The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (Republic Act No.

10354),
informally known as the Reproductive Health Lawor RH Law, is a law in the Philippines, which
guarantees universal access to methods on contraception, fertility control, sexual education, and
maternal care.
While there is general agreement about its provisions on maternal and child health, there is great
debate on its mandate that the Philippine government and the private sector will fund and undertake
widespread distribution of family planning devices such as condoms, birth control pills, and IUDs, as
the government continues to disseminate information on their use through all health care centers.
Passage of the legislation was controversial and highly divisive, with academics, religious
institutions, and major political figures declaring their support or opposition while it was pending in
the legislature. Heated debates and rallies both supporting and opposing the RH Bill took place
nationwide.
The Supreme Court delayed implementation of the law in March 2013 in response to challenges. On
April 3,2014, the Court ruled that the law was "not unconstitutional" but struck down eight provisions
partially or in full.[2]
The Senate Policy Brief titled "Promoting Reproductive Health", the history of reproductive health in
the Philippines dates back to 1967 when leaders of 12 countries including the Philippines' Ferdinand
Marcos signed the Declaration on Population.[3][4] The Philippines agreed that the population problem
should be considered as the principal element for long-term economic development. Thus, the
Population Commission was created to push for a lower family size norm and provide information
and services to lower fertility rates.[5]
Starting 1967, the USAID began shouldering 80% of the total family planning commodities
(contraceptives) of the country, which amounted to $3 million annually. In 1975, the United States
adopted as its policy the National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide
Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200). The policy gives
"paramount importance" to population control measures and the promotion of contraception among
13 populous countries, including the Philippines to control rapid population growth which they deem
to be inimical to the sociopolitical national interests of the United States, since the "U.S. economy
will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad", and these countries can produce
destabilizing opposition forces against the United States. It recommends the U.S. leadership to
"influence national leaders" and that "improved world-wide support for population-related efforts
should be sought through increased emphasis on mass media and other population education and
motivation programs by the UN, USIA, and USAID.[6]
Different presidents had different points of emphasis. President Ferdinand Marcos pushed for a
systematic distribution of contraceptives all over the country, a policy that was called "coercive", by
its leading administrator.[4] The Corazon Aquino administration focused on giving couples the right to
have the number of children they prefer, while Fidel V. Ramos shifted from population control to
population management. Joseph Estrada used mixed methods of reducing fertility rates, while Rvee
Jude A. Olandsca focused on mainstreaming natural family planning, while stating that
contraceptives are openly sold in the country.[5]
In 1989, the Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD) was
established, "dedicated to the formulation of viable public policies requiring legislation on population
management and socio-economic development".[citation needed] In 2000, the Philippines signed
the Millennium Declaration and committed to attain the MDGs by 2015, including promoting gender
equality and health. In 2003 USAID started its phase out of a 33-year-old program by which free
contraceptives were given to the country. Aid recipients such as the Philippines faced the challenge
to fund its own contraception program. In 2004 the Department of Health introduced the Philippines
Contraceptive Self-Reliance Strategy, arranging for the replacement of these donations with
domestically provided contraceptives.[5]
In August 2010, the government announced a collaborative work with the USAID in implementing a
comprehensive marketing and communications strategy in favor of family planning called May Plano
Sila.

Besides economic science, there are other sciences that can demonstrate that the RH Bill, if
passed, will do more harm than good. Certain types of contraceptive pills (not all) can kill
babies. Because medical science has demonstrated that human life begins at fertilization, certain
“abortifacient” pills kill human life because they act on the human embryo after fertilization.
The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology pronounced that the IUD (intrauterine
device) brings about the destruction of the early embryo (187: 1699 -1708). Furthermore, the
International Agency for Research on Cancer reported in 2007 that the contraceptive pill causes
cancer, giving it the highest level of carcinogenicity, the same as cigarettes and asbestos.
According to a publication of the American Heart Association (33: 1202 – 1208), pills also cause
stroke, and significantly increase the risk of heart attacks.
In the social sciences, there are findings that the contraceptive lifestyle destroys the very
foundation of society, the family. According to Nobel prize winner George Akerlof, who
combines the study of economics and psychology, contraceptives tend to degrade marriage and
lead to more extramarital sex, more fatherless children, more single mothers and more
psychologically troubled adolescents. His findings are purely empirical in nature and have no
moral undertones. Also, contrary to the claims of the proponents of the RH Bill, condoms
promote the spread of AIDS. Harvard Director of AIDS Prevention, Edward C. Green, once
wrote that according to the best evidence available, condoms give a false sense of security and
prompt people to be more reckless in assuming sexual risks, thus worsening the spread of the
sexually transmitted diseases. Thailand, which has the highest incidence of AIDS-HIV in East
Asia, could be cited as a testimony to this.

