The Redundancy of RH Bill

5043
November 2nd, 2008 at 11:21
pm by Nick
http://filipinovoices.com/the-
redundancy-of-rh-bill-5043
The Reproductive Health and
Population Development Act of
2008, or RH Bill 5043, as it
stands, has been at the center of
much of the heated debate
which has been revolving around
such issues as poverty, abortion,
contraceptives, and the role of
the church in our nation’s
progress as it deals with
population. The debate has
taken a life of its own, much of
the commentary of which has
gone way south, and into deep
philosophical differences
between those who are for or
against the church meddling in
state affairs.
Here is my final verdict on the
matter, of which, if you don’t
have the stomach to read further
commentary on more RH related
words, is simply that this bill is
redundant and has actually
been hijacked by those trying
to use it for propaganda
purposes to suit their own
ideological and/or political
motivations.
If proponents say that this will be
the solution towards providing for
a better population control policy,
it will not be because we have
not addressed the fundamental
issue of the implementation of
such a law, which in much of its
provisions, should already be
implemented by existing
agencies.
If those who oppose, such as
The Catholic Church, because
this might lead to promiscuity,
murder, and/or abortion, then
they are basing their argument
on the notion that knowledge
and information leads not to a
prosperous nation.
In either case, the debate is
misconstrued, pushed towards
ideological extremes, and
misses the most important of all
debates, how and why should
any part of this bill be
implemented, when in fact,
current laws and agencies can
already do what is being
proposed.
From where I stand, or sit, the
strong points, are not strong
enough of a motivation for me to
support this bill. It is not a
catholic point of view, nor a neo-
conservative view, it is a view
based on the provisions
contained therein. It is a view
based on the belief that
government must first look at its
existing departments and
streamline their roles. Existing
departments can already do
much of what is inherent in the
current RH Bill. A bloated bill this
has become, and in some
instances, exerting too much
government control on matters it
has no right to meddle in.
This is a bill that gives more
power to government, more red
tape, and more bureaucracy.
Making our current system a
continuing model of inefficiency.
If we streamline our current
departments of government, take
education head on, and enforce
existing laws and bills, including
pushing once again the need for
cheaper medicines, then the RH
Bill need not be necessary.
If you wish to have a debate on
pro life, abortion, euthanasia,
defining life, and the church
stand, separation of church and
state, the bill may just be a spark
to that debate, but it is not about
that debate inasmuch as it is
about the need for our nation to
progress and if that progression
is indeed tied to whether or not
population is a key factor to the
hindrance of this progress. And
still, if it is a debate on
population and the related
factors including contraception
and abortion, we already have
agencies created for such. And I
will hammer on this point until it
sinks in.
One side of the debate says
tuh-mey-toh, the other side
says tuh-mah-toh, same bill,
different interpretations,
different ideologies, all going
off on tangents, because the
current RH bill, as it stands
now, is actually a potato.
At the end of the day, if level
heads surface, this bill may only
take 1 page to actually be
effective and non-redundant. Our
focus should be efficiency, of
which government
implementation is severely
lacking.
The RH Bill is tantamount to a
non-binding resolution, simply
because it creates more
bureaucracy without the need to
actually strengthen existing
ones. It is the creation of a piece
of paper that is being used by its
proponents to effectively loosen
the power of the church, and yet,
does not do anything much than
sound off on existing
responsibilities that should be
handled by existing agencies
and departments of government.
Case in point, here is a FAQ as
to the “Family Health Programs”
of The Department of Health,
In general, what are the main
functions of the Family Health
Office?
The Family Health Office
formulates or develops policies,
standards and guidelines for
public health services. It also
provides technical assistance in
public health program/project
planning, implementation and
evaluation.
What are the major public health
programs under the Family
Health Office?
 Family Planning (Artificial
and Natural)
 Reproductive Health
What are the different public
health services does these
programs provides?
A. Child and * Care of the
Adolescent unborn
Health * Immediate
newborn care
* Newborn * Oral health
screening promotion and
* Infant and care
young child * Appropriate
feeding management
(including of illnesses
Breastfeeding) * Deworming
* Full * Promotion of
immunization child
* Adequate safety/injury
nutrition prevention
(including
B. Maternal
Micronutrients/
Health
food
fortification) * Preparatory
* Early services prior
childhood care to pregnancy
and * Quality
development prenatal care
* Regular * Safe delivery
growth * Quality
monitoring and postpartum
promotion care
* Newborn and
Care Management
of Abortion
C. Womens’s
and its
Health
Complications
* Family * Women and
Planning Children
services Protection Unit
* Prevention
So, when I say redundant, it’s
right there in writing.
