I recently read the article, Reiterating the CBCP Position on Family, and I was struck by the reaction of the people both for and against proposed RH Bill 5043. It seems that much of the discussion for or against the Bill has taken a decidedly "religious" dimension, and not in a good way. Allow me to offer my humble opinion on this very important issue by making my opposition to the RH Bill 5043 very clear:
As a practicing Catholic, I am well aware of the Church's stand on, to borrow from Archbishop Lagdameo's letter to the Filipino people, "truth and morality, the value and dignity of life, family and marriage".
As a citizen of the Philippines, with the demonstrated ability to doom any presidential candidate I vote for with the ignominy of defeat, I would like to summarize my objections to the Bill as follows:
1. Like Archbishop Lagdameo, I believe that "The Bill dilutes and negates Section III (1) Article XV of the Constitution which provides 'The State shall defend the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious conviction and the demands of responsible parenthood.'"
2. In particular, Sec. 21. (a) 5 seems to be a violation of our duly recognized right to practice religious and civic freedoms:
The following acts are prohibited:
a) Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall:
5. Refuse to extend reproductive health care services and information on account of the patient’s civil status, gender or sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work; Provided, That all conscientious objections of health care service providers based on religious grounds shall be respected: Provided, further, 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: Provided, finally, That the patient is not in an emergency or serious case as defined in RA 8344 penalizing the refusal of hospitals and medical clinics to administer appropriate initial medical treatment and support in emergency and serious cases.
How can a practicing Christian's health care worker's religious freedoms be respected if that health care worker is required by law to turn over persons seeking care and services not consistent with the practice of his or her faith to someone who surely will?
Many friends have told me that once the Bill is passed, certainly, amendments may be made. But after consulting with experts on the legislative process (who have no position whatsoever on the proposed RH Bill 5043) taking out or amending key portions of the Bill are close to impossible, or at best, unbelievably difficult due to the legislative process itself. Perhaps other people can take that chance, but I can't. Not when so many brave people have sacrificed so much to provide me with the freedoms my family and I enjoy.
Any proposed law or piece of legislation that forces a person, regardless of personal belief, to do something contrary to their legally upheld beliefs, is despotic. The Catholic Church, at most, can only excommunicate. This only affects you if you're Catholic. But a proposed law like this doesn't discriminate: it applies to everyone regardless of belief. It is anti-freedom, which our beloved former President Cory Aquino helped restore in our country not too long ago.
Allow me to end by saying that if there is one thing, among the many, that both people for or against RH Bill 5043 can agree on it is this: we must find a viable solution for the widespread poverty in our country. In my experience though, solutions that unite people, as opposed to divide people, have a better chance of helping more people. Shall we allow ourselves to be prisoners to ideology? Or shall we try to find a way for equally well-meaning people to get on with the business of helping people?
We're still free to choose.
31 comments:
Great post John-D.
Actually, the RH bill can be challenged on purely constitutional grounds even without citing religion-based arguments, and I believe its proponents would be hard-pressed.
On your later comments, I again agree. In fact, the Church encourages working for the common good among men of goodwill regardless of ideology. Vatican II's Decree on Ecumenism and Nostra Aetate will bear this out.
GBU!
Thanks Willy! That's high praise from a man I consider invaluable in shaping my understanding of what it means to be truly Pro-Life.
I will read the Church documents on working for the common good regardless of ideology. I'll message you from time to time though when I get stuck. :P
God bless!
RH Bill 5043 is precisely meant to promote free choice, not passing it is to perpetuate narrow mindedness and control by the state on what women can do and not do when it comes to their reproductive health and rights.
Hi Wawam!
I'm very concerned for freedom of choice. As I wrote in my entry, I just wish it extended to those with religious beliefs as well.
