Morality of RH Bill

CON

The issue on morality is probably the biggest argument of those who are against RH Bill. Their contention revolves
around the fact that the said bill threatens the intrinsic rights of man, such as the right to life, health, education of
children, and religious freedom.

The strongest voice against said bill is that of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines. Nereo P.
Odchimar, D.D., Bishop of Tandag and President of CBCP, expressly declared their moral objections:

1. We object to the non-consideration of moral principles, the bedrock of law, in legislative discussions of bills that
are intended for the good of individuals and for the common good.
2. We are against the anti-life, anti-natal and contraceptive mentality that is reflected in media and in some
proposed legislative bills.
3. We condemn compulsory sex education that would effectively let parents abdicate their primary role of
educating their own children, especially in an area of life sexuality which is a sacred gift of God.

First argument: RH bill is Anti-life

Human life starts at the moment of fertilization. Hence, the use of contraceptives deprives the fetus its right to
live.

CBCPs position against RH Bill stands firmly on two of the core principles commonly shared by all who believe in
God. The first principle is that the human life is the most sacred physical gift with which God, the author of life,
endows a human being. Placing artificial obstacles to prevent human life from being formed and being born most
certainly contradicts this fundamental truth of human life. In the light of the widespread influence of the post-
modern spirit in our world, we consider this position as nothing less than prophetic. As religious leaders we must
proclaim this truth fearlessly in season and out of season.

Advocates contend that the RH bill promotes reproductive health. The RH Bill certainly does not. It does not
protect the health of the sacred human life that is being formed or born. The very name contraceptive already
reveals the anti-life nature of the means that the RH bill promotes. These artificial means are fatal to human life,
either preventing it from fruition or actually destroying it. Moreover, scientists have known for a long time that
contraceptives may cause cancer. Contraceptives are hazardous to a womans health.

Advocates also say that the RH bill will reduce abortion rates. But many scientific analysts themselves wonder why
prevalent contraceptive use sometimes raises the abortion rate. In truth, contraceptives provide a false sense of
security that takes away the inhibition to sexual activity. Scientists have noted numerous cases of contraceptive
failure. Abortion is resorted to, an act that all religious traditions would judge as sinful. Safe sex to diminish
abortion rate is false propaganda.

Second Argument: RH bill is Anti-family and Anti-Marriage

CBCPs second core principle is that it is parents, cooperating with God, who bring children into the world. It is also
they who have the primary inalienable right and responsibility to nurture them, care for them, and educate them
that they might grow as mature persons according to the will of the Creator.

Sunstar, a local publication, also published how the Catholic Church sees the controversial "Reproductive Health
and Population Development Bill".
Monsignor Paul Cuizon, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Davao and parish priest of Sta. Ana Church, said the anti-
RH Bill stand is not just of the CBCP's but of the universal Catholic Church.

"It has been the constant teaching of the Church. It is contained in the Encyclical letter of the late Pope Paul VI
called Humanae Vitae. It's not just about the union of the husband and wife. The union should always be open to
life," Monsignor Cuizon said referring to Humanae Vitae (meaning "of human life") which describes a morally licit
sexual act as one that involves both procreative and uniting elements.

"Artificial contraception eliminates the possibility of a pro-creative element," Mosignor Cuizon. "Kung hindi kasi
open to life, the sexual intercourse would just be like for the human satisfaction and pleasure. When you engage in
the sexual act, that means you are ready to take the responsibility. The natural law is pro creation."

Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines or ALFI, a multi-sectoral organization committed to preserve and
restore Filipino family values, also expressed the same sentiment as that of the CBCP with regard to the immorality
of said bill. The following are its most notable contention on the issue of immorality of said bill:

1. The RH Bill undermines the institution of marriage. As Christians do not have any doctrine prohibiting ligation,
you may think it may not be of concern to many Christians, but the RH bill considers a prohibited act (Sec 21) if a
health worker refuses to perform voluntary ligation and vasectomy and other legal and medically-safe
reproductive health care services on any person of legal age on the ground of lack of spousal consent or
authorization. The Catholic and Muslim nurses and doctors who refuse to perform ligation or vasectomy, will be
committing a crime. We do not malign or disdain Catholics on this matter. It is against their doctrine. BUT, for us,
the RH bill terribly undermines marriage : the Bill puts into law that a woman or man does NOT have to have
spousal consent or authorization to have a ligation or vasectomy. And if a health worker refuses to perform this
procedure, on this particular ground of lack of spousal consent, he or she will be committing a crime. Christian,
Catholic and Muslim marriages will be affected by this.

