women's health and rights advocacy group has been pushing for a comprehensive sex education to combat the

prevalence of teen pregnancy and HIV among Filipino adolescents.

"We observed that our education on sex is more focused on contraceptive and not as a life perspective. We believe
that such education had to combat the taboo on sexuality discussions, and rather than bringing about information
but also a change in attitudes," Junice Lirza Melgar, co-founder and executive director of Likhaan Center for
Women's Health said during a forum on Wednesday in Mandaluyong City.

Likhaan works on women's health and reproductive rights with the core programs of community women's
organizing, primary women's clinic, and research-based policy advocacy.

Melgar said teachers, who will be channels of sexuality education, must have a normative change so they can
effectively teach life skills to adolescents.

She added that their group proposes to the government a spiral progression of sexuality education from Kinder to
Grade 12.

"We think this will respond to the high rates of pregnancy and rates of HIV in adolescents. This is the future of
sexuality standards which worked in countries like America in dealing with teenage pregnancy, there should be
knowledge, component values and basic life skills," she said.

Citing that adolescents are able to get vicarious information on sex from the Internet, peers and other people,
Melgar said Filipino learners must have access to authoritative information about sex and reproductive health.

"This part of having the life skills, life skill to communicate their own boundaries, their own self-concepts and to
negotiate that using their own language to be able to refuse, even in Grade 1, learning to refuse a lewd touch, which
must be graduated from Grade 1 to 12," she said.

Melgar added that it is important that Filipino learners must know about their sexual body parts as early as Grade 1
without feeling shame or guilt.

"They should know sex is something natural that their parents do. That it's something adults do, adults who can
manage the consequence of sexual behavior. They should also have values of self-respect, respect for others,
regardless of who they are, regardless of their bodies and sexual behavior, non-judgmentalism and a positive
attitude towards sexuality," she said.

Melgar lauded the Department of Education (DepEd) under President Rodrigo Duterte's administration for its
openness to their proposal in line with sexuality education improvement.

"The term condom, we propose mentioned in Grade 6 and the more intricate aspects of contraceptives in Grades 6
to 9. Unlike the previous administration, we cannot even mention the word 'condom' and 'sex'. This administration's
DepEd has actually accepted those standards which are painstakingly developing the curriculum to implement that,"
she said.

While DepEd is responsible for the implementation of comprehensive and proper sexuality education, Melgar urged
parents and other professionals in the health and education industry to teach young people about reproductive
health and rights.

"We have a role to play to make sure that the standards and the curiculum based on it will become a reality in the
Philippines," she said.
Yes because...

The resources of the earth are limited

The earth is finite, and we have no other place to go. As we marvel at our technology we sometimes forget that
the fundamentals on which we depend are the the fertility of the soil, the availability and distribution of fresh
water, access to sustainable energy supplies and resources, and a stable climate. Above all we depend on the
stability of the earth's natural systems. The breathable atmosphere is less than 5 miles deep. Some reports
suggest that we have already lost 80% of the fish in the sea.

The problem is that our rapidly increasing population is just putting more strain on the earth's resources than it
can cope with. If everybody worldwide aspires to live even at the current living standard of the developed
world, then we are already at a population beyond sustainability.

As an example just focus on the earth's fertile soils. They exist only on a very small part of the earth's surface.
If sea levels rise, many of them are in the locations most likely to be flooded. If we misuse them with over-
intensive agriculture they will become degraded. If we build on them, then they are unavailable for food
production. If we over irrigate we will run out of fresh water. Within human time scales there are not going to be
any more.

In the end the natural order will re-assert itself. The earth will reduce the human population to a sustainable
number. The only real question is will it be through conflict, starvation and disease, or will we manage to
produce a more humane and rational plan.?
No because...
Population growth can potentially drive scientific advancement to help sustain the population level. it is
conceivable that, with enough motivation, we could learn to make habitations on other planets.

As long as we're on this planet alone, our species is living on borrowed time. Without a doubt, there will be
some sort of natural disaster that will cause an extinction event. If all of us on this planet, that's the end of the
species. If we've been pushed into moving off-world, our species and possibly others will survive.

