Population Control Issues

[Manila-X]

Link to past thread,

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1381609

[3cr]

Churches unite for RH bill
http://acc-ingkong.com/content/view/88/26/

A coalition of churches and faith-based organizations in the Philippines has given their support for House Bill 5043, also known as the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill, which seeks to address the high population and worsening poverty in the Philippines through the promotion of reproductive health, responsible parenthood and population development.

Contrary to the Catholic Church's position that the RH Bill was pro-abortion, the Christian and Missionary Alliance Churches of the Philippines (CMACP) , United Church of Christ of the Philippines (UCCP), Office of Muslim Affairs (OMA), Apostolic Catholic Church, and the Philippine Council for Evangelical Churches said the RH bill clearly espoused that abortion is a crime.

Moreover, they said that it seeks to provide mothers to the right to have safer pregnancies by giving them access to information and services.

“Primarily, we read and see it as a more intentional effort by our government to clear and provide for our nation a path that would lead to better management of our resources, both human and otherwise, which will eventually bring us into a more sustainable future,” CMACP explained.

A position paper submited by the Iglesia ni Cristo also said that one need not be an expert to see for himself that the problem on population is real. The INC said rapid population growth amply shows the need for family planning.

A group of professors from Jesuit-ran Ateneo de Manila University also attended the symposium to show their stand on HB 5043. The ADMU professors said that their move to support the bill was dictated by their conscience and not by their religious belief.

Patriach Dr. John Florentine Teruel, founding bishop of the Apostolic Church, made it clear that not all Catholic churches oppose the RH bill.

Teruel said that the Apostolic Catholic Church was once skeptical of the bill. But after hearing the discussion of Representative Edcel Lagman, principal author of the bill, they now fully support the measure unlike the Roman Catholic Church.

A Catholic denomination which started in Bataan, the Apostolic Catholic Church separated from the hierarchy of Roman Catholic in the 1980s. Though the church follows the Roman Catholics’seven sacraments, they have a patriarch instead of a Pope and a “Mahal na Ingkong” as their Holy Spirit.

Teruel said their church is more conservative, “We denounce sin vices. We observe modesty in dressing among women and we do not allow members below 24 years old to engage in courtship or sexual relationship.”

Teruel said that RH bill is pro-life, which is contrary to the information being disseminated by the Roman Catholic Church.

“It is now clear to the Apostolic Catholic Church that the artificial family planning method in the bill is not an abortive measure. Let us leave the fathers and the mothers to decide. Let us not control how they will plan their families. Let’s us give them free will as the Bible says,” Teruel said adding that the CBCP should not resort on threatening legislators just to advance their interests.

The CBCP reportedly threatened that lawmakers will be deprived of communion in their dioceses if they vote in favor of the bill.

Church groups however vowed to help in Lagman’s efforts to have the RH bill approved in the House of Representatives and the Senate.


Catholics clash over controversial RH bill
Rappler.com
http://www.rappler.com/nation/9795-c...ersial-rh-bill

MANILA, Philippines – Led by bishops and priests, Catholics converge to protest the Reproductive Health (RH) bill but they do not compose the whole Catholic Church in the Philippines.

On the other side of the fence, Catholic groups also invoke Church teachings – to support the RH bill.

One of these groups come from the Jesuit-run Ateneo de Manila University. The 14 Ateneo professors argue Catholics can support the RH bill in good conscience.

The professors first released this statement in 2008, and maintain their stance 4 years later.

In their paper titled “Catholics Can Support the RH Bill in Good Conscience,” the Ateneo professors called for the passage of the bill, then House Bill 5043, which is now the amended House Bill 4244.

The professors, some of whom came from Ateneo's theology department, said the bill's provisions “adhere to core principles of Catholic social teaching,” such as preferential option for the poor and primacy of conscience.

They cited statistics that show the poorest Filipino women bear more children than they intend.

Based on government statistics, the poorest women have an average of 6 children – above their ideal number of up to 3 or 4. The richest women, on the other hand, usually meet their desired number of children – 3 on the average.

Poverty, conscience

RH bill advocates attribute this problem to the poor's lack of access to contraceptives. “We are at this level of poverty wherein we still have a few million people living at that level, they cannot pay for their own contraceptives, unfortunately,” Senator Pia Cayetano said in an interview on Rappler's Talk Thursday.

The Ateneo professors, thus, said the RH bill is needed in line with the Catholic Church's preferential option for the poor.

In Catholic social teaching, this principle means God has a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, so Christians should express concern for them as well.

“Embracing the preferential option for the poor asks us to look at the world from the perspective of the poor, and create conditions for them to be heard, defended against injustices, and provided opportunities for their empowerment and attainment of the fullness of human life,” the professors explained.

They said Catholic bishops should therefore respect the conscience of those who, after discerning, decide to use contraceptives.

Catholic theology says a believer is obliged to factor in Church teachings, as well as the needs of a wider community, in deciding based on conscience. In the end, however, the Church teaches that such decisions are personal in nature, and may be shaped by circumstances like poverty.

“Catholic social teachings similarly recognize the primacy of the well-formed conscience over wooden compliance to directives from political and religious authorities,” the Ateneo professors said. “Is it not possible that these women and their spouses were obeying their well-informed and well-formed consciences when they opted to use an artificial contraceptive?”

Government's role

One of the statement's authors, social anthropologist Mary Racelis, told Rappler the lack of access to contraceptives leads to more serious concerns, such as abortion.

“Half a million Filipinos opt for abortion, and that's their family planning method. In their conscience, they cannot have another child that will be on the streets or unfed. And that's their conscience... We think that's terrible, but what choice do they have?” said Racelis, research scientist at the Institute of Philippine Culture based in Ateneo.

A former Unicef regional director in Africa, Racelis said this means the preferential option for the poor is left unexercised. “Therefore the State has the obligation to exercise that because of the right of all citizens to equal services,” she explained.

Marita Castro Guevara, another Ateneo professor who signed the pro-RH bill statement, clarified their group is not against natural family planning (NFP) “if that is what a couple, especially a woman, would like to use.”

The Catholic Church promotes NFP in line with Humanae Vitae, a papal document by the late Pope Paul VI that bans family planning methods that interfere with the body's natural rhythms.

In this encyclical, Paul VI said married people may, for family planning, “take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile.”

Guevara, however, said NFP “is not for all women, not for all couples.”

In an interview with Rappler, she cited instances when a woman, for example, has unpredictable periods, has a partner who forces her into sex, or has a husband who is a migrant worker and returns to the Philippines only periodically.