2. The RH bill undermines parental authority and undermines the family, which are against Christian principles. The
RH Bill will punish those health workers (Sec. 21) who refuse to provide reproductive health care services to an
abused minor, whose abused condition is certified by the proper official or personnel of the Department of Social
Welfare and Development (DSWD) or to a duly DSWD-certified abused pregnant minor on whose case no parental
consent is necessary. What does it mean by reproductive health care services to an abused pregnant minor?
Pregnant young women all the more need parental guidance and consent is necessary for whatever reproductive
health services will be done on these young abused women! Why doesnt the bill specify what reproductive
health services will be done on such minors, who are already pregnant? Is this bill trying to hide the use of
abortion or the use of abortifacient chemical contraceptives like the emergency contraceptive as solutions
offered to an abused minor who is already pregnant? And all without a parents consent, which is totally
unacceptable to Christian doctrine.

3. The RH bill will teach the entire nation, especially the young people, its definitions of human sexuality, sex,
sexual identity, interpersonal relationships, affection, intimacy and gender roles. They will also define
contraception and abortion. In Section 4, the RH bill defines Reproductive health education as 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. Once
again, who decides what is correct and What are facts? The Bill and its proponents determine that. And once it is a
law, whatever they (the proponents and the Population Commission) define these things to be, will be what is
correct and anyone who teaches otherwise will be committing crimes. And once again, abortion is mentioned.
Abortion has nothing to do with responsible parenthood and family planning.

PRO

The moral arguments have often been dismissed by secularist community as irrelevant. Truth of the matter is, the
counter arguments on the moral issues are, more often than not, diverted to economic and political issues instead.

Probably the most striking question posted with regard to the issue of pushing the RH bill despite its morality
issues is that of the Ateneo de Naga Universitys article on the Pros and Cons of RH Bill where it asks, How does
one strike a balance between recognizing universal goods that must be protected and respecting the different
ways religious traditions interpret the protection of these goods?

First argument: RH bill is not Anti-life

Ateneo de Naga University, on its article on the pros and cons of RH Bill, provided for the following contention why
the RH Bill is not necessarily anti-life.

First, even the interpretation of natural law can vary from one religious tradition to another. The RH Bill is silent on
this matter, but indirectly refers to the Constitution which upholds protection of the unborn at the moment of
conception. Catholics are not forced by the bill to use contraception; They can use Natural Family Planning (NFP) if
they wish. However, other religious groups do not find contraception immoral for married couples.

Second, because the RH Bill affects all Filipinos, not just Catholics, it allows every Filipino to choose the method of
family planning and sexual education that is consistent with ones religious beliefs and moral convictions. The Bill
actually protects human rights by providing freedom of choice.

While each religious group is free and encouraged to express its moral convictions, the State cannot favor one
religious group over the others. The constitutional guarantee of religious freedom obligates the State to protect
religious minorities from the legislative imposition of the beliefs of religious majorities.

In one of the articles published by GMANews, Bishop Efraim Tendero of the Philippine Council of Evangelical
Churches said that the provisions of the RH bill are moral because they give parents the opportunity to provide
better lives for their children.

Ang bill na ito ay ayon sa Bibliya Ang RH bill ay moral dahil ito ay ayon sa utos ng Diyos na pangalagaan ang
sanlibutan at bigyan ang mga anak ng dignidad," he said.

Professor Sylvia Claudio of the UP Center for Womens Studies agreed with Tendero. She appealed to Roman
Catholic Church officials to allow Catholics and non-Catholics in the country to make their own decisions on the RH
bill.

Ang kilos ng Simbahan ngayon ay hindi nagpapakita ng respeto sa kagustuhan ng karamihan ng mga Pilipino
Hindi naman po kayo ang lulunok ng contraceptives kundi sila," she told Bacani during the debate.

Second Argument: RH bill is not Anti-family and Anti-Marriage

RH Bill does not destroy the family; in fact, it only encourages the population to responsibly raise a family. It
provides for awareness on how responsible parenthood can be a chance to alleviate poverty, thus, higher chances
of having a quality life for each Filipino Family. By using contraceptives, people have a choice as to the number of
children that they can afford to have.

