saturday, October 25, 2008

  The Reproductive Health Bill (HB 5043) has four policy pillars — responsible parenthood, informed choice, birth spacing and respect for life. People opposed to it have twisted facts about the objectives of the bill.

  Below are the fallacies promoted about the bill, and the counterfacts, as taken from a publication of Likhaan, a women’s NGO, which cites studies and figures from the World Health Organization, United Nations Children’s Fund, Department of Health, and scientists and demographers.

  1. Fallacy: There is no overpopulation problem; the “carrying capacity” of the country is not compromised; it is all a problem of malgovernance.

  Counterfact: Economic experts say that while bad governance, high wealth and income inequality and weak economic growth are the main causes of poverty, rapid population growth and high fertility rates do exacerbate poverty and make it harder for the government to address it.

  At the family level, the “carrying capacity” of women and couples have long been compromised, resulting in their physical, psychological and economic harm. Eleven Filipinas die daily from pregnancy and childbirth, while 1100 encounter life-threatening maternal complications. For every woman who dies, her orphaned children have three to 10 times the risk of dying during the first 28 days of life. Almost half of all pregnancies are unplanned or unintended, and one of six are ended in unsafe abortion — about 473,00 a year.
  2. Fallacy: The bill imposes population control.

  Counterfact: The bill, in fact, is founded on informed choice. While it promotes an “ideal family size of 2,” there is no compulsion or punishment for those who have more. Women who want to be pregnant will be assisted to deliver safely; women and couples who want to regulate the number of their children and those having difficulty conceiving will also be assisted accordingly.

  3. Fallacy: Family planning leads to “demographic winter” (a future scenario where there are only old people and no children).

  Counterfact: The claim of having 0 children in the future is false. The prediction of replacement fertility or 2 children per couple by the year 2040 in the Philippines mean that there will be many children by then. This cock-eyed concern for the plight of children in the future betrays gross insensitivity to the plight of neglected children today.

  4. Fallacy: The bill promotes DEATH through abortion, or through the contraceptive mentality that leads to abortion.

  Counterfact: The bill explicitly maintains the current law that criminalizes abortion (sec. 3m), forbids it and warns young people about its dangers (Sec. 12d). However, it adopts a humane approach to women suffering complications of induced abortion by offering post-abortion care (secs. 3m, 4g4, and 12d). The bill also seeks to prevent abortion (sec. 4g4) through family planning.

  Experiences in other countries, e.g. Russia, Korea, Turkey and Bangladesh, show that eliminating the “root cause” of abortion — unwanted pregnancy — actually reduces the incidence of abortion.

  5. Fallacy: Contraceptives are abortifacients, especially pills and Intrauterine Device (IUD).

  Counterfact: Pregnancy is deemed by health authorities as part of the continuum of human reproduction that is established at “implantation,” i.e. when the fertilized egg attaches to the wall of the uterus. The proof positive that a woman is pregnant — the pregnancy test — is due to the increased amounts of the hormone, HCG, which is released by the fertilized egg as it attaches to the uterus. Contraception is the prevention of pregnancy before it starts, i.e., implantation. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy before the fetus is capable of surviving outside the uterus.

  Contraceptives are drugs or devices that are postulated to work in three ways: preventing the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation), preventing the union of egg and sperm (fertilization), and preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall (implantation). Pills are known to work primarily by preventing ovulation although it has the potential to also prevent fertilization and implantation. IUDs are known to work primarily by preventing fertilization, although it also has the potential for preventing implantation and ovulation. Once a woman is pregnant, contraceptives cannot terminate the pregnancy.

  Pure breastfeeding in the first six months after delivery — the Lactational Amenorrhes Method (LAM) — works, like the pill, primarily to prevent ovulation. But it also thins out the lining of the uterus which can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

  My column on Tuesday, answers questions on whether contraceptives are harmful, and sex education promoting promiscuity.

• Joseph // Nov 16, 2008 at 5:19 pm

  Its just what I was looking for!:D

• julian // Nov 18, 2008 at 7:58 pm

  I agree with you. somebody in the forum says that “A husband does not own his wife’s body and vice versa.” -sparks on October 10th, 2008 6:10 pm. well my only comment is that based on your testimony its like a husband does not have the right to stop his wife from having sex with anyone because it is her body and her property and her choice to have sex with anyone she likes. Good luck to your married life my friend I am guessing it wont last long. hindi po overpopulation ang problema ng bansa natin..based on Dr. Bernardo M. Villegas, professor at the UA&P School of Economics ““There is no statistical evidence of a negative connection between population increase and economic growth,” he quoted a study by resource economist Julian Simon. The Harvard-educated professor also said Nobel laureates Gary Becker (1992) and Simon Kuznets (1971) have concluded the same thing.”

• Manny // Jan 13, 2009 at 5:41 pm

  The article by Torrevillas is itself full of misconceptions and disinformation.

  For example, the article says that pregnancy is established at “implantation”. But this is NOT the view of all health authorities nor of the Philippine Constitution. The Constitution recognizes that human life begins at conception and is worthy of protection from thereon. This is also the view of the Catholic Church and many other Christian denominations.