“For us, what is immoral about a married woman, a poor married woman, who already has 7 children, 8 children, 9 children who feels that her body and her financial circumstances will not be able to bear the burden of another child? So she should be able to have the means to choose the family planning method that will work for her,” Guevara said.

Bishops divided, too

Without naming names, RH bill advocate Sylvia Estrada Claudio also hinted at divisions within the Catholic hierarchy over the RH bill.

“Alam din po namin, hindi ho united ang mga bishop. Unfortunately, 'yung mga ambisyoso, karerista, galit sa babae, at pasista na mga bishop, 'yan po ang boses na nananaig,” she said in the same forum. (We also know that the bishops aren't united on this. Unfortunately, the ones who are ambitious, women-haters, and fascists are the voices that prevail.)

Despite the raging debate among Catholics over the RH bill, however, Racelis said the buck doesn't stop with their Church. She makes legislators accountable.

“Legally it's very clear,” Racelis said. “The Church can say what it's saying, but we have a right to dispute it on the basis of evidence, and the legislators have a right to vote according to the needs of the citizenry as a whole, and not one religious group.”

[3cr]

160 Ateneo professors endorse RH Bill
InterAksyon.com
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/4...ndorse-rh-bill

160 Faculty members of the Ateneo de Manila University on Monday released a statement in support of House Bill 4244, or The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Bill.

"We believe that the RH Bill is a vital piece of legislation that needs to be passed urgently," the professors said. "It upholds the constitutional right of couples to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions; honors our commitments to international covenants and conventions; and promotes the reproductive health and reproductive rights of Filipinos, especially of those who are most marginalized on this issue - our women, poor families, and young people."

The professors - coming from the AdMU Loyola Schools and the Ateneo Professional Schools - the Ateneo School of Medicine and Public Health (ASMPH), the Ateneo Law School (ALS), the Ateneo School of Government (ASoG), and the Ateneo Graduate School of Business (AGSB) - stressed that they signed the statement as individuals, and that they are "in no way speaking for the Ateneo de Manila University, the Society of Jesus, or the rest of their colleagues."

In all, 160 faculty members signed the statement, which we publish in full below (click the link to view the list).

__________________________________________________

HUMAN RIGHTS, STATE OBLIGATIONS, AND THE RH BILL

Declaration of Support for House Bill 4244 (The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Bill) by individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University

We, the undersigned individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University, declare our strong support for House Bill 4244, the consolidated Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Bill (or RH Bill). We are heartened by the recent move of the House of Representatives to terminate the protracted debates and interpellations on this bill which has languished in Congress since 1999.

We urge our legislators to act swiftly and judiciously on the proposed amendments to the bill, and thereafter vote for its passage. We issue this call in our individual capacities as educators, researchers, medical doctors, lawyers, and citizens, and in no way speak for our University, the Society of Jesus, or the rest of our colleagues.

As members of the academe who value academic freedom and responsibility, we wish to put knowledge at the service of national development goals that promote the wellbeing of the majority of our people. In so doing, we seek to ground our claims on the current scientific consensus and empirical evidence, including the lived experience of the poor and marginalized.

We recognize that others who do the same may arrive at a position contrary to ours; however, we view the ability to hold and express divergent opinions on an issue as a sign of a vibrant academic community. Having read and studied HB 4244 (the Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Bill) as well as the proposed amendments by the bill’s authors, we conclude that it is rights-based; supportive of State obligations to protect and promote health under the Philippine Constitution and international covenants and conventions; and in accordance with what Filipinos want, the vast majority of whom consistently say in surveys that they support the RH Bill.

Most important, the RH Bill is an equity measure that aims to reduce differential access to reproductive health and family planning services and information. It is the poor—and in particular poor women and their children—who stand to benefit the most from the passage of this bill. And should not the poor be the focal concern of any social institution, be it religion, education, or the government? State obligations, RH rights We commend President Benigno S. Aquino III for remaining steadfast to his campaign promise of “recognizing the advancement and protection of public health, which includes responsible parenthood, as key measures of good governance” (item 4 in his Social Contract with the Filipino People).

Despite intense pressure from Catholic bishops and other groups who vigorously oppose the RH Bill and are campaigning for its defeat in Congress, President Aquino in 2011 endorsed the Responsible Parenthood Bill (popularly known as the Reproductive Health Bill) as among his administration’s priority measures, and reiterated the need for responsible parenthood in his State of the Nation Address last July 23, 2012.

We are likewise heartened that members of his Cabinet stand solidly behind the President in supporting the RH Bill. These include the 20 agencies under the Human Development and Poverty Reduction (HDPR) Cabinet Cluster such as the Department of Social Welfare and Development, the Department of Health, the Department of Budget and Management, the Department of Interior and Local Government, the Department of Education, the Commission on Higher Education, the National Economic and Development Authority, the National Anti-Poverty Commission, and the Philippine Commission on Women, among others. After a decade of neglect of state support for family planning services (except for natural family planning [NFP]) under the administration of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo which adopted an NFP-only policy, President Aquino’s endorsement of a comprehensive framework for reproductive health initiatives is not only welcome but also long overdue.

Indeed, it is the obligation of the State, as primary duty-bearer, to provide information on and access to the full array of medically safe, effective, and legal family planning services in order to enable women, men, and couples—especially among the poor—to plan the number and spacing of their children. Government budgetary support for modern family planning methods (which include NFP and “artificial” contraception) is neither unconstitutional nor a breach in good governance (a form of “corruption,” according to some bishops).

In the same way that the State is obligated to provide free basic education in public schools for the poor, so should it make information and services on family planning and reproductive health available to those who cannot afford these services.

The enactment of a reproductive health law has in fact solid bases in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly in Art. XIII, sec. 11 (“The State shall adopt a comprehensive approach to health development which shall endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social services available to all people at affordable cost. There shall be priority for the needs of the underprivileged, sick, elderly, disabled, women, and children”) and Art. II, sec. 15 (“The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them”), among others. The RH Bill is also consistent with the provisions of other national laws such as the 2009 Magna Carta of Women (Republic Act 9710).

Moreover, the RH Bill’s provisions are in fulfillment of our obligations under international human rights law, notably the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (ratified by the Philippines in 1981), the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ratified by the Philippines in 1974), the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified by the Philippines in 1990), the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action adopted at the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women, and the Millennium Development Goals adopted during the 2000 Millennium Summit.

