"Misconceptions and Clarifications on Issues
Related to Humanae Vitae and the Reproductive "Health" Bill in
Philippine Congress."
by
Rev. Fr. Gregory D. Gaston, STD
(This
primer was written for Avenues, the Journal of San Carlos Seminary Graduate
School of Theology. Copyright © 2008 by the author, a priest of the Archdiocese
of Manila, assigned since January 2008 at the Holy Apostles Senior Seminary,
Makati City, Philippines, and was previously an Official of the Pontifical
Council for the Family, Vatican, for five years. For consults and resources on
related topics, please visit Safe.ph.)
MISCONCEPTIONS/CLARIFICATIONS
The world is overpopulated. Global population will soar
to 11.9 billion by 2050. "Yet this is not the full story. To the contrary,
in fact. Across the globe, people are having fewer and fewer children.
Fertility rates have dropped by half since 1972, from six children per woman to
2.9. And demographers say they're still falling, faster than ever. The world's
population will continue to grow—from today's 6.4 billion to around 9 billion
in 2050. But after that, it will go sharply into decline. Indeed, a phenomenon
that we're destined to learn much more about—depopulation—has already begun in
a number of countries. Welcome to the New Demography. It will change everything
about our world, from the absolute size and power of nations to global economic
growth to the quality of our lives." [Michael Meyer, "Birth
Dearth," in Newsweek, September 27, 2004, p. 58. Since the 1970's, several
demographers, economists, and other experts have been informing the public of
these trends.]
Overpopulation is a scientific fact. Not overpopulation,
but population ageing and underpopulation, as seen in these sample article
titles:
*
European Pension Systems Set to Collapse. Low Fertility Blamed, in Friday Fax,
May 4, 2000.
*
Underpopulation, Not Overpopulation, the Real Global Problem, in Washington
Post, March 18, 2001.
*
Developed Nations Warned on Aging Crisis Time Bomb, in Manila Bulletin, Aug 30,
2001.
*
Have Three Babies to Sustain the Population, in Daily Telegraph, Dec. 12, 2003.
*
Asian Economies Desperate for Babies, in Daily News Express, Feb. 2, 2004.
*
Have More Babies, Say the Tories, in Daily Mail, September 22, 2003: "Women
should have more babies to stave off the looming crisis of an ageing
population, the Tories will say today. The call to 'go forth and multiply'
comes from work and pensions spokesman David Willetts, who wants couples to
send birth rates soaring."
*
In address to Estonians, President Calls on Citizens to Make More Babies, in
New York Times, January 2, 2003: "Worried about a declining population,
Estonia's president has urged the country's 1.4 million residents to make more
babies. 'Let us remember that in just a couple of decades the number of
Estonians seeing the New Year will be one-fifth less than today,' President
Arnold Ruutel said in a speech broadcast live on national television Wednesday.
Our population growth rate of 2.04% is extremely high. The CIA gives a
much lower estimate of 1.728% (World Factbook Country Listing of 2008,
available on the internet).
We should aim for a Zero Population Growth Rate. Zero Population
Growth Rate will make the Filipino race at first extremely old, and then rare,
and finally extinct.
Filipino families have too many children. The UN Population
Division figures indicate that it is not an exaggeration to say that as early
as now the Philippine Total Fertility Rate [children per woman] is already
dangerously low. Whereas in the early 1970's the average Filipina had six
children, today she has around three, and in another 20 years, only two.
Shortly after 2020, or just fifteen years from now, the Philippine TFR will
sink below its replacement level of around 2.29." [Rev. Fr. Gregory D.
Gaston, STD, World Population Collapse: Lessons for the Philippines, in Familia
et Vita, vol. XII (2007) no. 2, pp. 84-113, paragraph no. 22. Henceforth
referred to as WPC and paragraph number.]
Having two children should be the 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.
As
of now the Philippines' total fertility rate, or children per woman, is
projected to go below replacement (2.29 children per woman) by 2025. After that
we will experience the population ageing and collapse taking place today in
rich countries, and like them, we will also wish to pay parents to have more
children--but unlike them, we will have no money to do so.
