Population Control Issues

[Manila-X]

With or without The RH bill, it is still up to the couple to make the right decision.

Seriously there is nothing wrong if the couple would like have 5 or more kids, as long as they are able to raise them and give them an education.

[Manila-X]

Originally Posted by Planning Democracy

Everybody is attacking the Church, but has anybody analyzed the law itself? It's population control without teeth, it's basically useless and would probably not impact population that much. If you want population control you have to take the path that China did, but merely encouraging and suggesting and teaching people about birth control, that's not gonna do much. So what's next, birth control supplies over pricing scandals?

C'mon, Robin Padilla advertised condoms, every jolog (which is the real target of the RH Bill) knows about condoms. Why spend a whole load of money educating people about something they basically know already? To the poor, children are a resource, and yes, in a way, they are actually right.

I say we use that money to educate the future generation that will comprise our workforce in the future. Instead of making them dumber because we used our resources to fund an impotent population control program.

From how I see it, if there is a reason why there are many who are pro RH Bill is because these people would like to make a stand on separation of The Church and State and that The Roman Catholic church should not meddle with the country's affair especially when it comes to politics and way of life.

[manila_eye]

Originally Posted by Planning Democracy

Everybody is attacking the Church, but has anybody analyzed the law itself? It's population control without teeth, it's basically useless and would probably not impact population that much. If you want population control you have to take the path that China did, but merely encouraging and suggesting and teaching people about birth control, that's not gonna do much. So what's next, birth control supplies over pricing scandals?

C'mon, Robin Padilla advertised condoms, every jolog (which is the real target of the RH Bill) knows about condoms. Why spend a whole load of money educating people about something they basically know already? To the poor, children are a resource, and yes, in a way, they are actually right.

I say we use that money to educate the future generation that will comprise our workforce in the future. Instead of making them dumber because we used our resources to fund an impotent population control program.

First of all, it's not a population control, it's population management. And you're asking why people are attacking your church? Because they keep meddling in a stately affair. Having the China method of curbing population growth would surely wage a war against the Catholic Church. Dito pa nga lang all out war na sila dun pa kaya sa suggestion mo.

Without this law (bill), this country will keep producing dumb population.

[OtAkAw]

Originally Posted by Planning Democracy

Everybody is attacking the Church, but has anybody analyzed the law itself?

Now that's funny. I was certain the Church is the one doing all the "attacking".

[3cr]

Originally Posted by louiegi

1st thing, are we sure RH Bill can do any good to this country?

2nd, what type of abuse does the church is doing right now?they are just trying to influence and not make decisions, which is one of the essence of the separation between church and state. in the end, legislations are still the legislators job. let the church air their sentiments, if you don't want, blame democracy for giving everybody in the country the right to speak.

As the saying goes, "don't fix what ain't broken" and as we can now witness after years of turning a blind eye, there is obviously a problem with the system or we won't be in this situation in the first place. The system needs fixin and the Gov't has limited funds at their disposal to accomplish this. What the Gov't proposes is the RH Bill. So how do we know this will not work and not do any good for the country when we have not even tried? If other Asian countries were quite successful in doing such a program so why can't we follow the same footsteps toward achieving the same goals? After all it's not like this is a pilot program that the Philippines will become a test subject/country. There is actually a track record of success so why will it not work in the Philippines? Bakit ano ba ang pagkakaiba ng ibang Asians sa Pilipino para hindi ito umubra?

The Right/Freedom to speak goes both ways and eventhough the Roman Catholic Church may be the dominant religious institution here in the Philippines, their views, beliefs and stand on issues like the RH Bill leave them marginalized as shown by the united show of force of other Churches/Religion in the country actually in support of the RH Bill. Their flocks may be fewer in numbers than the Catholics but it does not matter as this is not about majority wins but rather equal representation for all people regardless of religion which is why such matter should really be left to the State/Gov't as how it should be. This is about the individual's right to choose even if in the minority which the the Roman Catholic Church don't seem to get or perhaps they're just too arrogant to accept which is why they continue to meddle and stubbornly impose their antiquated beliefs/views upon the Gov't and the whole land. Funny how the Gov't does not dictate/impose on the Church how to practice her religion and the Gov't does not even get to tax the Church for that matter and yet the Church here in the Philippines does not show reciprocity in honor of the separation between Church and State as mandated in the Philippine Constitution. Why is it that the Church continue to meddle in Gov't affairs when the country is not even purely Roman Catholic to begin with but actually made up of people from different religions and even those that don't believe in religion or God for that matter? Why are they not using the proper forum to guide their flock? Let them use the pulpit during mass and sermon the flock as much as they want and this is within their right but to actually impose and hold the Gov't hostage as to what it should and should not do, such as this RH Bill, is not just going beyond the Right/Freedom to speak you speak of but also goes against the separation of Church and State. This abuse of influence/privilege/power has got to stop.