As a state party or signatory to the above, the Philippines must take appropriate measures to ensure the right to reproductive health of all its citizens. In particular, it should enact family planning programs that would guarantee the right of couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children. Implicated in the right to reproductive health are other longestablished human rights, such as the rights to: life and survival, the highest attainable standard of health, equal treatment, education, development, liberty and personal security. Filipinos want RH information and services

Those who oppose the RH Bill including some bishops have said that President Aquino’s support for it is a declaration of “open war” on the Catholic Church, which views natural family planning as the only moral means of fertility regulation. Critics also claim that the RH Bill, which will equally promote natural family planning (NFP) and “artificial” contraception, is an assault on the culture of Filipinos who cherish life, their children, and families.

These statements seem to imply that the RH Bill violates religious freedom because it will impose “artificial” contraception on predominantly-Catholic Filipinos who reject it, whether for religious or other reasons. Contrary to the contention of some groups that the RH Bill infringes on religious freedom, we maintain that it does precisely the opposite.

By providing individuals and couples adequate information on and access to a wide range of medically safe, legal, and effective family planning methods, the bill capacitates Filipinos to make informed choices. It neither offers incentives nor imposes sanctions on an individual for choosing one family planning method over another, or for opting to have few or many children, if any at all. At the heart of the RH Bill is the right to informed choice on and access to one’s preferred family planning method, provided that this is legally permissible.

This is fully in accord with the principle of mutual respect for religious differences enshrined in our Constitution. We even dare say that it is some sectors’ insistence on an NFP-only policy by government that encroaches on religious freedoms. The Philippines is a secular State and a pluralist society where various religious groups have competing views on the morality of “artificial” contraception.

Whereas the Catholic Church proscribes the use of “artificial” contraception, other religions and religious groups in the Philippines allow it and have expressed support for the RH Bill’s passage into law. These include Islam in Muslim Mindanao (where Islamic clerics have issued a fatwa (religious edict) supporting all methods of family planning that are legal, safe, and in accordance with the Islamic shariah [court]), as well as various Protestant churches including the Iglesia ni Cristo, the National Council of Churches in the Philippines, the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches, the United Methodist Church, the Philippines for Jesus Movement, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, and the Episcopal Church of the Philippines, among others.

More than just the freedom to believe, freedom of religion encompasses the freedom to act or not to act according to one’s religious beliefs. Neither political leaders nor religious officials should prevent people from practicing legal family planning methods according to their religious and personal beliefs.

The country needs a reproductive health law precisely to ensure budgetary support for the comprehensive, integrated, and sustainable delivery of reproductive health initiatives across local government units, regardless of the religious and personal convictions of national and local leaders.

A case in point is the City of Manila under the term of former Mayor Joselito Atienza, where the total commitment to natural family planning (as provided by Executive Order No. 003 of 2000) resulted in the de facto ban of “artificial” methods of family planning such as condoms, contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, injectables, and surgical sterilization from city health clinics and hospitals, thereby depriving thousands of poor women for whom natural family planning was not feasible.

The reality is, despite the Philippines being predominantly Catholic, the majority of Filipinos want the full range of family planning services including “artificial” contraception. This has been affirmed consistently by various surveys done by credible polling organizations like the Social Weather Stations and Pulse Asia.

According to Pulse Asia’s latest findings on the Reproductive Health Bill from its Ulat ng Bayan (Report of the Nation) National Survey of October 2010, a sizeable majority (69%) of Filipinos are in favor of the bill’s intent “to promote information [on] and access to natural and modern family planning methods as well as to recognize the rights of women and couples to choose the family planning method that they want based on their needs and personal and religious beliefs.”

Comparable findings on family planning based on the Second Quarter (June) 2011 Social Weather Stations Survey reveal that a vast majority (82%) of Filipinos say that “the choice of a family planning method is a personal choice of couples and no one should interfere with it,” and that a considerable majority (73%) agree that “if a couple wants to plan its family, it should be able to get information from government on all legal methods.”

A majority (68%) also believe that “the government should fund all means of family planning, be it natural or artificial.” In summary, rather than violating religious and personal freedoms, the RH Bill in fact respects and guarantees them. It is not a “population control bill” which rewards or penalizes couples depending on the number of their children, or imposes a limit on the number of children one could have.

To avert misconceptions about the bill being about “population control,” the framers of HB 4244 have proposed the deletion of Section 20 which says that the State shall encourage couples, parents and individuals “to have two children as the ideal family size,” even as that provision clearly states that this is “neither mandatory nor compulsory.”

Finally, the RH Bill responds to the clamor of Filipinos for information on and access to the full array of family planning methods, as revealed by survey after survey. In that light, the RH Bill should not be viewed as an “assault” on Filipino sensibilities or as a “Western imposition” on the Filipino populace. Rather, the strong popular support for it only shows the deeply-felt need for reproductive health services by Filipinos, especially the poor.

Filipinos need RH information and services No legislation by itself can solve all or even most of the country’s problems; the authors and supporters of the RH Bill have never claimed that it is a panacea for poverty. But if passed, the RH Bill can have a decided impact on alleviating pressing social concerns such as our high maternal mortality ratio, the rise in teenage pregnancies, and the increase in the number of HIV/AIDS cases, among others.

Maternal deaths

The most recent statistics on maternal deaths from the 2011 Family Health Survey of the National Statistics Office (NSO) reveal the worrisome finding that the Philippines’ maternal mortality ratio has increased by 36 percent, from 162 women dying from pregnancy-related complications and childbirth for every 100,000 live births in 2006 (based on the NSO’s 2006 Family Planning Survey), to 221 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 2011.

In this day and age when advancements in health and medical science should be able to save more and more women from pregnancy-related deaths, the rise in the country’s maternal mortality ratio is simply unconscionable.

At its current trajectory, the Philippines will not be able to meet Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 5, which aims to reduce its maternal mortality ratio by 75 percent, from 209 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 1990, to 52 per 100,000 in 2015. Of the eight MDGs, it is MDG 5 on reducing maternal deaths that several government and international agencies have identified as the least likely to be achieved by 2015. Sadly, many of these deaths stem from the high incidence of induced abortions.

An estimated 473,400 women had induced abortions in 2000, translating to an abortion rate of 27 abortions per 1,000 women aged 14-44, and an abortion ratio of 18 abortions per 100 pregnancies (Juarez, Cabigon, Singh and Hussain, “The Incidence of Induced Abortion in the Philippines: Current Level and Recent Trends,” 2005).