Pushing
for only two children per family will make all this occur even earlier.
(Note
that two children per family would give a total fertility rate of much lower
than two, since women without children would have to be included in the
computation of "children per woman," or total fertility rate.)
Intensified population control programs will slow down
population growth, improve the economy soon, and thus solve poverty. The effect desired
by population controllers, the slowing of population growth, will not
immediately take place, due to population momentum, decreased mortality and
longer lifespan. By the time population growth will have slowed down, the Total
Fertility Rate will be way below the replacement level, and the average
population age will be extremely high. In other words, the solution proposed to
solve poverty, that is, population control programs, will just create more
economic difficulties in the long run.
Nor
may one say that we should limit population growth now, hope for rapid economic
development, and finally try to solve whatever problem might come up in the
future. It will simply be too late by then. Countries that were already rich 30
to 40 years ago when their TFR's started to decline, and are now ageing,
encounter extreme difficulty in solving their economic problems today. Their
efforts to encourage their citizens to produce more children have not yielded
acceptable results after a decade. They depend on immigration to maintain their
population growth. The Philippines is not a rich country today, and may or may
not be rich within 50 years. How will it support its ageing population? Will it
also invite workers from other countries to replace its dwindling workforce?
How will it attract immigrants if it has no jobs to offer to its people in the
first place? Even if it becomes rich by then, it will have to face the same
problems rich countries face now, and will have to tell the people to raise
more children. We simply cannot afford to fall into the trap rich countries
have fallen into 30-40 years ago, and from which they desperately try to escape
today. Graphically speaking, we cannot afford to have in the future a
population pyramid like theirs now, and then, like them today, wish to regain
the population pyramid we have now." [WPC 26]
In ruling out population control as a solution to
poverty, the Catholic Church teaches that the people should beget as many
children as they can, following God's command, to "go forth and multiply. Ruling out
population control' simply means not encouraging people to have few children,
which is entirely different from telling them to have all the children they can
possibly produce. Parents should instead be guided and supported to attain the
number of children they can generously and responsibly raise and educate. For
some spouses, this means having one child or two; for others, five, ten,
twelve, fifteen or even more. Neither the government nor the Catholic Church
may compel, instruct, or encourage spouses to raise a specified number of
children, as what population control programs definitely try to do, either
through massive propaganda, or through deceptive and coercive policies. Rather,
the government and the Catholic Church should form and guide the people to
reflect on their actual circumstances, and to freely, generously and responsibly
decide whether to have another child now, or not to have another child for the
time being or indefinitely. This is one aspect of responsible parenthood, which
the Catholic Church has always taught, and which takes into account both the
real capacities of individual spouses and the national demographic
situation." [WPC 27]
The Catholic Church has always recognized the existence
of a "population problem," and the government's intervention in the
decision-making of spouses as to the number of children they beget. In recognizing that
it is legitimate for the state "to intervene to orient the demography of
the population," it immediately adds that, "This can be done by means
of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian,
coercive measures. The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of
spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education
of their children. In this area, it is not authorized to employ means contrary
to the moral law" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2372).
Humanae
Vitae (no. 2) describes some changes taking place in 1968. "In the first
place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that
world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the
consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with
greater hardships."
Note
that while Humanae Vitae in this point observes that there is the rapid
increase in world population, it merely expresses the fear of many, without
owning that fear, that world population is going to grow faster than available
resources. Today, forty years later, we can see for a fact that while
population has grown, food production has grown even more.
Since
1965 to 1994 the population of the world has nearly doubled, but food
production has kept well ahead... United Nations figures show there has been a
rise of over 30% in the period 1951-92 in food production per capita, that is
to say the amount of food which would be available to each person in the world
if it were divided equally. This has occurred in spite of the fact that Western
farmers are paid millions of dollars a year to keep land out of production. If
these European and American farmers were to produce to their capacity, food
prices would collapse as a result of the glut (Population Facts and Myths,
published on the Internet in 1994 by the National Association of Catholic
Families in the UK). The problem then is not food production but proper
distribution. Hence the solution should not be to reduce the number of
consumers, but social justice.