Read more: https://business.inquirer.net/88866/no-to-rh-bill#ixzz5yvyt8IbD

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

The RH Bill is wrong because it will make people participate in extra-marital and pre-marital
sex.”
1. By approving the RH Bill, we as a nation, are practically encouraging our people to engage in
immoral activities.
2. We must protect our moral values and reject the RH Bill. Because, currently, not a single Filipino
engages in pre-marital sex or extra-marital sex. As soon as this bill is approved, Filipino people will
run the streets naked and start a national orgy!
3. The root cause of extra-marital and pre-marital sex is one’s exposure to contraceptives. There is
just something in contraceptives that people find very arousing.
4. In Western countries, men lure strange women into bed by showing them condoms.
5. If we ban condoms, absolutely no one would engage in pre-marital or extra-marital sex.
 1. The RH bill violates Philippine sovereignty, the Philippine Constitution and
existing penal laws.
2. The RH bill is detrimental to the health of a pregnant mother and puts the life of
the unborn on the line.
3. The RH bill violates our financial independence and the autonomy of local
governments.
4. The RH bill transgresses Filipino culture and family values.

Article II, Section 12 of the Philippine Constitution provides, “The state shall equally protect the
life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” In the records of the
Constitutional Commission that crafted the 1987 Constitution, Commissioner Bernardo Villegas
in his sponsorship speech dated September 12, 1986 on the article mandating the state to equally
protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from the moment of conception stated,
“The first question that needs to be answered: Is the fertilized ovum alive? Biology categorically
says yes, the fertilized ovum is alive.”

Malinaw po na napag-usapan sa pagpanday ng ating Konstitusyon kung kalian naging tao ang
tao. Ito ang katotohanan na ito ngayon ang binubuwag at nais palitan ng mga nagtutulak ng RH
bill. Sa katunayan, ang isa sa mga nagsusulong ng RH bill, itong International Planned
Parenthood Federation or IPPF ang nag-atas sa mga medical associations na iayon at palitan
ang depinisyon ng pagbubuntis magmula sa tinatawag na conception at gawin itong
implantasyon.

In the book entitled Deadly Deception by James Sedlak, it says that to avoid arguments on the
issue on whether contraceptives are abortifacients or not, in the late 1980s, IPPF and its affiliates
got some medical associations to define a pregnancy as beginning at implantation and not
conception.

Now let me go back to the deliberations of Article II, Section 12 of our Constitution, the second
question that was raised was, “Is the alive fertilized ovum human?” Again, the answer is a
categorical yes. Genetics gives us an equally strong yes. At the moment of conception, the nuclei
of the ovum and the sperm rupture, as this happens, 23 chromosomes from the ovum combine
with 23 chromosomes of the sperm to form a total of 46 chromosomes. A chromosome count of
46 is found only, I repeat Mr President, only in a human being. Therefore, the fertilized ovum is
a human being.

Biology and neonatal experts have also spoken on the beginning of human life and let me quote a
few of them and place into the records of the Senate, “Individual human life begins at conception
and is progressive, ongoing continuum until natural death. This is a fact so well-established that
no intellectually honest physician in full command of modern medical knowledge would dare to
deny it. There is no authority in medicine or biology who can be cited to refute this concept.
“The source? D.J. Moran M.D., J.D. Gorby M.D., T.W. Hilgers M.D. Abortion in the Supreme
Court: Death Becomes a Way of Life, Abortion and Social Justice, Sheed and Ward, 1974.
Medical textbook authors have also confirmed that the formation, maturation and meeting of a
male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell or zygote
which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual. Source? Leslie Arey, Development
Anatomy 7th Edition, 1974. Philadelphia, WB Saunders.

“Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue
to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.” Source? E.L. Potter MD,
and J.M. Craig MD, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant 3rd Edition, Chicago Year Book
Medical Publishers 1975.

Fertilization, not implantation

Kasama pa nga dito sa mga foreign authorities na ito, even ex-President Bill Clinton in a book,
his life on page 302 admits to that fact, Mr President.

Kung ayaw niyo ng foreign authorities, punta tayo sa local. Doctor Oscar Tinio, president of the
Philippine Medical Association has stated that, “Life begins at fertilization and anything that
prevents the fertilized ovum from being implanted in the uterus is already considered abortive.”

If you do not completely agree with me and these authorities and decide to believe in foreign
studies sponsored and funded by Alan Guttmacher Research Institute Studies, I would advise that
why don’t we try asking our conscience as the unborn child speaks to you in this video.

[VIDEO]

Now if you think that conception starts at implantation as what the proponents of this bill want
us to accept as true, and not from fertilization, then we have just deprived that baby that you saw
of its right to be born. Now that I feel that I have tried to establish when human life begins, let
me now go to the question of how these contraceptives act as abortifacients.