Discussion on this issue can be done reasonably. On the Reproductive Health website, there is an article by Fr. Eric Genilo on ways to work together on life issues:
http://reproductivehealth.com.ph/News/Fr.%20Genilo%20letter.htm
Thanks for commenting! As long as people are discussing it reasonably, there's hope for us all! :D
There is no need for HB5043 to promote free choice. The choice is already there, whether or not the bill passes. There is nothing in our existing laws that says women nowadays have no choice "when it comes to their reproductive health and rights". Contraceptives are already freely distributed, bought and sold. Maybe the correct statement should be: RH bill 5043 is precisely meant to allocate billions upon billions of pesos out of scarce public funds to promote and subsidize contraceptives. Ponder awhile the cost of implementing HB 5043
Hi Willy! Yeah, that's rather alarming, no? The amount is staggering! Whenever I go off to the provinces to promote character education programs like I AM S.T.R.O.N.G. and Ikeeplovereal, I always wonder what it would be like to pursue these advocacies if we had more money.
Sigh!
That was a wonderful post John-d, and I'd like to spread it around.
Thanks, my favorite youngest sister named Marie Therese! Spread it around! :D
there is NO freedom of choice on RH. right now government hospitals and medical workers are NOT allowed to educate the citizens on the use of modern methods of contraception, they are only allowed to educate users on natural methods of contraception. the government is nurturing ignorance among women, not to mention pushing them to methods that have been proven to have a high risk of unwanted pregnancy.
the hypocrisy or irony of it is that gloria macapagal arroyo used the pill when she was of reproductive age to which she obviously saw some benefit from using it. she denies the same benefit to women today by disallowing government hospitals and medical workers from even talking about the pill or modern methods of contraception.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/reproductive-health-bill-5043/
Wawam, perhaps you would like to define what you mean by the statement that "there is NO freedom of choice on RH"? Are you saying that people are not free to choice on the issue of reproductive health? Or are you saying that people may only choose methods of family planning that use abortifacients?
In the first place, what about the freedom of people to practice their faith? Should people be penalized for being devout Christians? Because that's exactly what will happen should the RH bill, in its current form, be passed. If you recall, that's why I wrote that I am worried that practicing Christians might find themselves hard pressed to continue to serve in the medical profession in any capacity due to this section of the bill.
Secondly, have you considered looking into this method for natural family planning? According to China, a long-time non-collaborator in any Church's teachings:
6. Conclusion
6.1 The BOM is well accepted and by the Chinese women of different cultural and economical backgrounds; illiteracy and lower reproductive tract infection are not incompatible with the use of the method.
6.2 The use-effectiveness of the BOM is much higher than that of TCu220c, one of the most popular IUDs used in China.
6.3 The BOM is effective in achieving pregnancy in Chinese infertile couples.
Interestingly enough though, couples with more education experienced more failures in using the method:
...most failure cases had a relatively high cultural level (two university graduates and two lecturers). They all felt sorry and admitted that since they considered the method was simple and easy to master, they had paid less attention to the teaching course and had not strictly followed the rules. The consequence was use-related failures. On the contrary, the illiterate women were generally very attentive to BOM teaching and rigidly stuck to the rules, and failures were very rare. This experience gives us the following elicitation:
3.1 The BOM is simple and easy to comprehend; almost all the women, including the illiterate, can successfully learn the method and identify their own mucus symptoms.
3.2 During the training, special attention should be paid to the intellectuals and professionals. The method seems to be too "simple" to them and they could not get hold of it without strict supervision.
Thanks for enlivening the discussion!
it is arroyo, a civil servant, not a nun nor is she a bishop who is imposing her religious beliefs on the people.
70% of catholics support RH Bill 5043. a large majority of the catholics want it passed.
if arroyo is true to her calling as president of a country, she shuold encourage congress to pass it.
catholics are expresing their beliefs - they want modern methods of contraception. the goivernment is curtailing their freedom by exclusion. it also tell you how the church teachings are being seen as irrelevant to its own faithful.
the poor because they do not even have enough money to feed their family 3 times aa day go to a government hospital or a government medical practitioner and ask for contraception, she will be lectured only on natural family planning. she will not be given information on modern methods of contraception.
more importantly, whereas a few years ago she can get free condoms, IUDs or pills from the public health center, today he can no longer get those for free even if she wanted to because they are no longer availble for free in public health centers.
there is no freedom of choice for women. the government has curtailed her freedom to choose between natural methods of contraception and modern methods of contraception.
the government is promoting ignorance all because arroyo wants to satisfy the bishop's desires. and yet arroyo used the pill when she was of reproductive age.