In
recent years, Church documents have focused greatly on the fall of fertility,
which, "very significant in almost all parts of the world, is irrefutable
and evident from the facts published by specialized organizations. It is,
nontheless, frequently disregarded" (Pontifical Council for the Family,
The Ethical and Pastoral Dimensions of Population Trends, March 25, 1994). Such
fall in fertility is the real "population problem" today.
The Catholic Church is not concerned with the plight of
the poor in the country. The Catholic Church dedicates a huge part of its
efforts at the service of the poor, helping the government: education,
microlending, presence in slum areas and garbage, orphanages, feeding programs,
social action projects, calamities, opposition to destructive mining and
destructive logging, Pondo ng Pinoy, Caritas, environmental ecology concerns,
human ecology, family empowerment.
Whenever
the Church talks against graft and corruption, she does so also out of concern
for the poor. Poverty will be very quickly eradicated if graft and corruption
are eradicated, so that taxpayers' money will go to the poor (especially in
terms of education, which is the long-term solution to poverty, and livelihood
programs) and not to those rich who steal from the poor.
Each
time poverty is blamed on the 'population problem,' its real and root causes
are conveniently tolerated or covered up: graft and corruption in the public
and private sectors, burden of foreign debt servicing, and bad governance,
resulting in failed development programs" (A Manifesto of Filipino
Families on July 25, 2008).
Contraceptives should be listed as essential drugs. They should not be
listed as essential drugs, but as dangerous drugs and devices. Pills have been
shown to cause abortion of a 5-day old baby, cancer, premature hypertension,
heart disease, etc. IUD's are abortifacient and may cause intrauterine trauma, pelvic
infections and ectopic pregnancy. Condoms have high failure rate even against
pregnancy and thus do not guarantee protection against AIDS and other STD's.
Tubal ligation and vasectomy (especially targeting the poor) leave couples
without the chance to have more children (for example, in case of improved
economic situation, or death of their present children) and little or no
support in their old age.
Hence,
it is the right of the citizens to be forewarned of these, even in the form of
government warnings, as in the case of cigarette smoking ("is dangerous
for your health"), alcohol ("drink moderately"), and infant milk
formulae ("mother's milk is best for babies under two years old")—not
out of religious concerns, but as part of consumers' rights.Possible warnings
could state: "CONDOMS DO NOT GUARANTEE PROTECTION FROM AIDS AND OTHER
STD'S", "PILLS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO CAUSE CANCER AND ABORTION OF 5-DAY
OLD BABIES," and, "IUD'S MAY CAUSE TRAUMA OF THE UTERUS AND ABORTION
OF 5-DAY OLD BABIES," etc.
(For
the medical data on these dangerous drugs and devices, see also John Wilks, A
Consumer's Guide to the Pill and Other Drugs, 3rd Ed., National Bookstore,
Inc., Manila 2000.)
Pope
Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, in denouncing sustematic anti-childbearing campaigns,
described posoning the lives of defenseless human beings as similar to a form
of "chemical warfare" (Paul VI, Address to the participants of the
World Food Conference, Nov. 4, 1974. Pope John Paul II, Centessimus Annus, no.
39).
Condoms have no holes. They provide truly safe sex, as
advertised.
"'Condom manufacturers in the United States electronically test all
condoms for holes and weak spots. In addition, FDA requires manufacturers to
use a water test to examine samples from each batch of condoms for leakage. If
the test detects a defect rate of more than 4 per 1,000, the entire lot is
discarded. The agency also encourages manufacturers to test samples of their
products for breakage by using an air burst test in accordance with
specifications of the International Standards Organization.' [Mike Kubic, New
Ways to Prevent and Treat AIDS, in FDA Consumer, Jan-Feb 1997 (revised May 1997
and Jan 1998; available at http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/197_aids.html).]