And as if this inappropriate behavior is not crazy enough we now even have Bishops who knowingly spread misinformation and stretch their argumentation regarding the RH Bill to the hilt by now saying that contraception is corruption because taxpayers money will be used to provide the contraceptives. Well in the same manner one can argue that if providing for contraceptives to help lower the number of mouths to be fed in this country is considered corruption because of the use of taxpayers money, can't we say the same when we use tax payer's money to help feed the exponentially growing poor population and number of unwanted babies in this country? And food is just the beginning so what about the other incidental costs/effects of a runaway population growth to the economy? It's really expensive and becoming a losing battle to take care of a runaway growing population that is mostly poor and dependent on Gov't programs such as the CCT. Would money be better spent on a CCT program or programs in the RH Bill? This brings to mind the question "which comes first the chicken or the egg?" The gov't can try solve this problem in the beginning/before birth (RH Bill) or in the end/after birth (CCT's Charter Change, etc.). It just boils down to where the gov't see's/thinks they have the best fighting chance to actually make an impact and difference. Condom for example still cost the least (more bang for the buck so to speak) but even this is being fought by the Church even when condoms are actually already being sold here in this country. And besides how can a contraceptive like condom be thrown in the same basket as abortion when there has not even been any fertilization yet which is precisely the purpose of using one in the first place - so that the sperm does get to fertilize the egg.

Ironically those trying to meddle in the Government's affairs / RH Bill are not really saints themselves as they'd like us to believe. The Church herself has more than her fair share of corruption issues and other scandals within her own institution too which even the Vatican has acknowledged that has adversely affected the integrity of the Church. And adding insult to injury it's her very own priests themselves who have been guilty of not living up to the standard of their own Catholic Church so how can they realistically expect her flock to actually be able to live up to these standards that her priest have failed to live up to? So if the Church as an institution has failed to live up to their very own standards how can they possibly lay claim to be the source of moral compass for society? After all the Church and her priests/clerics should be naturally better than the individuals in their flock otherwise it will be nothing more than the blind leading the blind. And given that even within the Catholic Church herself there are opposing views regarding the RH BIll only goes to show not all Catholics are against the RH Bill and all the more reason why the Church should not impose their antiquated beliefs / point of view upon the whole land and its people. The mere fact that the Church is trying to influence the decision on the RH Bill is already beyond guiding her flock and much more meddling in State/Gov't affairs already. The Church has overstepped its bounds already and is not really honoring the separation between Church and State. The Gov't is actually the one responsible for the whole citizenry regardless of religion and to be effective, the Gov't needs to be able to do what they need to do as they see fit independently from the Church like in this RH Bill. After all that's why there is suppose to be separation between Church and State in this country in the first place. Just as the Gov't honor this separation, the Church as an institution should honor that as well. Vatican should really remind their Filipino clerics about the difference between pastoral care and political involvement as it is obvious they can not distinguish between the two.

Instead of meddling in State affairs, the Church needs to concentrate on actually strengthening the moral fiber and conviction of their priests, parishioners and devotees so that Gov't programs like the RH Bill will not be seen as a threat to them and their existence. Besides if the Church parishioners and devotees really believe and follow the Church's preachings/teachings to begin with, then the Government's RH Bill and the programs under it will be something they will not have to get involved in since it's not a compulsary program nor a requirement but a voluntary one. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. There is a choice and correspondingly that right to choose / freedom of choice should be left to the individual. Even God gave this right to Man/Mankind... It's called "Free Will". The Church really has no business taking this right away from every filipino indiviual.

[3cr]

Catholic Church goes after Ateneo professors for heresy
Philippine Daily Inquirer
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/254188/...fessors-sacked

It’s not exactly an inquisition but 159 members of the Ateneo de Manila University faculty may face investigation for heresy, and sacked—not excommunicated—if found guilty.

Bishop Leandro Medroso, in an interview over Church-run Radio Veritas Monday, called for an investigation of the Ateneo faculty members who signed a statement declaring support for the controversial reproductive health (RH) bill being pushed by the Aquino administration in Congress.

Medroso, the permanent council member of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and chairman of the Episcopal Commission on Canon Law, said the university should make sure that the teachers who endorsed House Bill No. 4244 were not teaching concepts against Church laws.

“That has to be investigated. The first principle of Canon law about this matter is that we don’t allow teaching that which is against the official teachings of the Church. Now, if there is somebody who is giving instructions against the teachings of the Church, then they have to investigate immediately,” Medroso said.