Projections for 2008 based on the 2000 data indicate that 1,000 Filipino women died in 2008 as a result of abortion, and that about 90,000 were hospitalized because of complications (Guttmacher Institute, Meeting Filipino Women’s Contraceptive Needs, 2009). For these women, terminating a pregnancy is an anguished choice they make in the face of severe constraints.

When queried about their reasons for doing so, their top three reasons were: they could not afford the economic cost of raising another child; their pregnancy occurred too soon after the last one; and they already have enough children (Juarez, Cabigon, and Singh, “Unwanted Pregnancies in the Philippines: The Route to Induced Abortion and Health Consequences,” 2005). Thus, for these women, abortion has become a family planning method. Our current maternal mortality ratio of 221 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births translates to about 15 Filipino women dying every day, according to a recent statement of the United Nations (WHO, UNFPA, UNICEF, and UN Information Centre Manila, 5 August 2012).

It is tragic that most of these deaths are from entirely preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth, such as infection, obstructed labor, and hypertensive disorders, among others. More Filipino women’s lives would be saved if they had access to family planning information and services. Births that are too frequent and spaced too closely take a debilitating toll on their health, so that many of them die during pregnancy or at childbirth. In addition to family planning, women need access to good prenatal, delivery, and postpartum care.

The passage of the RH Bill can enable the government to improve and expand its delivery of reproductive health services in order to promote and save women’s lives. Among the Bill’s notable provisions are:
•Information on and provision of the full range of all legal (i.e., registered with the DOH’s Food and Drug Administration), medically safe, and effective modern methods of family planning (whether “natural” or “artificial,” “without bias for either”)
•Modern family planning products and supplies recognized as “essential medicines” in the National Drug Formulary to facilitate volume procurement (based on the World Health Organization’s categorization of contraceptives as “essential medicines”)
•Department of Health centralized procurement and distribution of family planning supplies
•Adequate number of midwives for skilled birth attendance at delivery • Capability building on reproductive health for barangay health workers • Access to basic and comprehensive emergency obstetric and newborn care through hospitals adequately staffed and supplied; maternal and newborn health care in crisis situations like disasters
•Conduct of maternal death reviews to analyze the causes of maternal deaths • Mobile outreach services in every Congressional district • Pro bono RH services for indigent women by the private sector/NGOs
•Maximum PhilHealth benefits for serious, life-threatening RH complications
•Age-appropriate RH and sexuality education beginning grade 6 (amended from Grade 5)
•Budgetary appropriation for implementation under the General Appropriations Act Contrary to what critics say about HB 4244 being “anti-life” because it abets abortion, the bill emphatically enunciates that it “recognizes that abortion is illegal and punishable by law” (sec. 3, no. 1).

By giving couples, especially women, information on and access to medically safe, legal, affordable, and quality family planning methods, the bill in fact seeks to avert unwanted, unplanned, and mistimed pregnancies which are the root cause of induced abortions.

“Artificial” contraceptive methods such as pills, female sterilization, injectables, intrauterine devices, and male condoms are all legal in the Philippines and have usage rates of 19.8%, 8.6%, 3.4%, 3.1%, and 1.2%, respectively (NSO 2011 Family Health Survey). What HB 4244 merely seeks to do is to make family planning methods that are legal (or registered with the Department of Health’s Food and Drug Administration) available for those who cannot afford them. Based on the NSO 2011 Family Health Survey, 16.2 percent of married or cohabiting women aged 15 to 49 were not using any family planning method because it was inaccessible to them (“hard to get”).

As regards treating modern family planning products and supplies as “essential medicines” to facilitate volume procurement, this is not a new, Philippine formulation offered by HB 4244’s authors. Since the late 1970s, the World Health Organization has included contraceptives as part of the WHO core list of essential medicines.

While pregnancy is not a disease, women can die from it as well as from childbirth. To regard contraceptives as “essential medicines” is to recognize the life-saving effects of contraceptives which help a woman limit and space her pregnancies based on what she deems safe for her body, as well as compatible with her beliefs and family situation.

Teenage pregnancies

Like the maternal mortality ratio, the number of teenage pregnancies in the Philippines has been increasing. According to the 2011 Family Health Survey (FHS), the fertility rate (defined as the number of live births per 1,000 women) of girls 15-19 years old rose by 38 percent, from 39 in 2006 (2006 Family Planning Survey [FPS]) to 54 in 2011. For female youth in the 20-24 age group, the fertility rate increased by 7 percent, from 149 in 2006, to 159 in 2011 (2006 FPS, 2011 FHS). As educators and guardians of our youth, we are concerned about the increase in teenage pregnancies (usually unplanned) which can lead to early marriage, aborted schooling, curtailed work opportunities, frequent pregnancies, and sometimes separation, abortions, and even early death.

One of the most controversial features of HB 4244 is age-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education in the formal and non-formal educational system beginning in grade 5 up to fourth year high school (President Aquino, however, in consideration of the bishops’ concerns expressed during dialogues between Cabinet members and officials of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, has conceded to make grade 6 the start of RH and sexuality education, which the bill’s authors will take into consideration).

As expressed in the CBCP’s pastoral letter “Choosing Life, Rejecting the RH Bill” (dated 30 January 2011), the bishops “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 from God.” The RH bill’s authors have thus proposed an amendment (dated 15 March 2011) to give parents the “option of not allowing their minor children to attend classes pertaining to Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education.”

However, despite this proposed opt-out provision, some sectors including the Catholic Church hierarchy remain strongly opposed to the inclusion of RH and sexuality education in the curriculum, arguing that doing so would arouse young people’s curiosity about sex, encourage them to try premarital sex, and promote promiscuity.

A review of the evidence, however, shows that these fears are unfounded. Does sexuality education lead to earlier or increased sexual activity outside of marriage? In December 2009, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) published The International Technical Guidelines on Sexuality Education which reviewed all the studies on the impact of sexuality education on the sexual behavior of the participants.

A total of 87 sexuality education programs all over the world were reviewed, of which 29 programs were in developing countries, 47 programs in the United States, and 11 programs in other developed countries.

According to the report, sexuality education is “an age-appropriate, culturally relevant approach to teaching about sex and relationships by providing scientifically accurate, realistic, non-judgmental information. It aims to provide opportunities for young people to explore their own values and attitudes, and to build decision making, communication, and risk-reduction skills about various aspects of sexuality.”

While the parents and family are valuable and key sources of information, the reality is, some parents are reluctant to discuss sex with their children, or are themselves uninformed about it.