As to the issue on compulsory sex education, this can be viewed as beneficial to the youth. The Reproductive
Health Education for the Youth will actually raise the level of awareness to the youths perception of gender roles
and will influence the choices that they will make about their own sexual behavior.

Further, if people are given right education then every individual can exercise his or her rightful freedom. The facts
and figures show that official estimates put annual abortions at 400,000 to 500,000, and rising. The World Health
Organization estimate puts the figure at nearly 800,000, one of the highest rates of unsafe abortions in Asia.
According to the Department of Health, nearly 100,000 women who have unsafe abortions every year end up in
the hospital. The Philippines, with its high population growth rate 2.6 percent and low rate of contraceptive use an
estimated 35 percent also has an increasing number of teenage pregnancies. Compounding the problem is the fact
that 36 percent of Filipino women become pregnant before marriage and 45 percent of all pregnancies are either
unwanted or ill-timed, according to the World Health Organization.

The government has the duty in ensuring the widespread adoption of proven best practices for maternal, neonatal
and infant care. Increasing utilization of (PhilHealth) benefits , maternity and newborn care. Coordinating and
integrating the delivery of health interventions is essential for achieving sustained improvements in health. The
need to strengthen health information system and improving systems and financing for procurement and
distribution family planning and maternal care commodities and service provider training; the people through
reforms The government should not forget that their role is to guide the people; in educating the people the
government can ensure that it had thriving order in the country through the existing law to protect the sanctity of
life.
SOURCES:

CON PROS
THE word immoral is used to describe a behavior not in
conformity with accepted standards or principles;
wicked; and lewd.
This is how the Catholic Church see the controversial
"Reproductive Health and Population Development Bill"
or RH Bill that is still being debated at the Lower House
of Representatives.
House Bill 5043 or the Reproductive Health Bill and
Population Development Act of 2008 (RH Bill) seeks
government funding for population management
programs that would provide reproductive health
education and give access to both natural and artificial
family planning methods to all Filipinos. Albay 1st
District Rep. Edcel Ladman, primary author of the bill,
earlier said the main focus of the RH bill is "the exercise
of freedom of informed choice by women and couples
on what method of family planning they want to
adopt". In short, its main goal to reduce the population
by reducing pregnancies.
Much has been argued about by the multi-faceted issue
of reproductive health -- mostly religious and political in
nature. Nonetheless, the Catholic Bishops Conference
of the Philippines (CBCP) has taken a firm stand on the
reproductive health bill because its provisions are anti-
family and anti-life.
Monsignor Paul Cuizon, Chancellor of the Archdiocese
of Davao and parish priest of Sta. Ana Church, said the
anti-RH Bill stand is not just of the CBCP's but of the
universal Catholic Church.
"It has been the constant teaching of the Church. It is
contained in the Encyclical letter of the late Pope Paul
VI called Humanae Vitae. It's not just about the union of
the husband and wife. The union sould always be open
to life," Monsignor Cuizon said referring to Humanae
Vitae (meaning "of human life") which describes a
morally licit sexual act as one that involves both
procreative and uniting elements.
"Artificial contraception eliminates the possibility of a
pro-creative element," Mosignor Cuizon. "Kung hindi
kasi open to life, the sexual intercourse would just be
like for the human satisfaction and pleasure. When you
engage in the sexual act, that means you are ready to
take the responsibility. The natural law is pro creation."
Most feminist groups argue that reproductive choice is
essential to authentic women's liberation and that this
choice includes safe, available, affordable
contraception.
Cuizon, however, said the use of contraception is
already cutting off the union and the pro-creation.
On ex-communication
Monsignor Cuizon clarified that the Davao Archdiocese
was just misquoted in earlier reports about its plan to
ex-communicate 14 councilors supportive of the RH Bill.
"I was misquoted perhaps. Yun kasing ex-
communication as a canonical penalty could not be
imposed if it is not according to Vatican law. And there's
only a list of sins with the sanction of ex-communication
and supporting the RH Bill is not in the list," he said.
There are three grave acts that merit ex-communication
along the intellectual level: heresy, apostasy, and
schism. Heresy is teachings contrary to the Church;
Apostasy is a sin against religion against God; while
schism is breaking away from Church authority.
"RH bill may not fall under heresy but it can be a ground
for ex-communication if the actions are upfront to the
Church's teachings."
People's voice
When the Church speaks on RH BIll, it is from a
standpoint of giving voice to those who cannot speak
for their opinions.
"Ano mangyayari sa city kung walang voice na mag
stand out to speak. The Church will always intervene.
But how to effectively put these people to our cause is
only through the power of the truth, he added. "The
truth per se is powerful.
Even in politics, the church is mandated to intervene if
it morality is at stake."
With arguments backed with evidences, the pros and
the antis have their causes to further and therefore
misuse of religious authority, delaying tactics, name-
calling, and intensified misinformation are not needed
but definitely should leave a lot of room for further
examination and criticisms.
So while the fate of the controversial RH Bill is on the
hand of our politicians and lawmakers, let us examine
also the pit and the pendulum surrounding the issue,
and how to properly address this in a language that
everyone can understand.