Those found guilty of teaching students concepts contrary to Church teachings could be fired, he said. Church officials have previously raised the possibility of excommunication for Catholics espousing population control.

Ateneo officials were not available for comment Monday, a holiday.

Recently, Archbishop Jose Palma of Cebu, the current CBCP president, warned Catholic schools and teachers to toe the line or end up in hot water.

“They should be consistent and true to the nature of their calling, which is to enlighten and teach the Catholic doctrine. They should realize how important their vocation and their mission is, which is of course to impart the Catholic teaching,” Palma said.

The CBCP acknowledges that there are some differences in the beliefs of teachers and Church teachings on topics like reproductive health. The group said that while it respected academic freedom in colleges and universities, Catholic institutions should adhere to Church laws.

In issuing the statement of support, Ateneo’s faculty members said the RH bill would provide much-needed maternal and infant health care to all Filipinos regardless of religious beliefs.

“The reality is, despite the Philippines being predominantly Catholic, the majority of Filipinos want the full range of family planning services, including ‘artificial’ contraception,” they said.

“Our reflected and collective appraisal of the Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Bill is that it is a vital piece of legislation that needs to be passed urgently,” the paper said.

The Guidon, Ateneo’s student newspaper, said it was not the first time that its professors had released a statement endorsing the bill, which has been pending for more than a decade. The first statement was issued in 2008, with 66 signatories.

The Guidon said another statement followed in 2011, signed by more than 200 faculty members from Ateneo and the University of the Philippines.

Originally Posted by GodIsNotGreat

The Church is not only waging a War on Women, it too is waging a War on Freedom of Speech.

Kudos to the courageous pro-RH Bill professors of Ateneo.

Yup. Church cries Freedon of Speech when it applies to them but it's OK for them to trample upon people's right to speak their minds and freedom to choose what's best for themselves. Such hypocrites! If they want the case of the blind leading the blind then might as well let these Priests themselves be the teachers and do the actual teaching in all these Catholic universities. See if that works out better for them.

[3cr]

Hypocrisy and Philippine Priests
Asia Sentinel
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.ph...731&Itemid=196

The Philippine Catholic bishops’ war against President Aquino for his support of the Reproductive Health Bill, has reached a crescendo, which suggests the church hierarchy is more concerned with power than principle. The hierarchy of (presumed) celibates were making a major stand against the president’s appeal in his July 23 State of the Nation address for passage of the long delayed, much-amended bill.

That Saturday the bishops got behind what purported to be a “people power” rally against proposed legislation which would, among other things, provide contraceptive assistance to those seeking it. The attendance, reported at 10,000, was substantial but hardly overwhelming for a city of 10 million. Others demonstrations occurred elsewhere as the celibate priests led the cry “contraception is corruption.”

Contraception is already the norm among middle and high income-earners but the bill would enable the state-run PhilHealth fund to provide contraceptive advice and means for free especially for the poor.

More remarkable even than the determination of the hierarchy to thwart the bill was that most of the bishops backing the demonstration were the very same ones who had been recipients of gifts of SUVs from disgraced former President Arroyo and had paid her back by supporting congressmen who thwarted impeachment bids against her.

The association of the church with some of Arroyo’s worst abuses said to be justified by her claims that she is a devout Catholic who is opposed to contraception. The bishops are willing to engage in such a political alliance to thwart the rights of the poor Filipinos who would like as much access to contraception as the richer ones who already use it regularly.

They are also been ready to use under-age girls to support their cause, as though pre-pubescent women have any idea of the issues at stake. Similar to the young innocents conscripted to Hitler Youth and Communist Young Pioneers, school kids have been mobilized by the church in their thousands to oppose adults rights to choose. It is sick but a good cover for the fact that most Filipinos adults favor the RH bill and in practice tend also to be tolerant both towards “deviants” (gays) and extra-marital relationships.

If the bishops were not somehow protected by the strength of the global church and the influence of the Vatican, their methods of opposition to the RH bill could well be viewed as a major assault on the human rights of Filipinos. It is the other side of the coin represented by China’s one-child policy and forced abortions.

The Philippine church has yet to be sullied by the cover-ups of pederasty carried out by priests against boys in their charge seen in the US, Ireland etc – cover-ups which went all the way up to a Rome in which the current pope was a major player. But the local church draws a blanket of hypocrisy over the incidence of local priests having regular sexual relationships – mostly with women. These are of course understandable given that a lifetime of voluntary celibacy is as unnatural as it is rare. But it leaves the issue of whether the priests themselves practice contraception, or are responsible for a significant number of births.