Findings from the 2002 Young Adult Fertility and Sexuality Survey conducted by the University of the Philippines Population Institute reveal that only 15.7 percent of the youth aged 15-24 freely talk about sex at home with their family. The study also shows that the youth learn about sex from pornographic materials, or turn to their peers who are not the most reliable sources of information on sex, or try to learn firsthand about sex by actually engaging in it.

Sexuality and RH education in the formal and non-formal educational system should be viewed as complementing—rather than contravening—the right of parents to be their children’s most important source of information on sex and sexuality. In any case, the authors of HB 4244 have proposed an amendment that would allow parents to opt-out their children from sexuality and RH education programs in school.

Based on the 2009 UNESCO impact study results for 87 sexuality education programs worldwide, for the world as a whole, no sexuality program (0%)—whether in developed or developing countries—resulted in hastening the participants’ initiation into sex.

Thirty-seven percent of the programs resulted in delayed initiation into sex, and 63% had no significant impact. As regards the effects of sexuality education on frequency of sex, the results showed that 31 percent of the programs for the world as a whole led to decreased frequency of sex, compared to only 3 percent which resulted in increased frequency of sex; 66 percent of the programs had no significant impact on the frequency of sex.

The 3 percent increase in frequency of sex was reported for developed countries; no (0%) sexuality education in the developing countries resulted in increased frequency of sex among its participants.

With regard to the effect of sexuality education on the number of one’s sexual partners, while 56 percent of all sexuality education programs studied had no significant impact, 44 percent resulted in a decreased number of sexual partners for the participants.

What is significant to stress is that no sexuality education program resulted in an increased number of sexual partners.

In summary, the UNESCO’s comprehensive impact study on sexuality education programs unequivocally shows that these did not result in increased promiscuity or sexual laxity. On the contrary, not only was the initiation of sex delayed, but the frequency of sex and the number of sexual partners of those who participated in the programs also declined.

Proponents of HB 4244 are therefore pushing for the inclusion of age-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education in the educational system, believing that doing so would help decrease the incidence of youth having their sexual debut at increasingly younger ages, bereft of sufficient knowledge on reproductive health, particularly the consequences of early and unprotected sex such as teenage pregnancies. Increase in HIV/AIDS cases Unprotected sex (reported for 75.1 percent of sexually-active unmarried youth by the 2002 Young Adult Fertility and Sexuality Survey) and lack of knowledge about sex can also result in HIV/AIDS.

According to Global Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic in 2010 by the United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), although the Philippines has a relatively low prevalence of HIV cases, it is one of only seven countries in the world (the other Asian country being Bangladesh) that have recorded a sharp increase in the number of HIV cases from 2001 to 2009. In 2001, there were 600 HIV cases in the Philippines. Since then, 4,600 new infections were monitored by the Department of Health. Three thousand seven hundred Filipinos have died from AIDS-related causes since 1984.

Similar to our Millennium Development Goal (MDG) prospects for maternal health, the Philippines is unlikely to meet MDG 6 on halting and reversing the spread of AIDS, according to the United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) in Manila.

The enactment of the RH Bill can thus help arrest the increase in the number of HIV cases and AIDS-related deaths through its programs to prevent and manage HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmittable infections, and through education and counseling programs on sexuality and reproductive health.

Call to action

Our reflected and collective appraisal of the Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Bill (HB 4244) is that it is a vital piece of legislation that needs to be passed urgently.

It upholds the constitutional right of couples to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions; honors our commitments to international covenants and conventions; and promotes the reproductive health and reproductive rights of Filipinos, especially of those who are most marginalized on this issue—our women, poor families, and young people.

Moreover, as faculty of a Catholic university, we believe that the key principles of the RH Bill—promotion of reproductive health, subsidizing the health needs of the marginalized and vulnerable, guarantee of the right to information and education of adults and young people alike, respect for the freedom of choice of individuals and couples in planning their families—are compatible with core principles of Catholic social teaching, such as the sanctity of human life, the dignity of the human person, the preferential option for the poor, integral human development, human rights, and the primacy of conscience.

Responding to the reproductive health needs of the poor, especially of the women among them, is also in keeping with the Second Vatican Council’s thrust of being a church in solidarity with the “joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men [and women] of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted” (Gaudium et Spes 1965, no. 1). It is likewise consistent with the commitment of the Philippine Church to be a “Church of the Poor,” described by the 1991 Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP-II) as “one where the entire community of disciples… will have such a love of preference for the poor as to orient and tilt the center of gravity of the entire community in favor of the needy” (PCP II, no. 134).

In view of the crucial vote of the House of Representatives on August 6, 2012 to terminate the interpellations on House Bill 4244 and to move to the period of amendments, we call on our Representatives to act judiciously in considering the proposed amendments to the bill, and thereafter vote on and ratify the amended bill for immediate transmission to the Senate.

We urge the Senate to terminate the interpellations on its counterpart measure, Senate Bill 2865 (the Reproductive Health Bill). We believe that all the possible arguments in favor of or against the Reproductive Health Bill have already been put on the floor and debated on at length in the last 14 years, in the various incarnations of the bill from the 11th to the present 15th Congress.

The time has come to vote on and pass the bill, and to make its enactment one of the enduring legacies that the 15th Congress and the administration of President Benigno S. Aquino III can offer to the Filipino people.

We ask our legislators to muster the courage and wisdom to vote, not on the basis of vested interests, but in the service of the Filipino people and especially the poor from whom they derive and to whom they owe their mandate. Speaking only for ourselves and not for the rest of our colleagues, the University, or the Society of Jesus, we reiterate our full and unequivocal support for House Bill 4244 and sign this statement as individual faculty.

[3cr]

Aquino’s calibrated push for RH bill
http://www.rappler.com/nation/10317-...99-for-rh-bill

MANILA, Philippines - The Reproductive Health bill (RH bill) still has a long way to go.

The RH bill scored major victory when both the Senate and the House of Representatives terminated debates but the real battle is just about to begin. The period of amendments is the most crucial stage of the legislative process.

But RH bill principal author in the lower House, Albay Rep Edcel Lagman, is optimistic it will be passed in the current 15th Congress because of the support that President Benigno Aquino III is throwing behind the bill.

“I think the President is giving a calibrated support,” Lagman told Rappler executive editor Maria Ressa on #TalkThursday.

Aquino pulled a surprise a day before the scheduled August 7 House vote. He called his allies in the lower House to a caucus in Malacañang to personally appeal to them to vote in favor of terminating the debate. After the caucus, his allies in the House voted to end the debates the very same day, August 6.