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/weekend/church-
rh-bill
Roman Catholic Bishop Teodoro Bacani said House Bill
4244 "ignored" the moral dimension of the RH issue by
endorsing the use of modern birth control methods
such as condoms and pills.
"Ang nakakalungkot sa bill na ito ay hindi nito
binibigyang pansin ang moralidad," he said.
Bacani argued that using artificial contraceptives causes
abortion. He added that giving Filipinos access to these
But Bishop Efraim Tendero of the Philippine Council of
Evangelical Churches disagreed with Bacani's opinion,
saying the provisions of the RH bill are moral because
they give parents the opportunity to provide better
lives for their children.
Ang bill na ito ay ayon sa Bibliya Ang RH bill ay moral
dahil ito ay ayon sa utos ng Diyos na pangalagaan ang
sanlibutan at bigyan ang mga anak ng dignidad," he
said.
family planning methods is the fatal flaw" of the latest
version of the RH bill.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/221336/new
s/nation/bishops-women-argue-about-morality-in-rh-
bill-grand-debate
Morality of RH Bill
The RH Bill is not just a Catholic
issue but concerns universal
human rights and values. The Bill
threatens intrinsic rights, such as
the right to life, health, education
of children, and religious freedom
Separation of Church and
State
The State should adopt the
Catholic position because the
majority of Filipinos are Catholic.
The Catholic teachings on
contraception are based on
natural law which is accessible
Professor Sylvia Claudio of the UP Center for Womens
Studies agreed with Tendero. She appealed to Roman
Catholic Church officials to allow Catholics and non-
Catholics in the country to make their own decisions on
the RH bill.
Ang kilos ng Simbahan ngayon ay hindi nagpapakita
ng respeto sa kagustuhan ng karamihan ng mga
Pilipino Hindi naman po kayo ang lulunok ng
contraceptives kundi sila," she told Bacani during the
debate.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/221336/new
s/nation/bishops-women-argue-about-morality-in-rh-
bill-grand-debate
Because the RH Bill affects all
Filipinos, not just Catholics, it
allows every Filipino to choose the
method of family planning and
sexual education that is consistent
with ones religious beliefs and
moral convictions. The Bill actually
protects human rights by providing
freedom of choice
How does one strike a balance
between recognizing universal
goods that must be protected and
respecting the different ways
religious traditions interpret the
protection of these goods?
While each religious group is free
and encouraged to express its
moral convictions, the State
cannot favor one religious group
over the others.
The constitutional guarantee of
religious freedom obligates the
State to protect religious minorities
from the legislative imposition of
the beliefs of religious majorities.
Even the interpretation of natural
law can vary from one religious
tradition to another.
and applicable to all.

. Human life starts at the The RH Bill is silent on this

moment of fertilization. matter, but indirectly refers to
the Constitution which upholds
protection of the unborn at the
moment of conception.