The corruption and power plays at the Vatican itself have recently been in the spotlight so it would be hard to expect the Philippine church to be any better. But it is past time that that the legislators in Manila put the church in its place just as those of Ireland and Italy eventually did, freeing the population at large from the oppression of a priestly elite who (officially at least) know nothing about conjugal sex or the issues of raising a family.

The bishops have even now had to resort to arguments against the RH bill which have nothing to do with god or spiritual issues. They now suggest that easy availability of contraception will lead to a future labor shortage as allegedly happening in the west! What an insult to the tens of millions of underemployed Filipinos whose taxes, school fees etc help keep the bishops in medieval princely style.

Filipinos should now be yearning for the return of the era of sexual equality and tolerance which preceded the arrival of Christian friars and Muslim preachers 500 years ago.

[3cr]

Non-Catholic groups recognize value of RH bill to maternal health
http://bulatlat.com/main/2012/08/10/...ternal-health/

MANILA — Not all religious groups are against the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill.

One such group is the Protestant Church and one of its leaders in the Philippines has said that the RH Bill is not evil because it aims to do good for the Filipino people.

Bishop Modesto Villasanta of the United Church of Christ of the Philippines (UCCP) was quoted in various media reports that the RH bill offers Filipinos, especially the poor, freedom to plan their families. Villasanta, however, said that Protestants nonetheless respects the position of the Catholic Church on the matter.

According to Villasanta, the RH bill aims to especially help poor families secure access to maternal and children’s health services and products, and to also help them make an informed decision about family size.

“It is not evil. It is not perfect but definitely it is not evil. The measure is in fact good for the many Filipino families who are poor and needing of help,” said Villasanta.

Villasanta expressed hope that Congress will approve the proposal into law, saying that if lawmakers vote for the RH bIll, they are also voting to put an end to the suffering of many marginalized families, particularly poor women and children.

“If they vote for the RH bill, they are responding to the need of the Filipinos in relation to reproductive health,” Villasanta said.

In reports, Villasanta was also quoted as saying that a pro-RH bill vote would somehow show that the government has recognized the fact that majority of the Filipinos need help. “In a way, this is to say that the government has recognized and therefore is responding to the need of the poor families, particularly women and their children.”

Among the religious groups that have already signified their support for the RH Bill besides the UCCP are National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP), the Iglesia ni Kristo (INC) and the Commission of the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches (PCEC).

For its part, the NCCP (National Council of Churches in the Philippines), the largest group of non-Roman Catholic churches in the Philippines, views the RH Bill as going beyond the use of contraceptives.

NCPP secretary-general Rev. Rex Reyes Jr. said that the public should look at the other aspects of the RH bill because it is not just about contraceptives but about responsibility of the government to make sure that the people are given options and opportunities to live in decency.

Among the NCPP’s member-churches are the Apostolic Catholic Church, Convention of Philippine Baptist Churches, Episcopal Church in the Philippines, Iglesia Evangelica Metodista En Las Islas Filipinas, Iglesia Filipina Independiente, Iglesia Unida Ekyumenical, Lutheran Church in the Philippines, the Salvation Army, the United Methodist Church, and the United Church of Christ in the Philippines.

Reyes said that the NCPP supports the RH bill mainly because it dwells on the issues of responsible family and recognizing the right of couples to determine how to plan their family. He said that the NCPP sees the RH Bill as a necessity in the Philippines.

The needs of the poor and their need for maternal health care should be addressed and not neglected by the govenrment,” he said.

The PCEC, in the meantime, has called on Congress to vote for the RH bill.

National directors of the PCEC Bishop Efraim Tendero in a statement called on lawmakers to vote for the approval of the RH Bill which the PCEC considers as “pro-life, pro-development, and pro-poor.”

“We believe that the RH Bill is pro-life. Life begins at fertilization. Life begins at the union of the sperm and the egg cells,” he said.

In a 2011 survey on the RH Bill by the Social Weather Stations, it was stated that four out of the five Filipinos, or 82 percent, consider family planning as a “sacred” personal choice that should not be interfered with.

The SWS survey among 1,200 adults showed that Filipinos want the government to provide information and subsidize family planning methods. The SWS survey said that the 82 percent rating was 21 points higher than the 61 percent rating on the same issue in November 1990.

In the 2011 survey, 73 percent of the respondents said that if a couple wanted to practice family planning, relevant information on “all legal methods” should be provided the government. In the meantime 68 percent agreed that “the government should fund all means of family planning, be it natural or artificial means.”

The respondents, however, were divided on whether pills and other other artificial devices can be considered as abortificents: pills (52 percent), condoms (51 percent), and intra-uterine devices (51 percent).


Churches Unite for RH Bill
http://acc-ingkong.com/content/view/88/26/

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 (churches) 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.