President Aquino declared the RH bill a priority measure in August 2011. But before the Malacañang caucus, Aquino did not really push for it as hard as other priority measures. In his 2012 State of the Nation Address, Aquino mentioned the need for “responsible parenthood” but fell short of issuing a clear call on the lawmakers to pass the RH bill.

Lagman said the President is taking it “step by step.”

“The first step was to endorse the bill as priority measure. Number two is to terminate the long winding repetitive debates. Now, the next would be the period of amendments – both the committee amendments and the individual amendments - before we go to 2nd and 3rd voting,” Lagman said.

Biggest challenge: Quorum

Aside from Aquino’s support, Lagman said there are two other reasons behind his optimism that the RH bill will be passed in the current 15th Congress. One, there is strong public support for the passage of the bill. And two, the House leadership is in favor of putting it to a vote.

On his last term, Lagman said he wants the passage of the RH bill as his “graduation medallion.”

“Hopefully, [we can pass it] in the month of August before the budget bill goes to plenary in the first week of September,” he said.

What remains to be the biggest challenge for the RH bill? Lagman said it’s assuring the attendance of lawmakers in plenary sessions.

“The greatest hurdle is mustering a quorum in the House. If we have a quorum and we go to a vote, definitely this bill will get the assent of the members of the House,” he said.

“I think it’s a challenge to the leadership of the House to have this quorum. If we don’t have a quorum, that will be taken advantage of by the critics of the bill. It will derail the process,” he said.

Critics of RH bill in the House of Representatives – also a sizeable number - have threatened quorum in the past. They would leave the plenary when the RH bill is taken up. Without a quorum, House leadership is forced to adjourn sessions.

Anti-RH vows to fight

Critics of the RH bill agreed to vote in favor of terminating the debates because, after all, there is still the period of amendments.

Cebu Rep Pablo Garcia, for example, vowed they will inject amendments that will “kill the bill.” He is one of the staunchest critics of RH bill.

"The RH bill advocates have won the battle but they will lose the war," Garcia told Rappler.

Before the President Aquino’s appeal to lawmakers, the Catholic Church claimed it had 140 votes to junk the bill. Claiming that they have the vote, supporters of the bill questioned the survey.

No Killer Amendments

Lagman vowed they will not allow “killer amendments.”

“Killer amendments like any killer should be hunted down. We are willing to accept truly perfecting and refining amendments which will not destroy the essence of the bill,” he said.

Lagman said the authors of RH bill have been discussing which amendments they are going to allow.

Lagman said the critics of the RH bill in the House represent the “traditional opposition coming from the Catholic hierarchy.”

“As far as the Catholic hierarchy is concerned, I think we will not waste time convincing them,” Lagman said.

A Catholic himself, Lagman said he agrees with the position of Ateneo professors that Catholics can support RH bill in good conscience.

[GodIsNotGreat]

Originally Posted by 3cr

160 Ateneo professors endorse RH Bill
InterAksyon.com
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/4...ndorse-rh-bill

160 Faculty members of the Ateneo de Manila University on Monday released a statement in support of House Bill 4244, or The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Bill.


The professors - coming from the AdMU Loyola Schools and the Ateneo Professional Schools - the Ateneo School of Medicine and Public Health (ASMPH), the Ateneo Law School (ALS), the Ateneo School of Government (ASoG), and the Ateneo Graduate School of Business (AGSB) - stressed that they signed the statement as individuals, and that they are "in no way speaking for the Ateneo de Manila University, the Society of Jesus, or the rest of their colleagues."

In all, 160 faculty members signed the statement, which we publish in full below (click the link to view the list).

Very admirable and courageous move, considering that there is an explicit threat to their continued employment in Jesuit-run Ateneo.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakin...o-goFr-Reuters

DZIQ: Pro-RH bill Ateneo teachers are free to go—Fr. Reuter

INQUIRER.net
First Posted 15:17:00 05/17/2011

Filed Under: Schools, Belief (Faith), Legislation

MANILA, Philippines. Faculty members who support the Reproductive Health (RH) bill have no right to teach in Ateneo de Manila University, Jesuit priest James Reuter said, according to a Radyo Inquirer report aired Tuesday.

[InformaticIAN]

OT: i just noticed the username of the forumer above... (this post need no comment or response, just my opinion) The guy believes in god. whoever god is, just that, he's god is not great but he believes in god's existence.


My first time to post in this thread. Based in my humble opinion.
----

RH bill author assures freedom of choice

The reproductive health (RH) bill offers choices and will not force an individual to use a family planning option that goes against his or her ethical or religious beliefs, according to the bill’s principal sponsor in the Senate.

Senator Pia Cayetano, chairperson of the Senate committee on women, youth and family relations, is apparently fed up with claims that the RH bill would promote abortion, promiscuity and even teach minors age-inappropriate concepts about sex.

“Anti-RH advocates often state that people are being forced to adopt a certain type of family planning method. Or that health care providers will be forced to recommend certain kinds,” Cayetano noted in her blog after Senate leaders said they would reopen the period of interpellation on the contentious measure.

Attention has again been focused on the bill after Catholic leaders led a protest rally against the measure last Saturday during which prelates warned of fatal consequences if it were approved.

Alarm bells

Alarm bells rang louder when the House of Representatives ended its period of interpellation on the bill last Monday, a day ahead of schedule.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III, for instance, said they would reopen the interpellation on the bill so they could ask Cayetano more questions.

The Senate ended the interpellation of the bill last May during which senators spent countless session hours fielding questions and answers about it.

Cayetano fears the renewed campaign against the RH bill could derail what the Senate has achieved so far.

The senator insisted that the bill had gone through the process. “We had hearings, then we made our committee report… In fact, it took almost a year before the RH bill hurdled the interpellation period at the Senate,” she said.

“Every provision was explained, rehashed and clarified until it was blue in the face. I am not exaggerating,” she said.

All provisions explained

She now fears that all gains made by the Senate might be “overlooked, sometimes even abandoned altogether by those who mean to distort the meaning and purpose of the bill.”

Cayetano reiterated the following points in her blog posted on August 4:

•The RH bill respects the religious convictions and cultural beliefs of all.

“Those who do not want to use contraceptives are not being forced to. Each person is at liberty to decide for his or herself,” she said.

•That RH education would be age- and development-appropriate. The bill “will not teach a 10-year-old how to use condoms.”

Rather, it will ensure that children in school are provided “age-appropriate” sex education, including proper names for body parts and understanding the biological function of their bodies “such that they know that babies grow in mommy’s tummy and do not come out of bamboo trees,” she explained.