Contraception violates the Catholics are not forced by

integrity and sacredness of the bill to use contraception;
the marital act, the purpose of hey can use NFP if they wish.
which is unitive (uniting the However, other religious
couple in love and fidelity) and groups do not find
procreative (producing contraception immoral for
offspring). married couples.

http://www.adnu.edu.ph/images/A%20Guide%20to%2 http://www.adnu.edu.ph/images/A%20Guide%20to%2
0Arguments%20For%20and%20Against%20the%20Repr 0Arguments%20For%20and%20Against%20the%20Repr
oductive%20Health%20Bill.pdf oductive%20Health%20Bill.pdf
CBCPs position stands firmly on two of the core
principles commonly shared by all who believe in God
1) Human life is the most sacred physical gift with which
God, the author of life, endows a human being. Placing
artificial obstacles to prevent human life from being
formed and being born most certainly contradicts this
fundamental truth of human life. In the light of the
widespread influence of the post-modern spirit in our
world, we consider this position as nothing less than
prophetic. As religious leaders we must proclaim this
truth fearlessly in season and out of season.
(2) It is parents, cooperating with God, who bring
children into the world. It is also they who have the
primary inalienable right and responsibility to nurture
them, care for them, and educate them that they might
grow as mature persons according to the will of the
Creator.
Advocates contend that the RH bill promotes
reproductive health. The RH Bill certainly does not. It
does not protect the health of the sacred human life
that is being formed or born. The very name
contraceptive already reveals the anti-life nature of
the means that the RH bill promotes. These artificial
means are fatal to human life, either preventing it from
fruition or actually destroying it. Moreover, scientists
have known for a long time that contraceptives may
cause cancer. Contraceptives are hazardous to a
womans health.
Advocates also say that the RH bill will reduce abortion
rates. But many scientific analysts themselves wonder
why prevalent contraceptive use sometimes raises the
abortion rate. In truth, contraceptives provide a false
sense of security that takes away the inhibition to
sexual activity. Scientists have noted numerous cases of
contraceptive failure. Abortion is resorted to, an act
that all religious traditions would judge as sinful. Safe
sex to diminish abortion rate is false propaganda.
Advocates moreover say that the RH bill will prevent
the spread of HIV/AIDS. This goes against the grain of
many available scientific data. In some countries where
condom use is prevalent, HIV/ AIDS continues to
spread. Condoms provide a false security that strongly
entices individuals towards increased sexual activity,
increasing likewise the incidence of HIV/AIDS. Safe
sex to prevent HIV /AIDS is false propaganda.
Advocates also assert that the RH Bill empowers
women with ownership of their own bodies. This is in
line with the post-modern spirit declaring that women
have power over their own bodies without the dictation
of any religion. How misguided this so-called new
truth is! For, indeed, as created by God our bodies are
given to us to keep and nourish. We are stewards of our
own bodies and we must follow Gods will on this
matter according to an informed and right conscience.
Such a conscience must certainly be enlightened and
guided by religious and moral teachings provided by
various religious and cultural traditions regarding the
fundamental dignity and worth of human life.
Advocates also say that the RH bill is necessary to stop
overpopulation and to escape from poverty. Our own
government statistical office has concluded that there is
no overpopulation in the Philippines but only the over-
concentration of population in a number of urban
centers. Despite other findings to the contrary, we must
also consider the findings of a significant group of
renowned economic scholars, including economic
Nobel laureates, who have found no direct correlation
between population and poverty. In fact, many Filipino
scholars have concluded that population is not the
cause of our poverty. The causes of our poverty are:
flawed philosophies of development, misguided
economic policies, greed, corruption, social inequities,
lack of access to education, poor economic and social
services, poor infrastructures, etc. World organizations
estimate that in our country more than P400 billion
pesos are lost yearly to corruption. The conclusion is
unavoidable: for our country to escape from poverty,
we have to address the real causes of poverty and not
population.
In the light of the above, we express our clear
objections:
1. We object to the non-consideration of moral
principles, the bedrock of law, in legislative discussions
of bills that are intended for the good of individuals and
for the common good.
2. We are against the anti-life, anti-natal and
contraceptive mentality that is reflected in media and in
some proposed legislative bills.
3. We object strongly to efforts at railroading the
passage of the RH bill.
4. We denounce the over-all trajectory of the RH bill
towards population control.
5. We denounce the use of public funds for
contraceptives and sterilization.
6. We condemn compulsory sex education that would
effectively let parents abdicate their primary role of
educating their own children, especially in an area of
life sexuality which is a sacred gift of God.
For the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines.
+Nereo P. Odchimar, D.D.
Bishop of Tandag
President, CBCP
January 30, 2011

http://cbcponline.net/v2/?p=1151

POSITION PAPER ON THE RH BILL

By Christian Pro-life Resources for the Philippines

These are the reasons why we say NO to the RH bill:

1.The RH bill carries with it an oppressive punishment

for people who will not comply with it, making
disagreeing with it and teaching something contrary to
it a crime. Section 21 of the RH bill says that the ff. acts
are prohibited: any health care service provider,
whether public or private, who shall knowingly withhold
information or impede the dissemination thereof,
and/or intentionally provide incorrect information
regarding programs and services on reproductive health
including the right to informed choice and access to a
full range of legal, medically-safe and effective family
planning methods BUT- who defines what is correct or
incorrect here?
The RH bill and its proponents. If the RH bill proponents
says that an IUD is not abortifacient, and abortion is not
wrong, and that life does not begin at conception, all of
which are totally wrong and against Christian principles,
so when Christian health workers will teach about the
sanctity of life and that life begins at conception, and
that sex should only be between married couples, we
will be violating the RH bill and committing crimes once
it becomes law.

2. The RH Bill undermines the institution of marriage. As

Christians do not have any doctrine prohibiting ligation,
you may think it may not be of concern to many
Christians, but the RH bill considers a prohibited act
(Sec 21) if a health worker refuses to perform
voluntary ligation and vasectomy and other legal and
medically-safe reproductive health care services on any
person of legal age on the ground of lack of spousal
consent or authorization. The Catholic and Muslim
nurses and doctors who refuse to perform ligation or
vasectomy, will be committing a crime. We do not
malign or disdain Catholics on this matter. It is against
their doctrine. BUT, for us, the RH bill terribly
undermines marriage : the Bill puts into law that a
woman or man does NOT have to have spousal consent
or authorization to have a ligation or vasectomy. And if
a health worker refuses to perform this procedure, on
this particular ground of lack of spousal consent, he or
she will be committing a crime. Christian, Catholic and
Muslim marriages will be affected by this.

3. The RH bill undermines parental authority and

undermines the family, which are against Christian
principles. The RH Bill will punish those health workers
(Sec. 21) who refuse to provide reproductive health
care services to an abused minor, whose abused
condition is certified by the proper official or personnel
of the Department of Social Welfare and Development
(DSWD) or to a duly DSWD-certified abused pregnant
minor on whose case no parental consent is necessary.
What does it mean by reproductive health care
services to an abused pregnant minor? Pregnant young
women all the more need parental guidance and
consent is necessary for whatever reproductive health
services will be done on these young abused women!
Why doesnt the bill specify what reproductive health
services will be done on such minors, who are already
pregnant? Is this bill trying to hide the use of abortion
or the use of abortifacient chemical contraceptives like
the emergency contraceptive as solutions offered
to an abused minor who is already pregnant? And all
without a parents consent, which is totally
unacceptable to Christian doctrine.

4. The RH bill has a conscientious objection provision,

BUT, it negates it by REQUIRING by law that the
conscientious objector shall immediately refer the
person seeking such care and services to another health
care service provider within the same facility or one
which is conveniently accessible. (Sec. 21) So even if a
Catholic or Muslim doctor refuses to perform a ligation,
they are required to refer. People who conscientiously
object must NOT be required to refer. They are already
objecting.

5. The RH Bill will require Christian churches and

schools to provide reproductive health care services to
its employees. All abortifacient forms of birth control,
those that prohibit the conceived embryo from
implanting in the uterine wall, are unacceptable to
Christian teachings. The RH Bill will require employers
to provide reproductive health care services, supplies
and devices to all workers, more particularly women
workers. The RH bill will punish employers for not
following section 17, which states: all Collective
Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) shall provide for the free
delivery by the employer of reasonable quantity of
reproductive health care services, supplies and devices
to all workers, more particularly women workers. In
establishments or enterprises where there are no CBAs
or where the employees are unorganized, the employer
shall have the same obligation. So employers are
required to provide reproductive health care to its
employees! Remember, this will become a law. This will
affect Christian, Catholic and Muslim employers, even
Christian churches and schools, because our churches
and schools have employees. Remember, intrauterine
devices and some birth control pills are abortifacient,
meaning they prevent implantation of an already-
conceived embryo. Life begins at conception, therefore
anything that kills an embryo or prevents it from
implanting causes an abortion or death of the human
embryo. As Christians, we know that life begins at
conception. We reject any form of any birth control that
kills a conceived life.