[BeaverQube]

Originally Posted by louiegi

1st thing, are we sure RH Bill can do any good to this country?
2nd, what type of abuse does the church is doing right now?they are just trying to influence and not make decisions, which is one of the essence of the separation between church and state. in the end, legislations are still the legislators job. let the church air their sentiments, if you don't want, blame democracy for giving everybody in the country the right to speak.

Going back to your argument above.. How sure are you too that it won't work? Nobody knows unless we try it!!!

Why can't the CBCP let the RH bill provisions implemented? ..Bakit, takot na takot ang simbahang katoliko(which I unfortunately belong) na gawing batas ang RH bill?

If they want to stick to the church's fundamental beliefs, then priests should not be driving SUVs... And whatever happened to the vows, especially the vow on poverty?

And why is the Catholic churches abroad like in Australia, USA, Canada, Europe, etc..! are very silent about those countries' responsible family planning programs? BAKIT SA PILIPINAS LANG NAPAKA INGAY NG SIMBAHANG KATOLIKO?

Sagot: Kasi supalpal sila doon!

[whatuwan]

Originally Posted by 3cr

Catholic Church goes after Ateneo professors for heresy

I live in the 21st century and what is this?

[3cr]

Ateneo professors - Is anybody listening?
Manila Standard Today
http://manilastandardtoday.com/2012/...y-listening-2/

“Be a listening Church.”

This was the appeal of social anthropologist Mary Racelis, a professor at the Jesuit-run Ateneo de Manila University, to the Catholic bishops who were ratcheting up a campaign to stop the reproductive health bill from gaining passage in Congress.

Racelis was not alone in seeking a reasoned response from the Church. Some 191 of her colleagues from the same Catholic university this month signed a declaration of support for House Bill 4244, now known as The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Bill.

The professors say they believe that the RH bill 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.”

Although the professors emphasized that these were personal, not the university’s views, the Church response was swift and unbending.

Archbishop Jose Palma, president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, warned that the Church would strip schools of their affiliation if they taught anything contrary to its official teaching, particularly on “life issues.”

“If we are a Catholic school, we should not teach anything contrary to the official teaching of the Church,” Palma said.

“In some places, we first talk to them because some teachers may have some misunderstanding of what they think of freedom of conscience or academic freedom,” said Palma.

“In some of the universities, we say that if you want to teach that idea, do not do it in a Catholic school because we are confusing the students. Do it in other universities.”

The threat was unmistakable— if teachers in Catholic universities wished to espouse pro-RH views, they should find other employment. And the schools that employed them have been put on notice.

The threat was consistent with the Church’s response thus far, which has been marked by a naked attempt to apply dogma to public policy and intimidation against those who stand in its way. Bishops have already threatened to withhold Church support for any lawmakers who vote for the bill. What is another threat to troublesome academics?

As odious as all this might seem, the bishops are well within their rights to air their views, so the same right should allow the courageous professors of the Ateneo de Manila University to freely express theirs. Now that they have done so, it is a pity that nobody in the Catholic hierarchy seems to be listening.



ATENEO ON RH BILL: University defines stand while respecting individual views
InterAksyon
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/4...dividual-views

MANILA, Philippines – The Ateneo de Manila University served notice on Monday it joins Catholic leaders in withholding support for the RH bill, noting serious concern over some provisions seen as infringing on constitutional rights, while respecting the individual views of 192 faculty members who signed a position paper endorsing the measure.

The “Memo to the University Community” signed by Fr. Jose Ramon T. Villarin, university president, was posted on the ADMU’s web site, days after the faculty members, in two batches of signatures, said they backed House Bill 4244, the since re-named Responsible Parenthood bill. The official ADMU statement expressed appreciation for the seriousness with which the individual teachers tackled the process of discernment on one of the most complex and divisive pieces of legislation ever.

However, the Ateneo leadership said that if and when the bill passes, “we should neither hesitate to bring to the judiciary whatever legal questions we may have nor cease to be vigilant in ensuring that no coercion takes place in implementation.”

Below is the full text:

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

20 August 2012

Memo to: The University Community

Subject: HB 4244

Together with our leaders in the Catholic Church, the Ateneo de Manila University does not support the passage of House Bill 4244 (The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Bill). As many of these leaders have pointed out, the present form of the proposed bill contains provisions that could be construed to threaten constitutional rights as well as to weaken commonly shared human and spiritual values.

Now that the period for amendments is about to begin, I enjoin all in the Ateneo community to continue in-depth study of the present bill, and to support amendments to remove provisions that could be ambiguous or inimical from a legal, moral or religious perspective.