  But Torrevillas also admits that certain contraceptives can prevent implantation. With nowhere to implant, the fertilized ovum (already a human being) is eventually destroyed. This is an early chemical abortion. Torrevillas’s own information, therefore confirms that such contraceptives are ABORTIFACIENTS.

  Torrevillas also claims that pure breastfeeding in the first six months after delivery thins out the lining of the uterus which can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. This is totally false and has been refuted time and again. Some examples of the reactions to this ridiculous claim are:

  Hogwash in the guise of research
  Joan C Clements
  http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/32/6/355#570

  ‘Rhythm Method Killing Embryos’ Study is False on Science and Morality
  By John-Henry Westen
  http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jun/06060508.html

  Are these results of a study or suggestions only?
  Guenter Freundl, Prof. Dr.
  http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/32/6/355#548

  The fact that the bill’s advocates are now resorting to disinformation is indicative of how little justification exists for HB 5043. Let’s dump this harmful bill as well as the trapos who authored it.

• JAMES // Sep 24, 2009 at 3:30 pm

  Philippines, were Christians we believe in the church teaching, we don’t need the hb 5043 for change, we only need discipline,good governance to prevent economic difficulties. this hb5043 gives to the Filipinos more immorality instead we must develop our morality.this house bill lose the dignity of the Filipinos if this will approved in the congress.please, ano kaya ang manyari sa bansa natin? isipin nyo muna what is hb5043.

• Manny // Oct 9, 2009 at 2:15 am

  Some things to remember about the RH/Abortion Bill…

  * HB 5043 promotes a form of abortion.

  The Bill funds hormonal contraceptives and IUDs. There is growing body of evidence proving that these types on contraceptives are abortifacient, meaning they can cause an early-term abortion. Even if one chooses to deny reality and refuse to believe the evidence, there is still no evidence to the contrary: no one has ever proven that such contraceptives can never cause an abortion. At best, those in favor of such contraceptives can only claim the issue is UNRESOLVED. Given the grave stakes involved (destruction of innocent human life), we are morally and logically obliged to take the SAFER APPROACH and reject the use of potential abortifacients.

  * HB 5043 violates human and civil rights.

  The Bill forces doctors, and health workers to dispense artificial and abortifacient contraceptives (under the guise of “reproductive health services”). If a person objects to this and refuses to do so, he/she is still required under the Bill to still refer the requestor to another person who will perform the objectionable act. Thus the Bill forces persons top become formal cooperators in what they believe to be an immoral act, violating their right to conscience,.

  let me make an analogy. One may refuse to become an assassin, but if you are forced to refer the person contracting the hit to another assassin, you are guilty of formal cooperation and are an accessory to the crime.

  The Bill also forces employers to distribute such contraceptives, even in violation of their conscience.

  Parents will be forced to send their children to attend a SINGLE and MANDATORY s3x-education curriculum created by the government, regardless of whether this curriculum conforms to their beliefs,. Thus parents will lose their right to determine the moral education of their children.

  Schools will also be forced to teach this government-mandated curriculum even if it contradicts their institutional beliefs. Religious schools, in particular, will therefore be denied their right to freedom of religion.

  * HB 5043 wastes scarce resources.

  The Bill allocates large amounts to provide free/cheap artificial contraceptives that do NOT cure any disease, but does not mandate any funding for measures and medicines that will cure or treat real killer diseases. Thus it diverts funds that could be used to save lives and wastes it on useless, elective treatments that will not save anyone. It is as if the Bill’s authors are treating pregnancy like a disease (which it is NOT).

  The Bill does not even provide funding for measures that will address maternal mortality, namely proper health facilities and trained attendants,. Instead it will flood health centers with contraceptives that will NOT treat pregnancy-related complications.

  Thus there are very grave reasons to reject HB 5043 and to give it a more realistic label: the RH/Abortion Bill.

• Eustaquio Bungangkahoy // May 2, 2010 at 5:48 pm

  Proponents of H.B, 5043 “Reproductive Health” bill always cite that that the Philippines is over-populated at 90 million people to rationalize their support for artificial birth control. But is the country really overpopulated? And the implication is that our country is poor because of that 90-million figure.

  Population figures are meaningless if we don’t take into consideration the area where that figure lives. For example, what does it mean that Japan has 127 million people? Or that the U.S.A. has 309 million?

  Let’s take a look at a sample of Wikipedia’s listing of countries according to population DENSITY, or the number of people in every square kilometer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density), April 24, 2010:

  Rank Country People/Sq.Km.
  1 Macau 18,534
  2 Monaco 16,923
  3 Singapore 7,022
  4 Hong Kong 6,348
  …
  43 Philippines 307
  …
  129 Ethiopia 71

  Compared to the thousands of the top 4 most-densely populated countries, the Philippines at 307 is hardly “over-populated”!

  And what about the overpopulation=poverty myth? The top 4 countries are so RICH! Macau is Asia’s playground for billionaires, streets choked with Rolls Royces. Monaco is summer capital to Europe’s kings, princes, dukes and other royalty. No need to say anything about Singapore and Hong Kong.