6. Contrary to claims by RH bill proponents in Congress

that abortion is not mentioned, the bill specifically
mentions abortion in Sec. 4 in its definition of terms: It
lists as the fourth element of reproductive health care
the prevention of abortion and management of post-
abortion complications. You may say, but it prevents
abortion, whats wrong? But why must management
of post-abortion complications be part of reproductive
health? Abortion is a crime. Why must the RH bill
specifically mention management of post-abortion
complications? It specifies abortion as the cause of
the complication. What this does is that it sets apart
induced, illegal, morally wrong, criminal abortion as a
procedure or cause necessitating management. Why
not just make it a more general provision of
emergency obstetric care to everyone who needs it?
The very fact that abortion is specified as the cause of
the complication means that the RH bill condones
abortion and gives it special treatment. Abortion is
murder of the unborn baby and a grievous sin before
God. It is the shedding of innocent blood. It is a crime
under Philippine laws.

7. The RH bill will teach the entire nation, especially the

young people, its definitions of human sexuality, sex,
sexual identity, interpersonal relationships, affection,
intimacy and gender roles. They will also define
contraception and abortion. In Section 4, the RH bill
defines Reproductive health education as 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. Once again, who decides
what is correct and What are facts? The Bill and its
proponents determine that. And once it is a law,
whatever they (the proponents and the Population
Commission) define these things to be, will be what is
correct and anyone who teaches otherwise will be
committing crimes. And once again, abortion is
mentioned. Abortion has nothing to do with
responsible parenthood and family planning.

8. We reject the RH Bill It will teach our children and the

entire country a sex education curriculum which its
proponents have formulated. The RH Bill says in Sec. 12,
Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health
Education. Reproductive Health Education in an age-
appropriate manner shall be taught by adequately
trained teachers starting from Grade 5 up to Fourth
Year High School.The POPCOM, in coordination with
the Department of Education, shall formulate the
Reproductive Health Education curriculum, which shall
be common to both public and private schools and shall
include related population and development concepts
in addition to the following subjects and standards :
Reproductive health and sexual rights; Reproductive
health care and services; Attitudes, beliefs and values
on sexual development, sexual behavior and sexual
health; Proscription of the hazards of abortion and
management of post-abortion complications;
Responsible parenthood.. Use and application of
natural and modern family planning methods to
promote reproductive health, achieve desired family
size and prevent unwanted, unplanned and mistimed
pregnancies; Abstinence before marriage; Prevention
and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other, STIs/STDs,
prostate cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer and
other gynecological disorders; Responsible sexuality;
and Maternal, peri-natal and post-natal education, care
and services. While prevention of AIDS and STDs,
abstinence before marriage and responsible
parenthood are good, there is nothing good with the
government teaching Attitudes, beliefs and values on
sexual development, sexual behavior and sexual health
to our children! Plus, once again they have managed to
insert abortion again. What will be taught about the
hazards of abortion ? Abortion is 100% fatal and 100%
hazardous to the unborn baby who has been aborted!
Why must management of post-abortion
complications be taught in sex education?

9. We reject the RH bill because its really about money

for contraceptive manufacturers and suppliers. The RH
bill puts into law that contraceptives will be made into
essential medicines . Sec. 10 says Hormonal
contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and
other allied reproductive health products and supplies
shall be considered under the category of essential
medicines and supplies which shall form part of the
National Drug Formulary and the same shall be included
in the regular purchase of essential medicines and
supplies of all national and local hospitals and other
government health units. The RH bill only lays the
groundwork for government purchases of
contraceptives, including some contraceptives that are
abortifacient, which we reject.

10. We reject the RH bill because it encourages a two-

child policy. In Sec. 16, Ideal Family Size it says: The
State shall assist couples, parents and individuals to
achieve their desired family size within the context of
responsible parenthood for sustainable development
and encourage them to have two children as the ideal
family size. Attaining the ideal family size is neither
mandatory nor compulsory. No punitive action shall be
imposed on parents having more than two children.
While it says that it is not mandatory or compulsory, it
will still become a law, meaning, the law will encourage
this two-child policy. If it is written in the law, it will be
part of legislated health policy. Previous versions of the
RH Bill (the past HB 3773) even had a provision that
government scholarships will only be extended to the
first two children in a family. Surprisingly, it is no longer
in the present bill. But what if this is put into the
implementing rules and regulations? And people who
will have large families will be stigmatized even if they
are not punished.