In connection with this, I call attention to the 192 members of our faculty who have grappled with the underlying issues in the context of Catholic social teaching, and who have spoken in their own voice in support of the bill. Though the University must differ from their position for the reasons stated above, I appreciate their social compassion and intellectual efforts, and urge them to continue in their discernment of the common good. As there is a spectrum of viewson this ethical and public policy issue, I ask all those who are engaged in the Christian formation of our students to ensure that the Catholic position on this matter continues to be taught in our classes, as we have always done.

Should the bill with whatever amendments be passed, we should neither hesitate to bring to the judiciary whatever legal questions we may have nor cease to be vigilant in ensuring that no coercion takes place in implementation.

If there is no easy answer to the concerns that the proposed bill raises or no facile unanimity among divergent views, this only proves the complexity, depth, and sensitivity of these concerns. Nevertheless, Catholic tradition has always taught that reason and faith are not enemies but allies in the service of God’s truth. From this tradition, we can draw strength and compassion in our often tortuous journey as persons in community toward the greater glory of God and the service of God’s people.

Jose Ramon T Villarin SJ

President

[3cr]

RH Bill Commentary: The other sins of Senator Vicente Sotto III
by Sylvia Estrada Claudio
Rappler.com
http://www.rappler.com/thought-leade...-vicente-sotto

You have to have been living under a rock if you are not yet aware of the plagiarism perpetuated by Senator Sotto in his turno en contra speeches against the reproductive health bill. A colleague, Alfredo Melgar, was first to discover that in his first speech, Sotto had plagiarized a US blogger named Sarah Pope.

Shortly after, literary notable Miguel Syjuco revealed that 4 other bloggers had also been plagiarized in the second speech.

But the original “theft,” as Ms. Pope would later call it, was not the end of the perfidy. In the morning of August 16, Sotto denied the plagiarism on national TV. Before the day ended, Sotto's chief of staff admitted the plagiarism.

The details of the missteps, however, show the whole sorry mess of Senator Sotto's “style” in legislative work -- including the kind of people he employs.

In denying his plagiarism, Senator Sotto puts forward the most outrageous ideas about proper attribution. He also ends up painting a whole class of people in a negative light. Sotto claims that he did not plagiarize anyone because he had made a blanket disclaimer that the ideas he presented were taken from other experts. He also said that blogs could not be plagiarized because they were not important as sources of data.

Given his extensive plagiarism of blogs, his statements were disingenuous at best. His idea that a blanket disclaimer was sufficient caused many of my colleagues in the academe to go into fits. Students who plagiarize from reputable scientific sources get failed in any self-respecting institution of higher learning. Students who misrepresent blogs as scientific research also get severe reprimands. I do not know what is to be done with someone who does both—plagiarize and misrepresent.

As the firestorm developed even further, Sotto stated that he could not be legally liable because of parliamentary immunity. Prior to his first speech, anticipating that what Sotto would say would be morally indefensible and possibly libelous, I had tweeted a challenge to him to strip himself of immunity and face the consequences. His retreat into the protection of immunity, as another tweeter noted, does not make him less of a liar and a thief.

The way in which his plagiarism was finally admitted is a story in itself.

As I monitored the news over the controversy, someone sent me a link to the “apology” of Sotto's COS, Mr. Villacorta, to Sarah Pope. The apology made me cringe. I can only describe it as one of the most arrogant non-apologies I have seen. It was also an attempt to take the blame for Sotto by saying it was his staff that lifted from her blog and not the senator himself. Villacorta then implied that Pope was unfair in putting the blame on Sotto for the mistakes made by his staff.

In so doing, Villacorta accused Pope of persecuting Sotto. As if this were not enough, he appealed to her to join them in their fight for the unborn, turning the apology both into an accusation and a political diatribe. Part of the bad taste of this was that Mr Villacorta implied that he and Sotto could speak for the unborn, “all the unborn wants very much the right to be born and they need everybody's help.” That the apology was written in bad English did not help.

One of the keys to national progress is to increase our people's scientific literacy. Apparently we have failed so badly that a senator and his staff do not know the difference between evidence-based scientific arguments and the chicanery they have managed to put together.

The scientific arguments regarding contraceptives, abortion, sexuality education, etc., have already been repeatedly discussed in the course of the debate on the RH bill. I have no intention of reiterating them because no amount of repetition seems to make a dent in the minds of people like Senator Sotto.

The real problem here is that they can't discern what good science is and therefore tend to believe the gunk they come up with.

And how do I know this is gunk? Sit back, dear reader, and note the tell tale signs of folly:

1) Citing outdated studies a.k.a Rip Van Winkle Does Science

When Sotto does cite his sources instead of plagiarizing them, we note that they are at least 30 years old. In his first speech, which can be accessed at the Senate website, he mentions only 3 books, one dated 1975 and the two others, 1974. His second speech does not mention the dates of any of the sources he cites to bolster his case. Where dates are mentioned, it is of UN documents he wishes to criticize.

