IT challenges reflection that a lawyer, instead of a doctor, is the chief architect and single strong advocate of House Bill 5043 which actually consolidated into one, House Bills 17, 812, 2753 and 3920 in this 14th Congress. The simple idea of gender equality easily permits room for women proponents themselves, in either House or Senate, to be the mouthpiece as well as the voice behind such a now controversial bill that is met with so much opposition from not few traditional groups — not Rep. Edcel Lagman — unless otherwise no other proponent from the female species is available. Women issues are the exclusive domain of women, or so I thought?
Offhand, HB 5043 pretentiously placed reproductive health, responsible parenthood, and population development under its policy framework. Good. But let us be reminded that a single legislative measure such as HB 5043 that carries more than three subject matters is actually “violative” of “overloading.” Bottomline: that is the way professors of law teaching on “How a Bill becomes a Law” always teach us. Where will HB 5043 all transport us to? Such a would-be law that prohibits and in fact penalizes any healthcare service provider who refuses to perform medically safe reproductive health care services in the absence of spousal consent or authorization is revolting. What is this?
Boldly, the bill claims the policy is anchored on the rationale of sustainable development with a manageable population of healthy, educated and productive citizens. Truly, this carries some kind of racist bias against those otherwise unhealthy, uneducated, and unproductive in our realpolitik. Is this Hitler’s idea of a “super race?” What about China with approximately two billion in population that has managed equitably well without compromising its position as the next economic superpower? I say as anecdotal the sweet claim of a population management stratagem of a two-child policy. The proponent himself has more than two of his own, doesn’t he?
If we have higher population than any developing country in the world, it is a blessing especially so that all developing countries, no exception, are now suffering from a graying population and are now in search of manpower to replace their aging manpower base. Where then do they have to import human capital? Where will they recruit the Industrial Reserve Army but from the Philippines? Have we as much as forget that OFW remittances of our fellow Filipinos buoys up an otherwise fledging economy? The next generation of overseas workers to fill the great demand of manpower from the global market has to be born now — beyond the two-child limit. This kind of thinking might run counter to the bill’s claim that manpower is the principal asset of every country.
If there will be a universal access to quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information, this means that a whole range of options is at anybody’s disposal. Studies have already validated that reproductive health care as practiced in the more developed societies already negative impacted upon the home, family life, career, social milieu, culture, and society as a whole. It has been shown that women committed suicides. It has been shown that the incidence of broken families rose. It has been shown that children from broken homes are what triggered dramatic rise in the crime statistical chart. As divorces multiply, broken homes multiply just as well. Medically, a lot of these so-called contraceptive pills are not safe and just how many pills are manufactured in a minute and at what cost?
Shotgun approach has been the design of HB 5043 — it will kill all birds that took flight — adults, adolescents, children – without distinction. It sounds crazy for the bill to claim that women seeking care from post-abortion complications shall be treated and consoled in a humane, non-judgmental and compassionate manner without being guilty of doing abortion in the unseen process. This kind of intended access opens the door wide to a lot of other possibilities in need of reproductive health care attention, not to be excluded, would be abortion itself at its initial stage. To give people the freedom to decide, if, when and how often to have a satisfying and safe sex life, as claimed, tears at the very moral fabric of our social existence.
What then constitute as reproductive health-related problems that the bill aims to prevent and avoid — reason for a full range of options? Openly enough, the bill espouses making available all methods and techniques to prevent unwanted, unplanned, and mistimed pregnancies but what exactly are these? Pregnancies – whether or not wanted, planned, or timed – are pregnancies. Any act or means to be sought to prevent it should be called as what? It would not be abortion, would it? Whoever invented these labels without any scientific basis ought to be a murderer?
It is noticeable how a proviso has been carried that would, in effect, expand the coverage of the National Health Insurance Program or NHIP especially to many poor and marginalized women to include a full range of reproductive health care services and supplies as health insurance benefits. Will money be inserted in another else’s pocket? How much in State subsidies will be infused into a supposed-to-be existing program or agency, again and again?
Rider or not to a proposed bill, the creation of a Board of Commissioners of POPCOM (or Population Commission) of 14 heads of agencies plus 3 representatives from the private sector ought to be the subject matter of another and separate bill yet to be proposed and filed in Congress considering that when a board meets, honoraria are given. At the very least, their appointment by the President for a term of 3 years means that some people get to be employed, first and second, time. Even the Department of Agriculture and the Commission on Higher Education will be members thereof make for Ripleys.
Again, more midwives or skilled attendants need to be employed in every municipality or city based on some ideal ratio. More qualified personnel in each city or province will have to be employed in hospitals to provide emergency obstetric care, again, based on ideal ratio of say one such hospital for every 500,000 population. How good indeed those indigent patients will be covered by PhilHealth insurance benefits for hospital services related to family planning? Again, are we putting money in another else’s pocket?