Lack of awareness

Cayetano said this lack of awareness could be partly responsible for the Philippines having the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Southeast Asia and cases of young children being sexually abused, sometimes by members of their own family.

•That the RH bill promotes both natural and artificial methods.

“Again, there is so much disinformation spreading that only artificial family planning shall be promoted under the RH bill. This is false,” she said.

•That contraceptives are safe and effective family planning tools.

“Like any medicine or medical device, all contraceptives shall be approved by a government authority, the Food and Drugs Administration. And like medicines, there will be respect for choices. Couples must decide what is best for them with the advice of their health care provider,” Cayetano said.

•That the RH bill will not indiscriminately distribute condoms to all.

Cayetano said the measure is much more than nationwide condom distribution. Providing mobile vehicles that would provide health care services especially in far-flung areas where health care is inaccessible is an urgent component of the measure, she said.

“The mobile health care unit is not a contraceptive ice cream truck,” the senator said.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/247075/...edom-of-choice

the highlighted sentence is actually another story...

IMHO... teenage pregnancy is the Main Problem not the Over population (when do you say population is over?) . Sexual abuses has nothing to do with over population. You don't even supervised people if they are really using contraceptives during intercourse. So, if then RH Bill still gives you a freedom to do what you want, then what is the Bill for?

I believe RH bill will be e big help in easing any unwanted, unnecessary, inappropriate, insignificant or should we say untimely increase in population, if it just focus on the real problem ---- teenage pregnancy. (because pregnancy inside marriage is not a problem)

[OtAkAw]

LOL, do you know Christopher Hitchens?

[OtAkAw]

Have you guys read about the blatant misinformation being done by Tito Sotto in the Senate yesterday? The guy was like on drugs.

[louiegi]

Cayetano said this lack of awareness could be partly responsible for the Philippines having the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Southeast Asia and cases of young children being sexually abused, sometimes by members of their own family.

does she mean young children should always bring condoms just in case they might get sexually abused?.

i hope i am quoting the wrong person.

[InformaticIAN]

Originally Posted by OtAkAw

LOL, do you know Christopher Hitchens?

OT: i googled him... and found something about his book published last 2007? is it ironic? describing something that does not exist. how can we say that the tree is not tall if there is no tree at all?

----- i read about Tito Sotto's emotional speech, but never heard what was the speech

[InformaticIAN]

Originally Posted by louiegi

does she mean young children should always bring condoms just in case they might get sexually abused?.

i hope i am quoting the wrong person.

not really..... at least they must be well-informed...

[InformaticIAN]

Originally Posted by louiegi

does she mean young children should always bring condoms just in case they might get sexually abused?.

i hope i am quoting the wrong person.

shall we use the subject and the predicate in that sentence?

[Manila-X]

House to start period of amendments on RH bill
By Karen Boncocan
INQUIRER.net
1:28 pm | Tuesday, August 14th, 2012

MANILA, Philippines – After hurdling the period of debates, the controversial Reproductive Health bill will now face another challenge when the House of Representatives enters the period of amendments this Tuesday.

Kabataan Partylist Representative Raymond Palatino said that lawmakers were informed that amendments to House Bill 4244 will be taken up at the plenary. The session will start at 4:00 p.m.
In the period of amendments, lawmakers may propose amendments to certain provisions of the bill.
House majority leader Neptali Gonzales II said panels for pro and anti-RH bill lawmakers will be created to iron out issues with the proposed measure.
After the period of amendments, the lawmakers will then vote on the bill on second and third readings.

Albay Representative Edcel Lagman, the proponent of the bill, said he will attend the session to witness the deliberation even he was mourning the loss of his mother , Cecilia, who passed away Monday.

“I will be in Congress this afternoon. I will be present during the period of amendments,” Lagman said in a text message to reporters.

[Manila-X]

Sotto says fight vs RH bill very personal
By Marvin Sy (The Philippine Star) Updated August 14, 2012 12:00 AM



Manila, Philippines - Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III admitted yesterday that his fight against the proposed Reproductive Health (RH) bill is “very personal to him and is his mission from God.”

Sotto, who has long carried a “macho” image in the Senate, broke down in tears after he delivered the first part of his speech against the RH bill during the so-called turno en contra for the measure.

Last week, Sotto said that he would reveal the significance of Aug. 13 to him and to his fight against the RH bill.

It turned out that exactly 37 years ago yesterday, Vincent Paul, the only son of Sotto, died five months after he was born in 1975.

He noted that the public knew of only four children that he and his wife, actress Helen Gamboa, sired since they got married in 1971.

He recalled that soon after Gamboa gave birth to their eldest daughter Romina in 1973, she was advised by her doctors to take contraceptives so as not to disrupt her schedule in doing movies.

However, the contraceptives did not work and Gamboa became pregnant with their first son.

According to Sotto, the weak heart of his son led to the need for regular blood transfusions, which went on until his death five months later.

Sotto said that his son never left the hospital during the entire five months of his life and he made it a point to visit him every day.

He noted that two of his colleagues, Senators Manuel Lapid and Pia Cayetano, both lost children just like he did.

During his interpellation on the RH bill, Lapid said his wife also used contraceptives but still got pregnant.

Lapid said that his baby was born with a heart defect and that he was convinced the use of contraceptives by his wife led to that condition.

He lost his child nine years later.

In the case of Cayetano, she lost her son Gabriel nine months after he was born due to a rare congenital condition.

“It is sad to hear this from them but the truth is, I even envy them because they got to hold their children,” Sotto said.

“I was not able to hold my son in those five months. I got to hold him when he was dead already,” he added.

Sotto said that he was convinced the use of contraceptives by his wife led to the death of his only son and that is why his campaign against the RH bill is very personal to him.

“At that time I asked God why this happened to me. I badly wanted a son, why did you take him away from me? Thirty-seven years later, the Lord gave me his answer, it is my mission to stop this bill (from being approved),” Sotto said.

He ended up sobbing after his speech and was comforted by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Sen. Ramon Revilla.

Cayetano, one of the principal authors and sponsors of the RH bill, was also seen talking to Sotto while the session was suspended.

Sotto and Cayetano have been at odds over the RH bill, with the latter accusing him on a number of occasions of delaying the progress of the measure.

In fact, before Sotto started his presentation, he engaged Cayetano and her co-sponsor Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago in a minor exchange on the procedure for the start of the turno en contra and stated clearly that they should not worry about his presentation being a source of delay again.

He cited several international and local studies, which showed that life begins at fertilization and as such the use of anything that prevents the fertilized ovum from being implanted in the uterus is already considered abortive.