Why do we teachers insist that this is a sign of possible chicanery? Because scientific knowledge is continually evolving, renewed and revised. To claim that something believed more than 30 years ago would still be true now, must raise some red flags. While it is true that this may be possible, it is unlikely.

In fact the claim that Sotto makes, which he supports by these books from the 1970s, is that, “Individual human life begins at conception and is progressive, ongoing continuum until natural death. This is a fact so well established that no intellectually honest physician in full command of modern medical knowledge would dare to deny it.”

That claim is false.

Current medical text books do not support this view and neither do a majority of physicans. Indeed, even in the 1970s, it was by no means the dominant position.

In 1976, Theodosius Dobzhansky, geneticist and evolutionary biologist, commenting on the question about when life begins observed, "The wish felt by many people to pinpoint such a stage probably stems from the belief that a soul, conceived as a preternatural entity, descends upon a formerly soulless living stuff, and suddenly transforms the latter into human estate. I hope that modern theologians can accept the idea that the transformation is not sudden, but gradual.”

2) Citing extremists, outliers and unproven claims a.k.a. Crackpot Alert!

Why do I claim that the mainstream of medical opinion does not support this view? Simple. I listen to reputable scientific organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO). I invite anyone out there who still believes in the disinformation against the RH bill, to visit the WHO website.

Why should I believe the WHO? Well, it has not been perfect. No human institution is. But its opinions are based on the exhaustive reviews by panels of experts of the research available. In any area of science, there will always be contradictory studies (like those of Dr Natasha Campbell McBride which Sotto cites).

The role of reputable scientists is to see the whole of the data and disregard those that are contradictory to the majority because the claims are not backed by reputable research (this is the case in Dr McBride's theories) or are just contradicted by more researches. Usually, well-run studies that contradict the majority are pointed out in the reputable literature.

To take the outlier study or the crackpot's views and to claim that this is scientific proof is, in my mind, even more egregious than an outright lie.

3) Misrepresentation a.k.a. LIAR, LIAR!

Sotto misrepresents studies or quotes them out of context. I get the impression that he and his staff really don't read what they quote or they are deliberately distorting the findings. Again I will give just one example.

In his speech he says this, “The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) announced on July 29, 2005 that after a thorough review of the published scientific literature, it has concluded that combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (and combined estrogen-progestogen menopausal therapy) are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1 category. This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.).”

First, the date of the study is wrong. The study was conducted in 1999.

Secondly, he misrepresents what the study is saying. Here is the full statement of the study seen in page 294 of the monograph: “Combined oral contraceptives are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). There is also conclusive evidence that these agents have a protective effect against cancers of the ovary and the endometrium.”

On page 293 the monograph notes that the basis for saying combined oral contraceptives cause cancer is that there is sufficient evidence that high dose preparations cause hepatocellular cancer. I have italicized the term high dose because the currently available preparations are not high dose preparations.

4) Inacuracies a.k.a. LIAR, LIAR, LIAR

Sotto has too many inaccuracies. I shall add only one more example here having noted his inaccuracies over the IARC monograph.

The pill Diane, which he claims his wife was taking when she got pregnant in 1975, was only available in 1978, as shown in the website entry of Bayer.

5) Ignorance of statistical reasoning a.k.a. Really? You Studied in Harvard?

In his second speech he says this: "Kung tutuusin sa pinagawa ko sa mga staff ko, hindi pa nga umabot man lang sa kalahati ng 11 maternal deaths ang nakalap nila sa mga hospitals sa Pilipinas nung 2011 eh. For example, sa Nueva Viscaya Provincial Hospital, ang maternal deaths na naitala nila ay 2 lamang sa 2011. Let me emphasize, this is for the entire year of 2011, hindi po ito kada-araw. Sa Pangasinan Provincial Hospital, 4 lamang ang naitalang namatay sa panganganak sa nakaraang taon. Sa Batangas Regional Hospital, 7 out of 2584 deliveries ang naitala .27%. Hindi pa nga umabot sa 1%. Sa Cavite Naval Hospital, wala silang naitala na namatay sa panganganak sa taong 2011. Kaya ang hirap paniwalaan ang kanilang figure na 11 mothers die every day."

Extrapolating Sotto's numbers to a nationwide count would show that 18 mothers die a day. According to Likhaan, one of the NGOs he maligned, “Sotto failed to grasp that a small number – such as the 0.27% he calculated for Batangas and belittled – becomes large when multiplied by a huge number like the millions of births per year. If we assume that the Batangas data can be applied to all births in the country in 2011, the national figure becomes 2,385,000 births × 0.27% = 6,461 maternal deaths per year, or nearly 18 per day.”