Yes because...

Growth
The world's population has been growing rapidly. In 1800 the human population was below 1 billion. By 1930 it
had risen by 2 billion on the back of the industrial revolution and 'agricultural revolution' in Europe and North
America beginning to increase production of food so allowing the human population to grow rapidly. Since then
with the green revolution population has soared to 6.8 billion and is projected to increase further to 9 billion by
2050.[[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10578484]] While the growth rate has fallen from 2.5% to 1.2% with a
population of 6.8 billion this is still rapid growth in absolute
numbers.[[http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-
wdi&met=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+growth+statistics#met=sp_pop_grow
&tdim=true]] With the human population growing there is less room for other animals. We have become too
successful and because of that success our population expands.
No because...
We Should Be Concerned About Population Growth
Yes because...

A Lack Of Fresh Water

According to CNN, many regions will suffer from a lack of fresh water in the future. As the population rises, the
world's water usage will rise. Many areas of the world already suffer from a lack of fresh water. This is likely to
result in an increased rate of water borne diseases. More people will be forced to drink from unsanitary water
sources.
No because...
According to the USGS, it is likely that in desalinization will be widely used in the future. This will drastically
increase the world's water supply, and the technology is already being utilized.

We Should Be Concerned About Population Growth

Yes because...

Acceleration Of Climate Change

According to The Center For Biological Diversity, the world's climate is changing as a result of the burning of
fossil fuels. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere,
and this causes the world's temperature to rise. This is likely to reduce the amount of arable land on Earth, and
it will cause food prices to increase. Furthermore, climate change is likely to result in rising sea levels. There
even are major cities that could be flooded. As the population increases, the production of fossil fuels will
increase. This is likely to result in climate change occurring at an increasingly rapid pace.
No because...
While there is little doubt about the reality of climate change, it is unknown how mankind will be able to adapt
to it. New technology may create arable land in areas that otherwise couldn't be farmed. Furthermore, it is
possible that relocating people from areas that are flooded will become easier due to improvements in
technology.

We Should Be Concerned About Population Growth

Yes because...

Political Instability
Due to a decreasing natural resources, it is likely that overpopulation will create more conflict in the world.
According to The Population Institute, there is strong evidence of this trend. According to Everything Connects,
it is likely that governments will impose new laws to maintain control over the diminishing resources. This could
lead to restrictions of personal freedom.
No because...
Improved technology is likely to reduce or eliminate the need for some natural resources that are necessary
today. This could ultimately lead to reduced conflict in the world. This also could keep governments from
having to pass new laws to control resources.

We Should Be Concerned About Population Growth

Yes because...

Economic Problems And Crime

According to Chron, it's likely that overpopulation will lead to a scarcity of jobs. The jobs that are available are
likely to offer lower wages than in the past. As more people are unemployed or underemployed, the crime rate
is likely to rise. This is because more people could be forced to commit "crimes of survival", such as stealing
food. According to Conserve Energy Future, the cost of housing is likely to rise due to limited space. This could
result in an increase in homelessness. In some regions, little is being done in some areas to prevent this.
No because...
While there may be less space available, this could simply result in people having a reduced amount of living
space rather than a scarcity of housing. Furthermore, unemployment could be reduced by the creation of
skilled labor positions that become available as a result of advances in technology.

We Should Be Concerned About Population Growth

Yes because...

Extinction Of Species
As the environment becomes increasingly damaged by overpopulation, it is likely that many more species will
be wiped off the Earth. This will result in massive disruption of ecosystems. Due to the disruption, there may be
an overpopulation of some species. According to Sea Coast Online, a lack of predators in Maine has resulted
in an overpopulation of deer. According to Everything Connects, there currently are more than 19,000 species
that are in danger of becoming extinct.
No because...
There are increased efforts to protect the environment. This is likely to prevent a large number of extinctions
that would otherwise occur. In fact, the World Wildlife Fund is working hard to save a wide range of species.

We Should Be Concerned About Population Growth

No because...

