No delay but RH bill won’t be passed this year—Enrile

The writer’s anti-RH slant is very obvious in this piece.

P350! 

Research may indeed by done by staff but the decision on what to do or legislate always depends on the representative (senator or congressman) of the people in Congress.  The nature of our legislative system as you know, I’m sure, is bicameral and the Senate, although they are fewer in number, must always act to balance matters, even those approved by the Lower House.  Being fewer in number and given the nature of our legislative system, there is no harm in thoroughly studying a controversial matter of legislation more thoroughly before throwing caution to the wind.  This is not the only bill being studied for legislation by the Senate; time is surely needed here, not to be a laughing stock later for nitpicking opportunities by others.  Even without the rh becoming law, many are practicing artificial contraception and it has always been a big wonder why despite it, many have made it a holy war to push for legislating that condoms and artificial contraception be made legal.  Let us give senators the benefit of the doubt.

Modern Natural Family Planning Methods are, as years of research and hard data confirm, safer and more reliable at a 99.5 – 99.98 % success reliability rate (for example, research on the Creighton Model Fertility Care System or the system developed by Fr. John Carroll, SJ in the Philippines).  It is a pity that instead of the NFPM’s being the subject of “informed choices”, condoms and artificial contraception (mechanical, surgico-medical, chemical including injectables) are held out as the more reliable methods, eliminating information for those of reproductive age that values build character and that the practice of self-control, temperance, abstinence and discipline are also necessary for full human development and for nation-building.  Our position has been that public funds should be spent prudently, without corruption, for more sustainable job creation, providing livelihood opportunities and skills training that are relevant, spreading basic education to the countryside (more school building and facilities, more hiring of teachers, use of audio visual aids to make teaching more effective, etc.), more insfrastructure developments for tourism and industry and mass transportation, lower electricity rates, more productivity especially in food and agricultural production, etc., etc., so that with improved quality of life, especially for those in abject poverty, “those who have less in life would have more in law,” in short, with hope and social justice, the very poor would, surprise of surprises, see something to strive for and be weaned from excessive preoccupation with sex/ copulation.  For many living in sub-human conditions, sex is the cheapest outlet from the frustrations of an empty life, from which democracy has no solution to offer.  Let economic policies be translated into sound economic management, firmly rooted in a social order founded on justice, love and peace.

Maternal, infant and child care and nutrition have been lengthily tackled in the Magna Carta for Women Act, as well as in subsequent IRR and Memoranda Orders, particularly of the DOH (see, e.g., AO 2008-0039).  If there would be updates, it would be more appropriate to introduce amendments to pertinent existing legislation, not to burden again the taxpaying public with an unnecessary law with allocations for the purchase of “essential medicines” for over 2 generations, just to see negative population growth rates or zero population growth rates that would put us through another population crisis!  Your comments point to the more effective implementation of “information” on Modern Natural Family Planning Methods, rather than militate against the method that is in full accord with the obligation of man to act in accordance with the Natural Law.  You are correct, more effort in this right way  (Daang Matuwid)  should be spent to restore the social order which was corrupted when man thinks that he can veer away from the true path of righteousness, fear of the Lord, against morality, but weakening the moral fiber of this nation.  After all, empowering women does not really mean losing the integrity of one’s body, but in accordance with the Natural Law, control it, even denying one’s partner from using it as a mere sexual toy,  as circumstances warrant.    

Please read my response again. I clearly laid out why your statement is wrong either way.

As far as I know, abortion remains illegal and unconstitutional in the Philippines even with the passage of the RH Bill, so I don’t see the relevance of your second sentence.

Yet wouldn’t you agree that Christian moral teachings provide the basis for many of the objections against the RH Bill?

“against the consciences of taxpayers” Are you saying that the overwhelming numbers who have been respondents by the numerous social surveys are not taxpayers? Also what other angle does they haven’t discussed yet? The fact that they have already trying to discuss even the chemical compositions of these artificial contraceptive methods shows that they have already exhausted the social angles and are trying to be experts in the technical compositions.

di po natin masasabing 100% effective ang natural family planning, pero ang artificial contraceptives po ba 100%? ang maganda sa pag tuturo ng Natural Family Planning di lang method ang itinutoro dito,, dito din pinapaliwanag kung pano ka magiging responsableng magulang para sa iyong magiging anak.

Have you read the RH Bill? because it seems with your comment that you haven’t. Aside from teaching both the Natural and artificial family planning methods, there is also a section that mandates to teach the physical, and social aspects of using these methods.  RH Bill contrary to what the Catholic Church says does not only deal with artificial methods. It espouses the information dissemination on both AFP and NFP thereby giving couples a choice on which method is appropriate for their bodies and family values. Furthermore, no one is forcing anybody to use artificial methods. It only says that it provides funds such that those in the lower income strata who could not afford buying it themselves would not be deprive of availing these methods. There are other provisions in RH Bill such as maternal pre & post natal care and other things. It is also not TRUE that it espouses abortion. In fact it says in the bill several times that it is against it.

Vasectomy and Tubal ligation is 100% if not 99.99 percent effective. Other methods range around 85-90% which is much higher to what the scientifically established reliability data of natural family planning methods.