RH groups lament SC ruling | Inquirer News

RH groups lament SC ruling

By: - Reporter / @santostinaINQ
/ 05:25 AM September 16, 2016

Reproductive health (RH) advocates have expressed disappointment over the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) to extend a temporary restraining order (TRO) on contraceptive implants.

“We lament the decision of the Supreme Court to extend the TRO on implants. This decision sets back the full implementation of the RH Law despite the call of the President of the Republic for its full implementation when he delivered his very first State of the Nation Address,” said Benjamin de Leon, president of the Forum for Family Planning and Development.

Issued in July 2015, the TRO prohibits the Department of Health from including contraceptive devices Implanon and Implanon NXT in its reproductive health programs.

Article continues after this advertisement

The TRO, which stemmed from the petition filed by the Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines, covers pills, intrauterine device, condoms and other artificial methods of family planning.

FEATURED STORIES

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court denied the motion of the DOH to lift the TRO, and instead remanded the case to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to check if the products have abortifacient side effects.

The Forum for Family Planning and Development expressed grief that its struggle to implement the RH Law is still met with so much barriers and challenges.

Article continues after this advertisement

“We cannot emphasize enough the fact that it is our poor women and couples who are burdened by the effects of such barriers and opposition. Every day that this TRO is in effect, hundreds of women remain at risk from health issues that are otherwise easily preventable. When would be the right time to lift the TRO? When more poor women are dead?” De Leon said in a statement.

Article continues after this advertisement

 Need to act fast

Article continues after this advertisement

He emphasized the need to act fast and vigorously on family planning.

“It would have been better for the Filipino people had the Supreme Court lifted the TRO and remanded the issue to the FDA which has the responsibility in determining whether modern methods of contraception are abortifacient or otherwise, after observing due process,” said De Leon.

Article continues after this advertisement

He said empowering the country’s women to make more sensible life decisions will create a strong impact on the country’s social and economic development.

He stressed that besides pushing for the use of contraceptives, the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Law also calls for maternal health care and awareness.

The RH law stresses on education among the public, the women especially, on how to take care of themselves before and during pregnancy, he said.

 

 221 deaths annually

The latest figures from the Family Health Surveys reveal that the number of Filipino women who have died due to pregnancy and child-birth related complications remain high at 221 deaths per 100,000 live births. This equates to 14 to 15 maternal deaths daily.

Health Secretary Paulyn Ubial believes the Supreme Court decision not to lift the temporary restraining order on contraceptive implants is the proverbial “light at the end of the tunnel.”

“Bad news is better than no news,” she said. “They have been silent about the TRO for more than a year, and we’ve been filing our petitions for the lifting in several instances with the help of the solicitor general.”

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

Ubial said DOH lawyers will study the decision so they would know the next steps to take.

TAGS: Nation, News, Supreme Court

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.