But I do applaud this bill because
it has stirred the pot on the
issues that has been festering,
especially in terms of population
control, abortion, and family
planning, and the stranglehold
that the Catholic Church has
held on our state. The Church is
not our state, there is no
concurrent state within our
republic. If The Memorandum of
Agreement is unconstitutional,
the imposing of the Catholic
Church on the progress of our
nation should also be declared
unconstitutional. But this is a bill
that has copy-paste written all
over it and has failed to realize
that the DOH is already
mandated and tasked to provide
such provisions that have been
made.
Take for example, in the bill, the
stipulation that medical care
must be extended to those who
are requiring emergency
treatment in cases of pregnancy
and those of maternity cases, or
even those that need post-
abortion attention. Redundant.
Inasmuch as this seems like a
responsible statement to make,
the most responsible and legal
act is to extend medical care to
all medical emergencies, period.
Already, such statements flies
against the face of the fact that
emergency care must be
provided to everyone, in all
cases, irrespective of the
background of that case.
And in this instance, this
statement goes at the heart of
health care in general, and in the
end, it should be a push towards
a proper health care plan, so that
such emergencies are reduced,
and preventative care
emphasized.
The proponents of the bill may
have had the goal of loosening
the Church’s hold on the state,
which is fine, just don’t insult our
intelligence by crafting a
redundant piece of legislation.
I mean, such a move towards
this goal should not be handled
through legislation, but through
civil society. Leglislating is
serious business, time lost,
money spent, all of which could
be channeled towards crafting a
more comprehensive health care
program.
The Church is already supposed
to not meddle in the affairs of
state, no amount of legislation
can repeal this, because it is
already stated plain and clear in
the constitution. It is our society’s
need to rest on the church for its
morals that should be
questioned.
We should be looking towards
DOH since many of the
provisions mentioned are
already mandated by DOH, not
to mention a competing bill
regarding medicine, which is the
cheaper medicines bill, which
would make medicine including
contraceptives more affordable.
Furthermore, as stated,
regarding emergency care for
maternity patients, this should
already be taken care of
irregardless of whether or not
this bill passes.
It is not that what is contained in
the bill is irrelevant, not
important, or is false, and will not
help in our need to help our
nation progress. That’s contrary
to the point. and the point, as I
will have to stress, over and
over, here on this article, is that
the bill is redundant.
At the risk of alienating myself
from both sides of the debate, I
have to say, both sides are
wrong for reasons that are clear,
that the debate is no longer
about the bill itself, it is about
philosophical differences, that
should be waged, not with the
use of taxpayers money, and the
time of our legislators.
Why has this bill received such
great fanfare? Because it is once
again, going to the heart of our
culture, and the need for many to
finally try to separate the
church’s role in our affairs of
state.
The RH Bill has become nothing
more than the talking point with
which both sides can argue their
points on abortion, right to life,
population, and the role of The
Catholic Church. Fine, let the
discussion take place, but don’t
insult the Filipino people, waste
valuable legislative hours, by a
redundant bill.
All the arguments regarding
population is fine by me,
because I actually happen to
agree, but this is not the bill with
which anything positive will
result. The fact is, it is a
redundant bill, a copy paste type
of legislation.
Take a stand against the
imposition of the Catholic Church
to legislate from its high horse,
but don’t push a piece of
legislation that is nothing short of
redundant.
Pro or Anti RH Bill? Maybe we
should be discussing pro or Anti
efficiency of government
institutions that should already
be doing what is contained in the
RH Bill.
March not on the streets, but
maybe towards your local DOH
offices and push for them to stop
sitting on their asses, and
actually do something they were
supposed to be doing in the first
place. Act on their mandate.
The RH Bill is not a silver bullet
cure of what ails our nation, even
if its premise lies in population
control as one of the means to
alleviate poverty, nor is The RH
Bill the proponent for pro
Abortion and anti-life. It’s simply
the main propaganda tool for
which proponents need to lodge
an attack on the church. fine, it
has done so, mission
accomplished, now let’s move on
to actually making certain
departments and the current
government accountable for its
lack of implementation of its
mandate given to it by the
people.
The fact is, that this is becoming
a test case, to slowly chip away
at the church, and as Manolo
would suggest, a litmus test.
And so, the bill and the debate
moves ahead, without anyone
really looking at the
implementation of such a
scheme, and the realization, that
the debate has gone south,
veered away so much so, that it
is no longer about Reproductive
Health per se, but a debate on
the religious merits of issues that
should not be tied to it in the first
place.
And oh, did I mention that this
bill is redundant? Well, just
wanted to make sure you got my
point.