Population tends to self-regulate based upon access to birth control and education for women.
It's been proven over and over again that the initial population boom experienced by former Third World
countries doesn't continue for more than one or two generations. As women are given access to birth control
and education, the desired number of children dramatically decreases. People, most notably women, hold off
on having children until they complete their college education and begin a career. That takes at least a decade
off of their childbearing years.

At the age of around 27, a woman's fertility begins to decrease. If she's only just started trying to have children
at that age, her total number of children will be drastically reduced.

Italy, Japan, and others literally can't pay people to have children. Why? They would rather have a job and
more income than raise multiple children.
Yes because...
There are many countries in the world which are trapped in a cycle of deprivation. Lack of affordable education
and poor infrastructure leads to lack of economic success, which in turn leads to inability to afford the
necessary education and infrastrucuture. In these circumstances, having lots of children becomes a kind of
social security.

An additional factor is that there are quite a few societies where good education for women is actively
discouraged, as a social policy.

Even in countries which have advanced econonically, a drop of birth rate does not really lead to reduced
demand on resources, since each person consumes much more in terms of consumer goods, food, water,
energy etc. In the UK for example we probably consume about 3 times a fair share of the world resources
available. Countries like China, India and Brazil are hoping to join us shortly.

Getting population under control is always going to be difficult, because of the ageing population problem as
birth rates drop, but it has to be tackled sometime, and it is not going to get any easier.
The Advantage of Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines is that hopes to provide midwives for skilled
attendance to childbirth and emergency obstetric care, even in geographically isolated and depressed areas.
Thus, the one of the causes of maternal mortality, that arising from unattended births, will be addressed.

The Disadvantage of the Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines is the undue focus being given to
reproductive health and population and development, when many more urgent and important health problems
need to be addressed in the country, those that cause a significant number of deaths across the country such
as cardiovascular diseases and infections. Financial resources allotted by foreign donors to assist the
Philippine government programs could actually be better spent towards pursuing health programs targeting
communicable diseases than purchasing artificial contraceptives.

The Reproductive Health Bill is controversial, as it is being opposed by concerned citizens, especially the pro-
life, pro-family and pro-God groups, regardless of creed or religion. The Roman Catholic Church expresses its
opposition against the bill on many counts, most especially the procurement and distribution of family planning
supplies for the whole country, when the available evidence from peer reviewed medical journals supports the
hypothesis that when ovulation and fertilization occur in women taking oral contraceptives (OCs) or using
intrauterine devices (IUD), post-fertilization effects are operative on occasion to prevent clinically recognized
pregnancy. Hormonal contraceptives and/or IUDs directly affect the endometrium. These effects have been
presumed to render the endometrium relatively inhospitable to implantation or to the maintenance of the
preembryo or embryo prior to clinically recognized pregnancy. These make pills and IUDS abortifacient.

Pro-life groups, and many professionals in the medical and nursing fields, believe that physicians and policy
makers should understand and respect the beliefs of patients who consider human life to be present and
valuable from the moment of fertilization. Patients should be made fully aware of this information so that they
can consent to or refuse the use of artificial contraceptives.

However, the position of the Catholic Church and the pro-life groups does not mean that they espouse the
attitude of "natalism" at all costs, as if the "number" of children, in itself, were the unmistakable sign of
authentic christian matrimonial life.

The sexual act, properly exercised within marriage only, is ordained primarily to the propagation of life. If there
are reasonable motives for spacing births, such as serious medical conditions in the mother, or extreme
poverty, then the Catholic Church teaches that married couples may take advantage of the natural cycles of
the reproductive system and use their marriage precisely those times that are infertile (natural family planning).

Other aspects of the bill being contested by concerned citizens include the classification of family planning
supplies as essential medicines when their safety/toxicity profile and legal permissibility are questionable.