Whatever is good in the bill is already legal and is being

done. Yes, women who aborted/killed their children
must not be refused emergency obstetric care. But RA
8344, already penalizes the refusal of hospitals and
medical clinics to administer appropriate initial medical
treatment and support in emergency and serious cases.
Women who have aborted/killed their babies are
already given emergency obstetric care through this
act. HIV-AIDS programs are already in place through RA
8504,the Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act of
1998. The RH bill tries to encompass so many health
issues under it such that people who reject the RH bill
are viewed as anti-women, anti-health, anti-HIV
prevention and anti-development.

But now we have shown you what is definitely worth

rejecting in the RH bill-it is the hidden agenda tucked
into the RH bill, the oppressive nature of the bill toward
those who reject it, the values it undermines and the
questionable values it will try to teach.

Melissa A. Apolinario-Poblete, DMD, MHPEd

Member, Board of Trustees, Pro-life Philippines
Foundation Inc., 2011-2013 and
Director,Christian Pro-life Resources for the Philippines
39 Miami cor. Columbia St. Cubao QC
URL: http://www.proliferesources.com/
Email: proliferesources@gmail.com

http://alfi.org.ph/issues/reproductive-health-2/why-no-
to-rh-bill/
Finally! The second reading has been passed for the RH
Bill in the Philippines. Tomorrow, they move for the
third and final reading. For fourteen years now, the RH
bill issue has been a heated debate. It turns more
controversial each year and even more so, when they
announced that it will be put to a vote in the House of
Representatives. The outcome of this debate is
overdue, but remains to be significant. Both sides
propose strong, and probably, valid arguments. Here
are my opinions about the controversial bill:

Pros

1. Overpopulation. It is believed that RH Bill is the

responsive approach to rapid population growth to
which many people point out as a cause to poverty.
One proof is the direct effect of overpopulation on
unemployment which is widespread in the country.
2. Pro Choice and Pro Chance. Not only that RH bill is a
pro choice, as cited on the bill, but also a chance to
alleviate poverty. By using contraceptives, people have
a choice as to the number of children that they can
afford to care for. Through this method, overpopulation
can be reduced.
3. Reproductive Health Education for the Youth. This
will raise the level of awareness to the youths
perception of gender roles and will influence the
choices theyll make about their own sexual behavior.
4. Maternal Care. The bill aims to provide sufficient
services such as emergency obstetrics and basic care. In
addition, skilled medical personnel will be provided
even in remote areas to decrease maternal death which
is mostly caused by unattended childbirth.

Cons

1. Overpopulation. (Ironic, isnt it?) RH Bill is an

assumption on the basis that overpopulation causes
poverty. The growing supply of young workers is
projected to contribute a high percentage in economic
growth for the Philippines. Bernardo M. Villegas, a
Filipino writer, economist and Senior Vice-President at
the University of Asia and the Pacific(UA&P) mentioned
in his article Vote No to RH Bill that . . . Japans
second-largest shipbuilder expanded in the Philippines,
where workers are on average half the age of its
Japanese employees. This further implies to the
Philippine demographics in which 61 % of the
population are from 15-64 years of age which
constitutes to the GDP of the country.
2. Anti Life. RH Bill in the first place is a violation of a
religious doctrine in the Philippines, a Catholic-
dominated nation. Contraceptives are not an assurance
to prevent fertilization, for medical studies show that
some of these contraceptives are abortifacient.
3. Irresponsible Sexual Behavior. Introducing
reproductive health education and promoting the use
of contraceptives may encourage irresponsible sexual
attitude, especially among the youth.
4. Prone to Corruption. Implementation of the bill will
cost billions of pesos and the threat lies behind the
process. History has made us aware of several instances
that support this claim. The question is will the fund
be utilized to meet the bills goal?

Although the bill has passed the second reading, some

lawmakers who voted against the bill, remain defiant
and said that the final reading of the House Bill 4244
may have a different result. But given a chance, are you
pro the RH bill or against it?

http://www.cebujobs.ph/community/4-major-pros-
and-cons-that-you-should-know-about-the-rh-bill/