I was just wondering if the bill passes, how they intend to subsidize contraceptives. For example, how do they show "they do not even have enough money to feed their family" (I assume they can't also afford booze quite often, no?) but are so sexually active they need lets say, 1 condom per day? No limits for free condoms? Just how many millions of condoms should we buy and give out for free? What if the stocks run out? (very likely). Are poor non-married also qualified for free contraceptives? hmm..
when public medical centers were giving away free condoms, IUDs and pills, there were being paid for by USAID in full, including educational materials, logistics costs and training of medical personnel. they were being given out at no cost to the government or tax payers.
this was summarily stopped by the government on orders of arroyo.
beyond that, it makes you wonder why would the government not spend on things that people want and need instead of say the P1Million dinner at Le Cirque or the multi-million dollars to be given to ZDE?
in fact everyone should wonder why is it that this government is keeping its people ignorant on something that a high 70% of catholics say they need and want?
let us not be in denial - 70% of catholics want RH Bill 5043 passed.
It's lovely hosting discussion on this blog entry. Allow me to posit a question:
What about the relationship between freedom and rule of law? There is a difference between "mob rule" (a term used by my good friend Carlos Celdran to describe those who invites to share their sentiments as supporters of the RH Bill) and a democracy.
In mature democracies, laws inimical to any segment of society rarely pass. Rather, a way is always found regarding the institution of just laws. There is a difference between legislation mandating the renaming of streets and legislation that tries to make a country a better place for future generations. Just laws should allow every segment of society proper legal representation in any legislation that affects them. Even in predominantly Christian countries, for example, Islamic rights are respected. Moreover, this respect is reflected in the laws that are painstakingly crafted to accommodate the rights of Muslims and non-Muslims.
Perhaps we should steer away from discussions on the sincerity or perceived intentions of political figures and try to determine a better way to ensure that the rights of all citizens to determine the ways in which they want to nurture their families is reflected in law.
I understand that many people are frustrated and probably impatient with the slow pace of development in our country. However, widespread poverty and the solutions to such wretched conditions cannot be solved overnight. Much like many things in life, a problem of this magnitude needs solutions that are more comprehensive than can be done at this time. One step at a time, my friends! We need to work together!
Peace!
Rewrite: "There is a difference between "mob rule" (a term used by my good friend Carlos Celdran to describe those whom he invites to share their sentiments as supporters of the RH Bill) and a democracy."
Sorry, the error in sentence construction was killing me! :D
Yes, there is truth in that U.S. funded agencies pushed and subsidized population control programs in less developed countries (particularly the Philippines and 12 other LDCs), although I doubt if they could have shouldered 100% of all contraceptive costs thus far in the Philippines. This policy is
consistent with U.S. National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200),
a policy which says that it is in the best interests of the United
States to ensure that less developed countries like the Philippines do not grow their population too much so that they consume their own resources.
Its states: "Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relationships, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.". Whoah. I don't think they are making a good job of "avoiding the
appearance of coercion" to further their own interests. Just recently, Obama rescinded the Mexico policy.
At any rate, HB5043 never stated that funding will purely rely on donations. We will have to shell out taxpayers money. Another opportunity in government procurement. I have a feeling the idea doesn't inspire you too much.
As for 70% of Catholics favoring the RH bill, much has been said pointing out the serious flaws in those surveys. And even if such surveys were not flawed and
the majority does support contraceptives, the Catholic Church never takes a stand
based on mere plurality. The majority is not always right. After all, the majority crowd
chose to release Barabbas.
Since free choice is something we value highly, HB5043 isn't something worthy of our support. How can citizens make free choices when the law hinders the dissemination of accurate information on which the are supposed to base their choices? And where is freedom of speech when people are not allowed to speak up regarding the bill -- unless the things they say reflect their support of the bill?