Experts: RH bill doesn't

address reproductive health
problems
http://www.cbcpnews.com/?
q=node/5967
MANILA, November 22, 2008—
The controversial Reproductive
Health (RH) bill now being
deliberated in Philippine
Congress does not address
“reproductive health problems,”
say bioethics experts.
“We commend efforts to improve
the quality of life of the Filipino
people. We agree that there is a
need to address the present
problems in reproductive health.
This bill (An Act Providing for a
National Policy on Reproductive
Health, Responsible Parenthood
and Population Development
and for other purpose of House
Bill No. 5043), however does not
address these problems in a
holistic manner. It focuses
mainly on pregnancy
prevention,” said a group of
bioethics groups of the country in
a press statement.
The press statement titled,
“Consensus statement on
Reproductive Bill 5043) was
signed and approved by
Southeast Asian Center for
Bioethics represented by Fr.
Fausto B. Gomez, OP, president
and Angeles T. Alora, MD,
executive director; Edna
Monzon, MD, president of
Catholic Physicians’ Guild of the
Philippines and chairman of
Faculty of Medicine and Surgery
of Dominican-run University of
Santo Tomas (UST), Mayumi
Bismark, MD president of
Bioethics Society of the
Philippines, and Mrs. Lucia V.
Soltes, Catholic Nurses Guild of
the Philippines.
Bioethics is the philosophical
study of the ethical controversies
brought about by advances in
biology and medicine.
Bioethicists are concerned with
the ethical questions that arise in
the relationships among life
sciences, biotechnology,
medicine, politics, law,
philosophy, and theology.
The "consensus position paper
on RH bill" reflects the Catholic
teachings of the Church, current
theological trends and bioethics
principles, said Father Gomez,
professor of bioethics at the
Faculty of Medicine and Surgery
of UST, the oldest univeristy in
Asia.
The RH Bill 5043, which is in
substitution to House Bill Nos.
17, 812, 2753 and 3970, were
introduced during the first regular
session of the 14th Congress by
Edcel C. Lagman, Janettte L.
Garin, Narciso D. Santiago III,
Mark Llandro Mendoza, Ana
Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel
and Elandro Jesus F. Madrona.
Population control is a highly
politicized issue in the country,
where more than 80 percent of
the 90 million population are
Catholics.
“We commend efforts to involve
different sectors of society,” said
the statement which was issued
after lengthy deliberations of a
colloquium held on November
14, 2008.
The RH bill seeks to establish a
national family planning program
that would include sex education
and use of on birth control, which
the Catholic Church considers
"immoral." The Church has
objected on any artificial form of
birth control and has been
waging a strong campaign to
block the passage of the bill.
With regard to family planning,
the group of experts on bioethics
said, “The family planning
agenda should use natural rather
than artificial methods.”
“Sex education is an important
part in the integral development
of the child. The responsibility
lies first with the parents. Their
role should be stressed. It should
also involve the school with
teachers who should be
educated. The absence of
content regarding values in the
way sex education is taught
gives an impression that there is
no universal value, human
sexuality, not sex education,
should be taught,” said the
bioethics groups that comprised
of medical doctors, nurses,
health professionals and
teachers of health sciences and
others.
They (bioethics groups) further
reiterated saying, “The (RH)
program should provide
information and definitions which
are accurate and free of
contradictions: the antiabortion
stance of the bill’s
contraindicated by the promotion
of contractive agents (IUD and
hormonal contraceptives) which
actually act after fertilization and
are potentially abortificient
agents.”
“Clinical decisions,” as
permeated by RH, “cannot be
mandated (in the need refusing
to refer patients to family
planning services based on
conscientious objection is
penalized) but must be left to the
informed conscience of the
health practitioner,” the
statement said.
“Human freedom is a universal
right. Health professionals and
educators should be free to
conscientiously object without
fear of penalty and sanction,” the
statement stressed.
International aid agencies and
economists have supported the
RH bill saying it is crucial if the
Philippines is to curb its annual
population growth rate of 2.04
percent, one of Asia's highest.
“We are all of the same intention
in protecting the mother during
her reproductive years but we
must also consider the rights of
others involved: specifically the
unborn and those tasked with
their care,” the statement said.
“In the pursuit of the authentic
common good, let us appreciate
the obligation to ensure that no
other aims or goals, no matter
how pressing, obscure or
overshadow our value of and
respect for life and the dignities
of person and family,” the press
note said.
“The bill should be re-shaped
into a fully comprehensive RH
bill after all the voices are
heard,” the bioethics teachers
and practitioners said.
Many points of RH Bill such
national agenda policy to control
population, use of
contraceptives, and sex
education provisions go against
established church doctrine and
puts the social fabric of the