If
four leaking condoms are allowed in every batch of 1,000, there could be
hundreds of thousands or even millions of leaking condoms circulating all over
the world, either sold or distributed for free, and most probably contributing
to the spread of HIV/AIDS and STD's. Does the public know this? Does the public
know that the risks increase the more often and the more promiscuously one is
exposed, considering the cumulative risk factor, as explained
earlier?"[from Family Values Versus Safe Sex. A Reflection by His
Eminence, Alfonso Cardinal López Trujillo (then President of the Pontifical
Council for the Family), December 1, 2003. Note that the first paragraph above
came from the US Food and Drug Administration website.]
Condoms
are effective in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS in a country. "In
Thailand and in the Philippines, the first HIV/AIDS cases were reported in
1984; by 1987, Thailand had 112 cases, while the Philippines had more, with 135
cases. Today, in the year 2003, there are around 750,000 cases in Thailand,
where the 100% Condom Use Program had relatively great success. On the other
hand, there are only 1,935 cases in the Philippines - and this, considering
that the Philippines' population is around 30% greater than Thailand's!
Relatively low rates of condom use by the people in general, and staunch
opposition from the Church and a good number of government leaders against the
condom program and sexual promiscuity, are well-known facts in the Philippines."[from
Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo (then President of the Pontifical Council for
the Family, Vatican), Family Values Versus Safe Sex, December 1, 2003. The
quoted text cites the following references: Rene Josef Bullecer (Director of
AIDS-Free Philippines), Telling the Truth: AIDS Rates for Thailand and the
Philippines; Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines, Pastoral Letter
on AIDS: In the Compassion of Jesus, January 23, 1993; and Jaime L. Cardinal
Sin, Pastoral Letter on Subtle Attacks against Family and Life, July 9, 2001.]
The
Catholic Church teaches that contraceptives, including condoms, cause abortion.
Abortion is the termination (killing) of life, not simply of pregnancy. Life
begins at conception when the sperm and the egg meet. Killing the new life at
any moment after this, and before it is born, is considered abortion. The new
life develops as it goes down the fallopian tube, and implants onto the
mother's womb when the tiny baby is around five days old.
Condoms
do not directly cause abortion because they prevent conception—if there is no
conception, there is nothing to kill in the first place. But they can lead to
abortion if, because of high condom failure a woman gets pregnant, she decides
to kill the baby in her womb.
Pills
and IUD's make the womb's lining unhabitable for the new baby. ; hence, in case
they fail in their contraceptive actions, the five-day old baby will be unable
to attach to his or her mother's womb. This has to be called
"abortion," for the five-day old baby dies in the process, and such
action of pills and IUD's is called "abortifacient.
Natural methods are not effective. The modern natural
methods (e.g., Billings, Sympto-Thermal, Basal Body Temperature) can be more
effective than contraceptives, if they are learned and practiced as a way of
life and not as "natural contraceptives." Hence, communication, love,
respect, self-discipline, and formation in the values are necessary for the
natural methods to work—values that are not exclusively religious, but very human
and natural as well, and values that are not necessary in the use of
contraceptives.
The obsolete calendar and the rhythm methods, and their
modern repackagings, should not be taught (including by the DOH) because of
their high failure rates. Withdrawal is not a natural method, and has extremely
high failure rates.
It is sad that many doctors (including Ob-Gyn's) are not even familiar with
many of the facts regarding benefits of the natural methods and the medical
ills of contraceptives.
The Catholic Church teaches that in each sexual act, the
couple should aim for a new child. No. Rather, the Catholic Church teaches no
action, whether before, during or after the sexual act, should close the
possibility of new life or kill the new life that arises.
Hence,
in the woman's infertile periods, or if one of the spouses is sterile, the
couple may still perform the sexual act since they do not do anything to
prevent the possibility of, or kill, new life.
The Reproductive Health bill does not promote or pave
the way to abortion, since it even states that abortion remains illegal in the
Philippines.
The bill does not legalize surgical abortion, but it does PROMOTE all types of
abortion, and DOES LEGALIZE abortion of 5-day old babies.
SEC.