One of the provisions I take issue with is under the section on prohibited acts (Sec. 21):
"e) Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act."
This provision is generic -- it may apply to the press, members of the broadcast media, anyone engaged in information campaigns, even individuals such as parents who teach their children the truth about, say, the concept of breakthrough ovulations, or that the intra-uterine device which is being actively endorsed by the DOH among poor communities, has caused many cases of perforated uterus among those inserted with this.
To add, "maliciously engages" is subjective. How will the PopCom determine accurately if there was indeed malice in the "disinformation" -- if indeed it was a case of disinformation or simply of dissemination of correct information but which is contrary to the government's goal of promoting the use of contraceptives?
In a nutshell, this is one of my objections to the bill. Few seem to realize that the RH bill, if approved, will end up taking away one of the freedoms we so value.
i actually don't know of any government hospital that teaches natural family planning. they have neither the people trained to teach it, nor the time to teach. if nfp is being taught in govt hospitals, it is done by volunteer church workers.
in private hospitals, logically, it would only be the church-run hospitals that would do this, but i'm not even sure the cardinal santos hospital does this. the only private hospital i know that has an nfp clinic is makati medical, and the clinic is run by nuns. the hospital only provides office space and utilities.
i do know that contraceptives and training in their use is usually provided by govt health centers.
lastly, generally, good laws provide freedom by curtailing anarchy. bad laws limit freedom. is there anarchy with regards to freedom of choice, or is there simple freedom? would the rh bill define freedom of choice, or would it limit the freedom of certain groups of people?
btw john-d, i like your measured, logical posts. i was ready to get heatedly emotional on this issue too, but you are teaching me moderation and restraint in discussing the pro-life issues. thanks.
I would like to thank WillyJ, wawam, sunnyday, and ben for ensuring that the discussion in this blog entry remains respectfully passionate and reasonable.
As an aside, wawam had already contributed to Manny Amador's entry on "The Deceptive SWS Survey". Our friend has long been involved in reasonable debates on the RH bill, and the fact that he continues to do so speaks well of his passion and concern for the Filipino people.
Regardless of our differences, I'm glad that we are all concerned with the welfare of our people. Please continue to use this blog entry as a venue for reasonable discussion.
Peace!
Hi John D - I agree that RH Bill 5034 doesn't discriminate, and applies to everyone regardless of belief. But, that's exactly how laws should be, neutral and of general applicability. Laws shouldn't be designed to apply to only a specific set of people based on gender, sexual orientation or religion.
On your objections:
1. Please tell me how the RH Bill erodes the "rights of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious conviction and the demands of responsible parenthood"? From my understanding, other than sex education and the obligations placed on health practitioners, nothing in the Bill creates obligations or impositions on any person. Instead, people are given a right that each individual may or may not avail. Thus, spouses are free to decide on how to raise a family in accordance with their views whatever they are, so long it's within the boundaries of what's legally acceptable.
2. Just to clarify, the only people that will be affected by this objection of yours are health care professionals that are to be approached by persons needing reproductive health care services. Neither you nor I nor 95% (guessing here) of the population shall be affected. I think we can all agree that health care workers shouldn't refuse treatment based on gender, religion or sexual orientation. This goes one step further and goes to the type of treatment requested, and not to the person requesting treatment. Further, treatments aren't to prolong life, treat an injury or to prevent harm. But that said, just as each health care practitioner has a right to practice his faith, so does each potential patient. Strict interpretation of certain situations already require health care workers, among others, to comply with legal or moral standards in treating patients regardless of religious beliefs, such as when providing treatment to homosexuals or in emergency abortions, (being the medical term) in cases where a mother's life is in peril. Like most controversial cases, this falls in the grey area between rights of certain individuals on one side, and impositions of the goverment and rights of other individuals on the other. Just because a certain law offends certain sensibilities or burdens on certain religions doesn't make it unconstitutional on its face (please correct me on this if I'm mistaken as I'm no Con Law expert). Otherwise, the government wouldn't be able to prevent me from smoking weed during prayer because in my religion, weed is required to worship my god. Unfortunately, this isn't the case because the government’s valid and compelling interest in preventing weed smokers outweighs the burden placed upon me by preventing me from smoking weed. In this case, I honestly believe that the burden placed on a conscientious objector does not outweigh the government's compelling interest, as well as the patient's right to health care services. Moreover, I understand that health care professionals undertake an oath to provide treatment to those in need to the best of their abilities. They, like teachers, are integral to the growth and well being of a society and are placed in a position to serve the public. In that sense, they have a fiduciary duty to the public to perform their responsibilities as best as they legally can. Balancing the interests, the least objectionable solution to all parties is prescribed - "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." As I mentioned, this Bill seems to be neutral and of general applicability and doesn't place unnecessary undue burden on health care professionals.