Very pertinent to the debate about reproduction rights is the right to life. The Philippine Constitution says that
the State "shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. If artificial
contraceptives are medically proven to induce abortion as one of their mechanisms of action, then
procurement and distribution of such family planning supplies are unconstitutional and illegal.
Yes, I am an LGBT. And yes, I strongly oppose Senate Bill 935 (Anti-Discrimination Bill) and House Bill 4982
(SOGIE Equality Bill) for three reasons.
FIRST: There is no need to pass these proposed bills given that there are already many existing laws that
safeguard the rights of every citizen against discrimination: (1) The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines, (2) Presidential Decree No. 442 “Labor Code of the Philippines,” (3) Republic Act No. 386 “Civil
Code of the Philippines,” (4) Republic Act No. 3019 “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,” (5) Republic Act No.
6713 “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees,” (6) Republic Act No. 3815
“The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines,” (7) Republic Act No. 7877 “Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995,”
including the (8) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are victims of discrimination for being ilocano
or kapampangan or bisaya, but do we need an Anti-Ilokano or Anti-Kapampangan or Anti-Bisaya
Discrimination Act? There are victims of discrimination because of their height, but do we need an Anti-Short
Stature Discrimination Act? There are victims of discrimination because they are fat, but do we need an Anti-
Obese Discrimination Act? These existing laws ensure that any form of discrimination is avoided. There is no
need for additional laws in this regard. Republic Act No. 9710 “The Magna Carta of Women” is in no way
similar to any of the proposed bills on Anti-SOGIE Discrimination. While this law affirms the rights of women
and seeks to eliminate discrimination, it does not impose penalties that foster a sense of entitlement and undue
advantage.
SECOND: We do not need an Anti-Discrimination or SOGIE Equality law because Filipinos are inherently
accepting of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders. Our society is innately tolerant of LGBTs. Proof of
this would be the many Filipino LGBTs who are very successful in their respective fields: business, trade,
media, education, fashion, healthcare, law, I.T., science and technology, arts, show business and even politics.
The election of the honorable representative of the first district of Bataan, Rep. Geraldine B. Roman, is yet
another validation. The Philippines has also consistently been recognized as one of the gay-friendly countries
in the world and one of the gay-friendliest in Asia. In many households and families all over the country, LGBTs
are accepted and loved, with many serving as primary breadwinners and caregivers. As an LGBT, I never
experienced discrimination growing up, whether in school or at work. I can say that I am where I am now
because of hard work, discipline, God-given intelligence and prayers.

THIRD: These proposed bills, when enacted into law, may be used as instruments to stifle or violate our
freedom of religion and freedom to live out our faith. Allow me to elaborate by posing these questions: What
will happen to a seminary or convent that will uphold Church laws by refusing admission to a transgender who
wants to study and become a priest or nun? What will happen to parishes and Catholic universities that will not
allow or recognize LGBT organizations in keeping with their mandate to abide by Church doctrines? What will
happen to “all boys” or “all girls” Catholic schools that will not accept transgender children as students because
this would go against the catechism they teach? What will happen to Catholic and Christian offices or
companies like bookstores, travel agencies, radio stations, television networks or religious organizations that
will not hire LGBT employees because it violates their faith-based beliefs? What will happen to a Muslim
school (madrasah) that pledges obedience to the Quran and hadith and will not enrol transgender students
who desire to be an imam? What will happen to a Jewish school that will not accept LGBT students applying to
be a rabbi since Orthodox Judaism prohibits it? What will happen to churches of other denominations that will
not employ LGBTs as pastors in compliance with their biblical beliefs? In all of these possible scenarios, the
proposed bills may be used to take legal action against churches, mosques, temples, religious communities
and faith-based organizations resulting in fines of up to 500,000 pesos or imprisonment of up to 6 years.
Proponents of the bill have always asserted that ensuring non-discrimination for LGBTs on the basis of their
sexual orientation and gender identity will not diminish or encroach on the rights of others. But the penal
provisions of the proposed law say otherwise. Surely, we cannot expect the followers of the great religious
traditions of the world to change their doctrines to accommodate a law that will violate their fundamental right
to freely practice the very religion that they uphold. Forcing organized religion to set aside or modify its tenets
is as absurd as forcing LGBTs to change their sexual orientation and gender identity.
As an LGBT, as a Catholic, as a man of faith, as a Filipino, I urge the Senate and the House of
Representatives NOT to pass Senate Bill 935 and House Bill 4982.