4. Definition of Terms.h. Reproductive Health Education – is the process of
acquiring complete, accurate and relevant information on all matters relating
to the reproductive system, its functions and processes and human sexuality;
and forming attitudes and beliefs about sex, sexual identity, interpersonal
relationships, affection, intimacy and gender roles. It also includes
developing the necessary skills to be able to distinguish between facts and
myths on sex and sexuality; and critically evaluate and discuss the moral,
religious, social and cultural dimensions of related sensitive issues such as
contraception and abortion.
To
"critically evaluate and discuss the moral, religious, social and cultural
dimensions of related sensitive issues such as contraception and abortion"
paves the way to abortion because it will present abortion as a hypothetical
(hypothetical as of now in the Philippines, while practical in other countries)
solution to an unplanned pregnancy. The next step will be to push for safe and
legal abortion.
This
reflects the mentality presented in some sex education modules, which could
very well go this way:
"Ang
pagkontrol sa kakayahang mag-anak ay isang karapatang makabago para sa
kababaihan... May dalawang uri ng batas na nagkakaroon ng impluwensiya sa
gawaing ito. Ang una ay may kinalaman sa paggamit ng kontraseptibo, kusang-loob
na pag-papa-opera upang hindi magkaanak at paglalaglag ng sanggol. Ang ilegal
na paglalaglag ng sanggol ay ipinagbabawal ng batas sapagkat hindi makabubuti
sa kalusugan ng ina. Ang pangalawa ay nagbibigay ng karapatan sa kababaihan sa
pagpaplano ng pamilya.
Note
than in such a formulation, illegal abortion is considered wrong because it is
bad for the woman's health. The child being killed is insignificant. The
solution insinuated is to legalize abortion so that it could become
"safe"--safe for the mother (they claim, though abortion is always
traumatic for her), but not for the baby.
Some
candidly say that if legislators and teachers insist on asking their student to
discuss the pros and cons of abortion, then parents should also insist on
discussing the pros and cons of killing legislators and teachers (for example,
if they are inefficient, involved in graft and corruption, etc.).
The Reproductive Health bill does not promote sexual
promiscuity.
SEC.
4. Definition of Terms
c.
Reproductive Health – the state of physical, mental and social well-being and
not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the
reproductive system and to its functions and processes. This implies that
people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life, that they have the
capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do
so, provided that these are not against the law.
The
law will guarantee children and teenagers (since they are "people")
the right to have a satisfying and safe sex life with anyone, and to decide if,
when and how often to reproduce. Hence children have the right to have
information and access to contraceptives, and to learn all possible options in
case they get pregnant--including abortion, which "unfortunately" (as
they will be made to feel), is still illegal.
Parents
who object to this "right" act against the law, a law which of course
goes against the parents' inherent right to educate their children.
The Reproductive Health bill will strengthen parental
rights in forming and educating their children. SEC. 3. Guiding
Principles.L. Respect for, protection and fulfillment of reproductive health rights
seek to promote not only the rights and welfare of adult individuals and
couples but those of adolescents' and children's as well...
SEC.
4. Definition of Terms
d.
Reproductive Health Rights – the rights of individuals and couples to decide
freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children; to
make other decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion
and violence; to have the information and means to carry out their decisions;
and to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health.
In
the Bill, children and adolescents have the right to have a "satisfying
and safe sex life," and "to decide freely and responsibly the number,
spacing and timing of their children." In such a case parents (and teachers,
public authorities, priests, etc.) who do not want children to have sex with
classmates will be going against the children's rights, and hence they can be
considered as "coercing" the children to stay away from sex. Earlier
bills have even proposed fines and/or imprisonment for similar acts; this is
indicative of their real intentions.
In
some countries, school clinics are prohibited from informing parents if their
child seeks or has undergone abortion, whereas they are required to do so for
treatment of a minor wound.
Reproductive
health rights will therefore weaken parental authority and rights over the
upbringing of their children. Children are brainwashed into this promiscuous,
anti- parent, and anti-authority mentality through Value-free sex education
modules.