Just for the record, and since we like labels, I'm a practicing non-catholic and pro-sex.
Hi idontreallybelievethis! Welcome to our discussion. There is really no need to identify yourself through labels, but I am quite sure the other participants in this discussion welcome the generous gesture. I must admit though, that I am uncomfortable with "labels"; it smacks of our modern tendency to compartmentalize and categorize what are otherwise fascinating facets of human behavior in convenient little boxes. :D
You raise some very interesting points, the first of which I quote below:
---
Please tell me how the RH Bill erodes the "rights of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious conviction and the demands of responsible parenthood"? From my understanding, other than sex education and the obligations placed on health practitioners, nothing in the Bill creates obligations or impositions on any person. Instead, people are given a right that each individual may or may not avail. Thus, spouses are free to decide on how to raise a family in accordance with their views whatever they are, so long it's within the boundaries of what's legally acceptable.
---
In the interests of fostering discussion, does anyone know of any legal opinion on this? As I am not a lawyer, but am a parent, I would like to know if there are any legal impediments to either availing or not availing of the aforementioned sex education programs.
Peace!
Hi idontreallybelievethis! Welcome to our discussion. There is really no need to identify yourself through labels, but I am quite sure the other participants in this discussion welcome the generous gesture. I must admit though, that I am uncomfortable with "labels"; it smacks of our modern tendency to compartmentalize and categorize what are otherwise fascinating facets of human behavior in convenient little boxes.
You raise some very interesting points, the first of which I quote below:
---
Please tell me how the RH Bill erodes the "rights of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious conviction and the demands of responsible parenthood"? From my understanding, other than sex education and the obligations placed on health practitioners, nothing in the Bill creates obligations or impositions on any person. Instead, people are given a right that each individual may or may not avail. Thus, spouses are free to decide on how to raise a family in accordance with their views whatever they are, so long it's within the boundaries of what's legally acceptable.
---
In the interests of fostering discussion, does anyone know of any legal opinion on this? As I am not a lawyer, but am a parent, I would like to know if there are any legal impediments to either availing or not availing of the aforementioned sex education programs.
Peace!
I meant RH Bill 5043. Obvious, I know, but I felt obligated to make that correction. In any case, I'm not a lawyer as well and nag pa-panggap lang ako. I also would want to hear any opinions of any lawyers out here. Thanks.
No problem, idontreallybelievethis! None of us on this thread believe that we have all the answers. In fact, most of us are really only trying to define the parameters of the questions that could be most useful to ordinary people like you and me. We'd really like to know enough to make an informed decision about RH bill and its effects.
Guys, any comments?
Also, please feel free to forward this blog entry and the comments to people who may provide a legal opinion on the issue raised by idontreallybelievethis.
Peace!
Please tell me how the RH Bill erodes the "rights of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious conviction and the demands of responsible parenthood"?...
Here is the legal opinion of Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., a Constitutionalist. I have interspersed some of my comments in brackets.