  These top 4 countries are so small and have no natural resources to brag about but yet so rich. So is the Philippines poor because there are “too many” Filipinos and that we have no natural resources? Look at Ethiopia in Africa. If less people means more wealth to be shared, Ethiopia should be at the top of the list, instead of being one of the world’s poorest.

  Some people may argue that the top 4 are rich because they are small and easy to manage in spite their large population. So let’s look at huge China with its 1.3 BILLION. It is the fastest growing economy in the world, predicted to overtake the U.S.A. in about a decade, and even now lends money to the U.S.A.!

  Right within our own country, compare the population-to-wealth ratio of Sequijor, Cebu and Manila. Obviously, the more population, the wealthier the place!

  Now guess what is our country’s biggest dollar earner? It’s our Overseas Foreign Workers – human life.

  Clearly, life is God’s GIFT and a nation’s WEALTH!

  So what is causing our poverty?

  RIIIGHT! CORRUPTION! And the guilty ones hide their sins by blaming us the people for having too many children! What if by a miracle, our population is cut in half a year from now, will our country start getting richer if corruption is still there? Of course not!

  (How true is the rumor that those who support H.B. 5043 are offered millions by giant foreign pharmaceuticals who make birth control pills and devices? Hopefully not true…)

  ====

  So okay, the Philippines is not over-populated AND over-population does not cause poverty. But what about on the family and personal level?

  No one can argue that feeding more mouths requires more money. But will it make us poor? We have all heard of stories of immigrants from China escaping the poverty and oppression there. They came in dirt-poor, ate “lugaw”, had 10 children, worked hard, became millionaires, and now control our economy! Many successful Filipinos share the same life story, coming from very large families, and struggling and sacrificing all the way to the top. Yet we also know many families with only one or two children but remain very poor all their lives.

  Children do not make us poor. Poverty is caused by many more crucial factors like lack of education, lack of opportunities, lack of drive, lack of discipline, lack of inheritance, even lack of luck. But one thing is sure, lack of children will not make us rich.

  ====

  But what if we just want to give more quality time and better education to fewer children? Now THERE is a very good and very noble intention! The healthiest and the BEST way to do this is to abstain during fertile days.

  Abstention (self-denial) is self-discipline and builds our character. It is the same discipline we use to abstain from stealing government money; to abstain from cheating at school and at taxes; to abstain from extra-marital affairs; to abstain from skipping classes and cutting work hours; to abstain from bribing policemen; and to abstain from selling our votes.

  And this abstention we practice is exactly the same abstention we are teaching our children: to abstain from eating too much candy, to abstain from over-spending, to abstain from pre-marital sex, and to abstain from drugs… to be children of strong character and will-power, not weaklings and spoiled brats.

  Artificial birth control on the other hand, offers us the “choice” of indulging in pleasure without responsibility; the same easy “choice” of accepting bribe money instead of hard work and sacrifice; the same easy “choice” to cheat during exams rather than study diligently; the same “choice” for instant gratification over self-denial and patience; the same “choice” to behave like dogs and monkeys, urinating and copulating, anytime and anywhere the urge strikes them, rather than conduct ourselves as the noble descendants of Lapu-lapu, Gabriela Silang, and the Katipuneros.

  Let us re-learn the values of abstention, self-denial and discipline. Such virtues will harden us, strengthen our character, enrich our families, and make our country great again.

• Cenlee // May 3, 2010 at 6:02 am

  I just do hope that the government would properly promulgate to all the Filipinos this kind of policy before implementing it.

  I think there are other means of diminishing poverty.

  I truly believe that corruption is the main root of all evil in a country and that corruption devours us.

• Cenlee // May 3, 2010 at 6:06 am

  Time is gold but nothing can compare the price of life.

  It cannot be bought.

  It is sacred.

  It must not be taken away from anyone because no one has the right to grab it except God.

• joy // Jan 1, 2011 at 11:07 pm

  here are 9 best arguments why Catholics oppose the RH bill…
  http://catholicposition.blogspot.com/2010/12/9-reasons-why-i-oppose-rh-bill-hb-5043.html

• Heriel Gloduve // May 27, 2011 at 12:05 pm

  I say No Tom RH bill

• pauline // May 28, 2011 at 5:22 pm

  HELLO MS. SHEILA?

  actually, i have read the whole bill… ang sa akin lang, may freedom of choice naman pala eh, bakit pa kailangang may RH Bill? eh di, walang silbi din yon…

  D ba mahal yong condom, pills, IUD at iba pang contraceptives, if our government will procure millions of this, definitely, hundreds or even thousands of millions din ang gagastusin ng gobyerno… D ba corrupt bansa natin? eh, di lalong madagdagan pa yong venue ng corruption… Yong mga maternal health care, breastfeeding, etc. na objectives ng bill, d ba may existing na mga programa na tayo about don? Parang redundant na yong RH bill eh… Eto, base lang sa pagkakaintindi ko ha kasi binasa ko talaga yong bill before i came to a disposition that I should be against it..

Leave a Comment