The Reproductive Health bill is an original idea of
Filipino Congressmen.
Reproductive Health bills are pushed by the PLCPD (Philippine Legislators'
Committee for Population and Development), a foreign funded NGO with offices
questionably located in Congress, precisely where our laws are made. This is in
complete violation of our national sovereignty and our pro-family and pro-life
Constitution. PLCPD has access to formidable financial resources (including the
P2 billion budget this year), and is backed by a powerful conglomerate of NGO's
(see A Manifesto of Filipino Families on July 25, 2008).
The Reproductive Health bill promotes health. "We would
rather call them the 'reproductive death' bills. They are totally silent on the
aforementioned ills which will bring DEATH not only to the body, but to the
person, family and society as well: D-ivorce E-uthanasia A-bortion T-yrannical
population control H-omosexual unions" (A Manifesto of Filipino Families on
July 25, 2008).
Filipino families cannot do anything to stop the
Reproductive Death bills.
A Call to Defend the Filipino Family against the
Reproductive 'Health' Bills
We call on all Filipino Families to defend ourselves by defending life. We have so far succeeded in foiling many of the attempts of our lawmakers to enact reproductive health statutes. We believe they are being enticed by monetary and other compensations, but we hope that they will see the grim reality behind reproductive 'health'. But now could be our last chance. Many countries have fallen into the subtle and the blatant attacks against their families. It is time to organize ourselves better and pressure our leaders to come up with pro-family and pro-life legislation and programs.
We call on all men and women of good will, of all creeds, social standing, and political affiliations, to further promote the family. Let us patronize family-safe establishments, and complain to our civil authorities against those offering drugs, gambling, pornography and prostitution, especially those surrounding our homes and our children's schools. Let us boycott products and services that degrade sex and women in their advertisements. Let us review the textbooks used by our children for promiscuous and anti-parental content. Let us make the TV stations know that we want wholesome family entertainment.
Recovering the Family's True Nature.
We hope that in the end, children may see their parents as role models of family warmth and citizenship, and that parents and grandparents may experience the appreciation and respect of their children whom they have truly loved and guided. Humanae Vitae prophetically warned that we could lose our values if we go against God's design on the responsible transmission of life within the family.
May the Filipino Family, which is the sanctuary of life and love, rediscover and reclaim the peace and joy that rightly belong to us.
(A Manifesto of Filipino Families on July 25, 2008).
*****
8 Reasons Why We Should Not Passed RH Bill
By World Youth Alliance Asia
1. The Reproductive Health Bill undermines
the human rights it seeks to advance.
The government cannot, on the one hand,
guarantee the “universal basic human right to reproductive health” with its
concomitant “right to make free and informed decisions,” and on the other hand
advocate a policy that tells parents—especially women—what their choices should
be. Such an approach is an unjustifiable affront to the dignity and capacity of
the poor.
The bill also claims to give equal
importance to natural and artificial methods of family planning. This claim
does not hold. While mention is given to natural methods of family planning, no
funding is provided for the promotion of these methods in the budgetary
provisions of the bill. Natural methods rely on investments in the education of
women and increased knowledge, in order to enable women to manage their health,
and make informed decisions. Budgetary allocations must be inserted to the bill
to provide funding for the training of knowledge-based reproductive health care
providers, and the promotion of necessary information to women in order to
enable informed choice.
2. Maternal Health requires access to
healthcare facilities and reproductive health education, not contraceptives.
Improved access to basic health care,
nutrition, medicines and technology are the additional means by which maternal
mortality and morbidity can be reduced and eliminated.
The mandate of the
RH bill to increase obstetric care and skilled birth attendants, is not
emphasized in this bill. The causes of maternal mortality and morbidity are
limited: hemorrhage, infection, obstructed labor and hypertensive disorders.
These causes can be significantly addressed through investment in skilled birth
attendants, and provision of health education for women and families.