mainly Catholic Philippines in
peril, according to Fr Melvin
Castro, executive secretary of
the Episcopal Commission on
Family and Life of the Catholic
Bishops' Conference of the
Philippines (CBCP).
"We can't simply follow what the
world wants us to do," the priest
said in a separate press briefing.
The Church hopes it has
adequate support in Congress to
defeat the RH bill promoting sex
education and the use of
contraceptives.
"The bishops are confident they
have the numbers," said Maria
Fenny Tatad, executive director
of the church lobby group
Bishops-Legislators Caucus of
the Philippines.
Meanwhile, despite its tough
campaign against the RH bill,
CBCP has said that it will not
take the battle against the bill to
the streets.
CBCP Family Life Executive
Secretary Fr. Melvin Castro said
that instead of holding mass
protests, they want to dialogue
the issue with the lawmakers
who authored the bill.
"We are not contemplating of
any mass actions or mass
protests because we view that
it's not necessary," he said.
(Santosh Digal)
RH’s overpopulation premise
a “hoax,” says theologian
http://www.cbcpnews.com/?
q=node/5988
MANILA, November 23, 2008
—“The overpopulation”
phenomenon in the Philippines
as said by the controversial
Reproductive Health (RH) bill
now being deliberated in
Philippine Congress is “hoax,”
says a theologian.
Fr. Gregory D. Gaston,
academic dean of the Holy
Apostles Senior Seminary,
Makati City, said, “Many of the
arguments of RH present
actually tow the line of the
overpopulation hoax, as if the
world is overpopulated, when all
demographic data and figures
point to the contrary.”
“The world’s population is rapidly
aging, and by 2050, is set to
collapse. Even the Philippines’
growth rate is rapidly declining,”
he said.
Population control is a highly
politicized issue in the country,
where more than 80 percent of
the 90 million population are
Catholics.
“There is no ‘population
explosion,” despite the highly
orchestrated media hype about
it. Our women are not multiplying
like rabbits; ‘overpopulation’ is a
myth,” said former senator
Francisco "Kit" Tatad, a key
advocate against the RH bill.
According to the proponents of
RH the country’s population
growth rate is down to 2.04%;
the total fertility rate (TFR), or
the number of children a woman
of reproductive age can have in
her lifetime, down to 3.02. This is
all according to the National
Statistics Office (NSO).
According to the CIA World
Factbook, 2008, however, the
birth rate is down to 1.72%; the
TFR down to 3.00. The U.N.
Population Division projects that
by 2020 the TFR will drop to
2.29—just a breath away from
the replacement level of 2.1.
Thereafter, it will all be
downward until the rate falls
below replacement level.
Tatad said the population has
not shrunk. Because despite the
falling birth rate and the steady
toll exacted by the leading killers
on both men and women, the
average Filipino today has a
lifespan of 70.8 years, longer
than his counterpart of the last
generation. So the population
will continue to grow, at a
moderate pace.
There is an attempt by RH
authors and sponsors of RH to
panic the public with scare
scenarios about the country’s
population doubling in 30 years,
and everything else getting
worse, Tatad said.
The projection assumes that all
variables will remain constant.
But they never do. So we cannot
treat the projection even as a
scientific forecast. Still they insist
on their scenarios, he said.
Sex education against holy purity
The RH bill seeks to establish a
national family planning program
that would include mandatory
sex education for Grade 5
students in all public schools and
use of on birth control, which the
Catholic Church considers
"immoral." The Church has
objected on any artificial form of
birth control and has been
waging a strong campaign to
block the passage of the bill.
“The so-called sex-education
programs promote promiscuity
for under the guise of
reproductive health and
reproductive rights, children and
adolescent will be taught to have
satisfying and safe sexual
experiences, outside marriage.
This is exactly the opposite of
the virtues of holy purity,
modesty and respect for oneself
and others,” Gaston said.
The RH bill does not address
“reproductive health problems,”
said bioethics experts.
“We commend efforts to improve
the quality of life of the Filipino
people. We agree that there is a
need to address the present
problems in reproductive health.
This RH bill however does not
address these problems in a
holistic manner. It focuses
mainly on pregnancy
prevention,” said a group of
bioethics groups of the country in
a press statement. (Santosh
Digal)
RH Bill - “fertility control
bill,” say bioethics experts
http://www.cbcpnews.com/?
q=node/6400
MANILA, The much hyped
controversial Reproductive
Health (RH) Bill 5043, that is
being deliberated in Congress,
is more of a “pregnancy
prevention” or “fertility control
bill” than maternal health bill,
say bioethics experts.
In a colloquium held November
13 at the Dominican-run
University of Santo Tomas
(UST) - Faculty of Medicine
and Surgery, leaders of the
Southeast Asian Center for
Bioethics, Medicine’s
Department of Bioethics, the
Bioethics Society of the
Philippines, Catholic
Physicians’ Guild of the
Philippines, and the Philippine
Nurses Association made a
“consensus statement” that
opposed the RH Bill in its
present form.