He said many of the contraceptives are even harmful to those who use them because of a number of side effects and even carcinogenic properties.

For the pill, Sotto cited the following listed major adverse effects: breast cancer, cervical cancer, liver cancer, premature hypertension and coronary artery disease resulting in heart attacks and strokes, thromboembolism/pulmonary embolism.

Other adverse effects are decreased libido, infertility, leg cramps, gallstone formation, nausea and bloatedness.

In the case of IUDs, he said that side effects include cramps, bleeding between periods, pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility and tear or hole in the uterus.

“Given all these harmful effects to women, are we going to allow our government to spend billions of money to purchase condoms, pills and IUDs for the sake of what they call reproductive health?” Sotto said.

“This is not the solution to their claim that 11 mothers die every day, if it is true that 11 mothers die every day. If the RH bill is approved, most likely more than 11 mothers will die every day. And I thought the RH bill is for our women,” he added.

[Biarway]

Baliw ata yan. Bakit kasi nagiging senador yung mga ganyan eh. Ang kikitid ng utak

[Go Philippines!]

If only our Senators can use the senate halls to debate laws instead of making it feel like a weekend spiritual retreat where open sharing is the norm. Speeches should not be used to try to gain personal compassion or political mileage. How i wish we have more lawyers in the Senate instead of showbiz personalities.

It is also obvious that Senator Sotto was misinformed about the real death of his son as there is no proof contraceptives killed his son. That is why its so important to educate our people now because of all the misinformation out there regarding the RH Bill.

[wolfdgreat]

Originally Posted by Biarway

Baliw ata yan. Bakit kasi nagiging senador yung mga ganyan eh. Ang kikitid ng utak

He(Sotto) has a point actually and in my opinion it is a very valid point.
But at the end if it, is RH Bill just really about contraceptives?

[BeaverQube]

Originally Posted by Manila-X

Sotto says fight vs RH bill very personal
By Marvin Sy (The Philippine Star) Updated August 14, 2012 12:00 AM



Manila, Philippines - Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III admitted yesterday that his fight against the proposed Reproductive Health (RH) bill is “very personal to him and is his mission from God.”

Sotto, who has long carried a “macho” image in the Senate, broke down in tears after he delivered the first part of his speech against the RH bill during the so-called turno en contra for the measure.
bill is for our women,” he added.

Baka na karma ka Sen Sotto! If I remember it right my parents said he was allegedly involved in that Pepsi Paloma case..

[3cr]

Not trivializing things but how does Sen. Sotto know that it's not actually God's will/plan that's the reason why his son died early? Why does he not blame God for his son's death and instead blame contraceptives when there has not even been any concrete proof shown yet that points to contraceptives actually killed his son? Then there is the question of the possibility of user error in using the said contraceptive(s) that could also have played a role in his son's death. Or how about the son was simply a weak/sickly baby boy to begin with? In reality there are many reasons and possibilities that could have caused his son's death and makes one wonder why he actually ended up choosing to blame it on contraceptives over the other possibilities? Is this Mr. Sotto's way of rationalizing his son's death with least guilt because he does not really grasp the real reason why God would take his son away? His story is heart-wrenching and big on emotional appeal but so far really short in real scientific basis and weight in forming his argumentation against the RH Bill. Sorry to say but he'll need to do much better than that.

[3cr]

‘SUE YOUR DOCTOR’
Solon says Sotto ‘misinformed’ on cause of son’s death
Manila Standard
http://manilastandardtoday.com/2012/...e-your-doctor/

A supporter of the reproductive health bill on Tuesday said Senator Vicente Sotto III should have sued his wife’s doctor for misinforming him that his first-born son died because his mother had taken contraceptives during her pregnancy.

A day after Sotto recalled the death of his son 37 years ago in a speech before the Senate, Iloilo Rep. Janette Garin said the wife's doctor had kept the senator in the dark about his son’s real health condition.

“Hearing him say that he was told by his doctor that the cause of his son’s heart disease was the intake of pills, I would strongly suggest that he sue his doctor for all this mental anguish they have been suffering because it is definitely not true,” Garin, who is a doctor, said in a TV interview.

Garin said the senator’s wife, who got pregnant despite the use of contraceptives, might not have been taking the pills daily or in the correct dosage.

“This is where the problem is. We have respectable people like Senator Sotto misinforming the public…..With the misinformation, many lives are being sacrificed, many people are put in danger because of this misinformation,” she said.

Garin spoke as the House of Representatives began its period of amendments on House Bill 4244.

The technical working group assigned to work on the amendments is expected to submit its report to the plenary soon, and the House is expected to approve the measure on second reading in the coming session days.

House Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II confirmed that the House leadership instructed its members to attend the sessions beginning Tuesday for the RH amendments.

In fact, Gonzales said two panel will be formed to serve as technical working group (to discuss the amendments as well as avoid repetitious long debates on the floor.

Also on Tuesday, former Health secretary Esperanza Cabral questioned Sotto’s use of his son’s death 37 years ago to justify his opposition to the RH bill.

“When Senator Sotto asked God why this happened to him, he did not receive an answer immediately but after 37 years, he has realized that it was because he was given the mission to fight the Reproductive Health Bill,” Cabral said.

The former Health secretary said that contrary to Sotto’s claims, condoms, hormonal contraceptives, and intrauterine devices have not been shown by scientific methods to cause “weak hearts” in babies born following their mothers’ use of these contraceptives “any more than brushing or not brushing your teeth in the morning has been shown to cause ‘weak hearts’ in babies.”

She said Sotto had fallen into the fallacy of attributing cause and effect because one event followed another.

“My wife used contraceptives, then my son was born with a weak heart; therefore my son’s weak heart was caused by my wife’s use of contraceptives. Following that line of argument, if at the time of Vincent Paul’s conception, Senator Sotto failed to brush his teeth, it could be argued that his son was born with a weak heart because he failed to brush his teeth before having sex with Mrs. Sotto,” she added.

Cabral said the Sottos’ physician, Dr. Carmen Enverga Santos, has been dead for many years and could not confirm or deny Sotto’s story, but an inspection of the hospital records and the death certificate of his son might help show the real cause of his death.

“I hope the good senator will make these public,” she said.

The principal author of the Senate version of the bill, Senator Pia Cayetano, countered Sotto’s arguments in a statement Monday, noting that there were no credible scientific studies establishing a link between the use of contraceptives and birth defects.

She added that in the 1970s, it was possible that doctors were unable to diagnose the true condition of Sotto’s infant son.