There is probably no
more important step the Philippines could take toward improving reproductive
health. The UNFPA states that three-fourths (¾) of all maternal deaths could be
averted by the presence of skilled birth attendants. By contrast, family
planning is likely to reduce maternal deaths only by one-third. The RH bill’s
current provisions for maternal care are important, but underdeveloped in
comparison with other parts of the bill.
3. It does not protect the rights of
conscience of those that will be responsible for implementing new measure.
All reproductive health care workers should
“provide information and educate” and “render medical services” consistent with
the new provisions in this bill. This bill does not include measures that
protect conscientious objections for healthcare workers or institutions that
refuse to provide services due to religious or cultural beliefs and practices.
In addition, through state-imposed reproductive health curriculum in schools,
this bill undermines the rights of parents to be the primary educators of their
children. Likewise, denying couples the right to marry without first receiving
“adequate instruction” on family planning and responsible parenthood violates
their individual freedom conscience and discriminates against those who would
refuse such training in religious or cultural grounds.
4. It violates freedom of expression.
The bill’s
criminalization of speech that “maliciously engages in disinformation” (an
undefined category) about the substance or even potential motives behind the RH
bill violates the constitutional right to free speech and expression. The
provision should be eliminated in its entirety.
.
5. Increase in Contraceptive use leads to
higher abortion rate
Dr. Malcolm Potts, abortion and
contraceptive advocate and past medical director of the International Planned
Parenthood Federation, said that “As people turn to contraception, there will
be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate.” Dr. Judith Bury of the Brook
Advisory Center chimed in a few years later that “There is overwhelming
evidence that, contrary to what you might expect, the provision of
contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate.”
The reason for this is twofold: First,
contraceptives fail a certain percentage of the time. A 5% failure rate means
that 5% of the couples using a certain method will be pregnant at the end of
the year. Second, the use of contraceptives gives a false sense of security
that leads to risky sexual behavior. The result is more “unplanned” pregnancies
and hence more abortions.
6. It fails to reaffirm the Philippines’s
protection of the unborn.
Filipino law has long defended the right to
life of all persons, whether born or unborn. The Reproductive Health Bill makes
only an ambiguous statement of principle (“While nothing in this Act changes
the law against abortion...”) as part of a care provision for post-abortion
complications. Additionally, the bill’s guarantee of “reproductive health care
services,” as opposed to the defined term “reproductive health care,” as well
as a “universal basic human right to reproductive health” according to
international legal custom, could eventually open the door to undermining
Philippines national law protecting unborn persons.
7. Recent reports emphasize the problems
with widely used family planning programs that fail to meet the needs of the
poorest populations.
“Strategies that seek to increase
contraceptive use rapidly by improving services and access in convenient or
well-resourced areas are likely to increase observed inequities in
contraceptive use.” Maternal mortality and general reproductive health problems
also remain high because the unique issues facing poor populations are not
addressed. (Nuriye Ortayli and Shawn Malarcher, “Equity Analysis:
Identifying Who Benefits from Family Planning Programs.”) In this way
family planning programs, by focusing on contraceptive use rather than an
integrated, comprehensive approach to population development, fail to address
the needs of the poor.
8. There has never been a direct link
connecting high population with high poverty rates.
Correlation is not causation. It is
short-sighted to think of declining population growth as a goal in of itself.
Population control, as an economic policy, has proven to be unsustainable.
Across Europe and Asia, countries that saw steep declines in fertility in the
past generation are now bracing themselves for the future consequences of an
aging population, when a large number of elderly can no longer be supported by
the smaller and younger working class. During the 1970s and 1980s, Singapore
instituted an aggressive two-child policy, which led to a situation of labor
shortages and the difficulty of supporting an aging population. In an effort to
recover, Singapore now pursues a pro-fertility policy.
In the case of Hong Kong, the country’s
dense population has had no debilitating effects on its economic development.
Hong Kong has experienced a great economic boom and high levels of economic
prosperity largely due to a sound banking system, no public debt, a strong
legal system, and a rigorously enforced anti-corruption regime. This case
provides a clear example that economic development is not synonymous with small
population size, and that a large population is not only sustainable but an
asset to development.
No comments:
Post a Comment