I would make special mention of the requirement of sex education. Sex education is a matter closely related to religious morality. Our Constitution allows the teaching of religion to children in public schools, but it requires that it be done only with the written consent of parents. A similar respect for the desire of parents should be provided for in the law. Our Constitution says: “The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.” As for sex education in private schools, any law on this should respect academic freedom which is also protected by the Constitution.
[ HB5043 enforces mandatory sex education from Grade 5 up to Fourth Year High School. While I am all for my children getting educated on the science aspect of
reproductive health, sex education can never be removed from values. Sec 12-c of the mandatory sex education covers "Attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development, sexual behavior and sexual health;" most assuredly from the perspectives of the bill's sponsors, not mine. Teaching attitudes, beliefs and values on sex is my primary right as guaranteed by the
Constitution. The states role is only secondary in this aspect. ]
Bernas goes on:
Another important element in the debate is the freedom of religious belief. The free exercise of religion guaranteed by the Constitution means more than just the freedom to believe. It also means the freedom to act or not to act according to what one believes. And this freedom is violated when one is compelled to act against one’s belief or is prevented from acting according to one’s belief.
[ sunnyday's comment of 9:20AM above already touched on the incredible provision curtailing the freedom of speech clause.
In addition, Sec 21-5 requires health personnel who refuse to adminisiter contraceptive services "Provided, further, 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: This mandatory referral clause in fact forces the conscientious objector towards material cooperation, thus asserting what Bernas says above. ]
Hi WillyJ. Thanks for the reply.
Just some more thoughts on the subject.
I agree with Fr Bernas’ that sex education is a matter closely related to religious morality, and thus goes straight to one’s beliefs. But, so are a ton of other topics that are regularly taught in schools, whether it be the theory of evolution or the big bang. Now, should these topics be forbidden from being taught as well? I assume that most people would answer in the negative. My point is that just because a certain topic touches on a child’s religious belief doesn’t automatically give the parent exclusive domain over that topic. The Constitution may give the parents the “natural and primary right and duty … in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character”, but it doesn’t give them exclusive domain of all topics that are incidental to building their child’s moral character. Assume for a moment that reproductive human physiology and psychology is taught in Science class, benefits of lower average household size taught in Economics, and the pros and cons of differing values and beliefs regarding sex taught in Philosophy. Each and every one of them would be a valid topics of discussion in Science, Economics and Philosophy, respectively. The very heart of these topics need not venture into religion and its purview. Labeling these topics as religious in character doesn’t necessarily make them so nor does it immediately make it blasphemous to teach them. These topics and religion can and should be taught exclusively and independently of each other. Requiring permission to teach these topics would be just as ludicrous as requiring permission to teach children that atoms make up molecules. Let’s keep science in Science class and religion in Religion class.
Moreover, the Bill doesn’t preclude parents from educating their children of their values during weeknights and weekends. By all means, please shine on your kids your guiding light. Whatever role the state has in developing the moral fiber of your child may be secondary, but being secondary doesn’t mean non-existent. The parent has the natural and primary right to educate their kids in morals, but for that right to be of use, it needs to be exercised.
I come from a very liberal family. My parents made sure I knew what condoms were and what they were for when in the sixth grade. (clearly, they thought much more highly of me than my peers as condoms would not have been needed for many more years, but I digress) My mother bought my nephew a box of condoms when he went away to college at seventeen for fear that he would be too shy to buy his own. My parents taught me these values, but it’s just as easy for another set of parents to teach their kids another set of values. We weren’t taught about condoms in school, especially not in the sixth grade, but my parents made sure I knew about it. We weren’t taught about the risks of getting women pregnant nor the risks of contracting a sexually transmitted disease, but my parents made sure I knew about them. All it takes is some parent-child quality time. The Constitution gave each parent the natural and primary right to instill values on their children, I hope they use it.
Concerning the freedom to act or not to act, I’m standing by what I said earlier that the compelling interests of the state and that of the patient outweigh the burden on the health care worker. Granted, this may cause a chilling effect on health care worker applications, I take comfort in the fact that those remaining health care workers will value the right of each patient to decent health care.