The bill cleverly, although

erroneously, styles itself as
anti-abortion while promoting
birth-control methods that are
“potentially abortifacient
agents,” said bioethics experts
comprising doctors and other
health professionals.

Fr. Fausto Gomez, OP,

president of the Southeast
Asian Center for Bioethics and
a member of the Pontifical
Academy for Life of the Holy
See, said maternal health
problems should be solved not
by an “anti-birth policy” but by
“means that are socially and
economically based.”

Gomez added that all the

means to be employed should
respect the dignity of life and of
persons, citing the consensus
statement:

“In the pursuit of the authentic

common good, let us
appreciate the obligation to
ensure that no other aims or
goals, no matter how pressing,
obscure will overshadow our
value of and respect for life
and the dignity of the person
and the family.”

“The advocates of the RH bill

exaggerate maternal health
problems contrary to the
government’s own statistics
that show pregnancy
complications are not a leading
cause of death among Filipino
mothers,” UST’s student paper,
The Varsitarian, reported.

As health professionals, the

bioethics members said they
are of the same intention in
protecting the mother during
her reproductive years. “This
bill, however, does not address
the problems of reproductive
health in a holistic manner and
focuses mainly on pregnancy
prevention,” a statement said.

They also criticized that the bill

“must consider the rights of
others involved, specifically the
unborn, and those tasked with
their care.”
The statement also stressed
that “the anti-abortion stance of
the bill is contradicted by the
promotion of contraceptive
agents (IUD and hormonal
contraceptives) which actually
act after fertilization and are
potentially abortifacient
agents.”

The bill is self-contradicting on

abortion but advocating
methods that hinder
conception, said Dr. Josephine
Lumitao of the Faculty of
Medicine and Surgery and
UST Hospital, which is a
country’s premier health
service institute.
While the bill denies support
for abortion, it promotes
hormonal contraceptives and
intrauterine devices, which
prevent conception, and
abortifacients, that destroy the
fertilized egg, Lumitao said.

She explained that hormonal

contraceptives, in the form of a
pill, skin patch, or injection—all
widely available in the market
—contain hormones that
prevent ovulation, and render
the outer layer of the uterus
unfavorable for implantation of
the fertilized egg, which leads
to its death due to lack of
nutrition.
Intrauterine devices, a
contraceptive placed inside the
uterus, prevent implantation.

“Is it not contradictory if the bill

promotes abortifacient
methods?”