6. Mistaking temporal contiguity for correlation and correlation as causation a.k.a. Conspiracy Theories and Witch Hunting Are So Dark Ages!

The biggest one is that because certain UN agencies and international NGOs that support reproductive health are concerned with abortion services in OTHER countries, therefore they are using the RH bill as a means to legalize abortion in the Philippines.

In his speech where he accuses my NGO, Likhaan, as pushing abortion, he flashes a few pages of our translation of the book, “Where Women Have No Doctor” from the world renowned publisher the Hesperian Foundation. Of the several hundred pages of that book, he chooses to show those where the book discusses how abortions are done.

Hesperian works with NGOs for translations of its many wonderful books and indeed, we were its partners for the Filipino translation. The translated version is faithful to the English original, because unlike Sotto, we don't censor or mistranslate other people's material. Also, last I heard, it is not a crime to discuss abortion in the Philippines.

Conspiracy theorists and witch hunters work through innuendos and insinuations. It is very difficult to protect oneself from these accusations because they essentially ask that people think the darkest and worst thoughts of other people.

Sotto is guilty indeed of failures in proper attribution, misrepresentation, logical fallacies and inaccuracies. But these things are the fruit of the lack of discipline in tracking down the real evidence; conceit in refusing to listen to the experts; narrow-mindedness in refusing to accept evidence that is contrary to his beliefs; and the low-mindedness of one who can deal in insinuation and innuendo.

Perhaps Sotto should take a break from legislative work and try to learn basic lessons of scientific reasoning and civility in argumentation. If he does, he is less likely to cause the kind of morbid fascination that we give to train wrecks, when he makes his speeches.

[Manila-X]

Originally Posted by whatuwan

I live in the 21st century and what is this?

This kind of action by The Roman Catholic Church in this country is another reason for people to defy.

[Wolf1968 ^_^]

nag paparami lng ng kita yang katoliko. kung i pag bebenta nila ung mga SUV at mga kayamanan nila at ibigay sa mahihirapan. magagawa ba nila un? malaking HINDI. muka kasi silang pera. kahit wala masyadong sense ito. i guess totoo lang ito.

[MatudNilaBaby]

when you work for a catholic school, you are bound to uphold the teachings of the catholic church no matter what your position is regarding the rh bill. its but natural for cbcp to run after those dissenting teachers and professors because the church dogma is at risk if they let those opinions prevail.

lets take for example that i work for coca cola companyand in my lunch i would intentionally bring in pepsi products to my work place cuz thats my favorite drink over coke. dont you think, coca cola will be happy and not make a fuzz about it?

when rh bill passes, all institution whether private or public are bound to obey the law. so patay ang mga catholic establishments that they have to support whats in the provision of this law like providing condoms and birth control pills to their employees and teach the real sex education to their students starting at grade 5.

its but natural for the cbcp to oppose any law that will encroach in the teachings of the catholic faith. besides why will the government earmark at least 3 billion dollars a year to procure all these birth control devices to be distributed to people needing it when they have sex.

[Nabartek]

Ironically, the highest growth rate are in Muslim areas -- ARMM and SOCSARGEN. Their population growth rate is more than double the national average here.

Some provinces even recorded negative population growth rate. Many far flung provinces in Northern Luzon, Bicol and Visayas as low population growth as compared to the national average.

I think what the government should do is promote family planning in areas where growth rate is very high. If you look at the government statistics I posted pages earlier, you will see that many provinces and region have growth rate of 1-1.5% and many of these are poor areas. ARMM growth rate is at an astounding 5%, and SOCSARGEN, around 4%. Manila and the surrounding areas are 2-2.5% (not sure how the birthrate and growth rate due to immigration is shared)

[amigo32]

lima-lima daw kasi ang mga asawa ng mga Muslim, kaya dami nabubuntis

[Nabartek]

Hindi naman ganun kataas sa Sulu at Basilan to be fair sa mga Muslim at mejo may kataasan sa Manila at surrounding areas but I could give benefit of the doubt since marami ang nagmimigrate sa areas na ito.

[MatudNilaBaby]

according to muslim faith, puede silang to have as many wives as they can provided they can support each one of them. so that means mayayaman na muslim lang ang makagawa niyan hindi mga ordinaryong tao na walang kayamanan.

[amigo32]

hindi pa ako puede magconvert, need ko muna yumaman

ang habol ko kasi unlimited wife
siempre puede akong nagbibiro lang pero kung puede unlimited why not coconut