I agree that the wording on disinformation (“Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act”) is somewhat troubling. However, I’ll give the courts the benefit of the doubt on being able to define “maliciously” fairly and reasonably.
I really hope this Bill passes.
idont...,
On health care, contraceptives are *not* "essential medicines", much as its authors would like us to believe. Neither are they emergency medicines by any stretch. After all, what "disease" is it trying to cure? There is no medical emergency with anyone wishing to avail of contraceptives or contraceptive devices. I am sure that a refusal for referral would not put the lives of patients in any danger, and it would be easy enough to look for a willing provider on their own. After all, "majority" supports the bill, right? Where in here is the "compelling" interest (either of the patient or the state) that outweighs the conscience of the health worker? Aren't we moving towards a police state?
While I respect your parents' liberal views, your outlook on sex and sex education, I wouldn't support any legislation that would coerce you and your parents into not freely pursuing them. The RH bill on the other hand just does that. There is nothing that would prevent schools from teaching liberal views on sex, but to *mandate* it on everyone regardless of religious convictions goes against the grain of our inalienable, universal rights. Just why is there no opt-out clause? Why? At any rate, they are already free to advocate and teach children whose parents are amenable to such. I thought its proponents were smug in the belief that majority of the populace support the bill? If that is true, then why even force it down into the "minority"? We may not agree with each other, but at least we should respect each others convictions and freedom. Can you imagine private Catholic schools being forced to teach its pupils that sex outside marriage is perfectly acceptable as long as you use condoms? I have seen local sex education materials graphically illustrating the use of condoms. Can you imagine a teacher-nun being forced to use those materials? Can you imagine a Catholic theologian being jailed for speaking out in a public forum that contraceptives are intrinsically evil? (a core Catholic teaching by the way). Anything against the bill can be construed as "malicious information", anyone with enough money can sue. Even if you have confidence in the courts, are you willing to get hailed in court, spend time and money, each time you utter "malicious information"? Can you imagine if ALL our laws contain provisions on penalizing "malicious information" against it? To my knowlege, this is the first time it was proposed.
Again, I wouldn't mind other parents allowing their children to be subjected to such sex education, and I am supposing they would see it the same way with other parents who think otherwise. You see, while the mantra of the bill and its sponsors is pro-choice, they are actually foisting the opposite.
If Filipino families are too poor to afford artificial contraceptives, they are also too poor to afford the medicines that can cure real killer diseases.
Why then should the government WASTE billions on contraceptives that do NOT cure any disease? After all, birth control is only an ELECTIVE procedure and is NOT medically necessary to cure disease or infirmity (pregnancy is not a disease).
If the RH/abortion Bill is passed, thousands will die of untreated killer diseases while the government floods the country with useless contraceptives that don't cure any disease.
The priorities of the RH/abortion Bill seem quite skewed -- extremely so.
All parents have their own beliefs and want to ground their kids in the kind of values they themselves are grounded in. For liberal parents, it may be ok that their schools teach the brand of sex education the bill offers.
But what about parents who don't want that kind of education for their children? Because believe it or not, despite the sexually permissive culture that is seemingly prevailing in this country, there are parents who still want to teach their kids about real love--the real value of saving oneself for marriage and family life.
The bill is imposing a brand of sex education that teaches kids how to use a condom or other such artificial birth-control methods...won't it be unfair for parents who don't believe this is the right way to go? How will they teach their values, when what is taught in school contradicts what is taught at home? Don't tell me you'll leave it up to the kid to decide... kids need REAL guidance from concerned and loving parents and guardians, not information overload presented as a value-meal menu.
Some people seem incredulous when they hear others claim that a contraceptive mentality leads to abortion. But fact is, the more contraception is hailed (drilled into one's head) as a "way out," or "the responsible thing to do," the more abortion slowly becomes acceptable. Why is that? Because slowly you condition the mind to NOT accept the only-natural result of sex--new life. And because artificial contraception methods DON'T succeed perfectly, what do you think a "no-to-life"-conditioned brain will resort to if pregnancy does occur? I think it's scary! D:
Post a Comment