Another apparent caveat of the proposed HB 5043 is the fact that every congressional district will be provided a van for Mobile Health Care Service from their PDAF but it is not stated too clear if this means an additional budget to their PDAF. A mandatory health reproductive education will be required of those from Grade V to Fourth Year High School. Will parents agree to this law? Inserting 10 percent additional increase in the honoraria of barangay health workers is truly an inducement. Will not barangay captains or mayors agree to this scheme and its pecuniary benefits?
From where I stand, readers of HB 5043 can read with caution the corpus of purely statistical data in the explanatory note of the bill from which it based its goal to erect a law that is always met with extreme opposition from those thought to become its beneficiaries as well as to its intended victims. In the end, adults, adolescents, and children that the bill purports to help will be the true victims of a law that is easy enough to approve given that it has “strings attached” to it. Not remotely, some laws really self-destruct as soon as they get implemented and this proposed measure shall be one of them. Since coins will be dropped in the vendo machine, many legislators might tend to stamp their own approval of HB 5043, irrespective of dictates of conscience – and so be it.
Primer C. Pagunuran, via reader’s comment
October 1st, 2008 at 1:11 am
After reading this incredible blog entry, I could not resist refuting the fallacious, callous, chauvinist and utterly illogical arguments of the author. Whoever you are, Mr. Pagunuran, you definitely did not think your arguments thoroughly before you wrote about this.
First: “Women issues are the exclusive domain of women, or so I thought?” - Whoever said that women’s issues were the concern solely of women? Are women’s issues so trivial that the rest of society can afford to ignore them? Is having 8 children solely the mother’s problem to solve? Are the women who die from complications of multiple childbirth deserving of their fate? The answer is NO. You and I, and the rest of society are not isolated from the consequences of reproduction, and unplanned reproduction at that! Every child born unplanned and poor is a reminder of the failure of our society to provide for the welfare of every individual! If that child grows up to be a drug addict, or a criminal, does that not harm society? Does it not now become OUR concern?
Second: “Truly, this carries some kind of racist bias against those otherwise unhealthy, uneducated, and unproductive in our realpolitik.” – Since when has preventing people from becoming unhealthy, uneducated and unproductive been racist? In any case, racist is the wrong term. The right term is discriminatory, but I digress. Preventing people from becoming indigent does not discriminate against those who already are indigent. On the contrary: since there are less people who depend on the state for resources, the money saved increases and now can be spent on those who are poor. In simple math: more money+less people to spend it on = better services.
Third: “What about China with approximately two billion in population that has managed equitably well without compromising its position as the next economic superpower?” – China only has half that number of people. Also, China’s government has declared its own One Child policy as a success… with caveats. I quote: “Because China has worked hard over the last 30 years, we have 400 million fewer people,” said Zhang Weiqing, minister in charge of the National Population and Family Planning Commission. “Compared with the world’s other developing countries with large populations, we have realised this transformation half a century ahead of time.” While the details of implementation are different from the RH bill in Congress, it is clear that the overall result was positive for China. In addition, have we forgotten that our country has limited resources for health and education? As it is, even our education secretary has admitted that the growth of school-age children outstrips any projections the government has for education. If our government admits that budget increases are outstripped by population growth, then shouldn’t we try to control our population so that we can ensure that every Filipino child can be provided a public education?
Fourth: “Have we as much as forget that OFW remittances of our fellow Filipinos buoys up an otherwise fledging economy? The next generation of overseas workers to fill the great demand of manpower from the global market has to be born now — beyond the two-child limit.” – This argument boils my blood. Do you think that OFWs want to leave their families to work abroad? Do you think they would do otherwise if there were less competition and more opportunities at home? The answer is a resounding Yes. I am the child of an OFW, and I am now working abroad as well because, quite simply, if I were to compete in the job market the compensation I would receive will not even cover my daily expenses. Is it easy? Hell no. I live away from a country I love. I miss my family, I miss my friends, and the stress of knowing that your rights as an individual are curtailed because you are an alien takes its toll every day. The very reason why the OFW programme was deployed in the first place in the 1970’s was that there were too many Filipinos entering the job market and too few opportunities for them. While its true that our government could have done a better job creating jobs, you can’t deny the fact that having too many people exacerbates the problem. 31% of our population, or 31 million people in our country are under the age of 14. That is the entire population of Canada today, living in a country that has only one-fourth the GDP. 92 million people with $300,000 million, vs. 33 million people with $1,178,205 million. (World Back) Do the math: how can we increase living standards when our economy’s growth is outstripped by the growth of the population? Living standards inevitably decrease. The result? Our people are forced to work abroad, often as chattel, just to support their families? And you, Mr. Pagunuran, have the gall to say we should have more children to add to those already slaving abroad? Shame on you!
Sixth: “Studies have already validated that reproductive health care as practiced in the more developed societies already negative impacted upon the home, family life, career, social milieu, culture, and society as a whole.” – I dare you, Mr. Pagunuran, to produce independent, academically sound studies presenting this. I am a social scientist, and I have yet to read any study linking these social ills to contraceptives. The social ills of unplanned pregnancies on the other hand, are well documented and numerous. Besides, the reason why social dysfunction has increased in Western societies is directly related to a decline in the quality of parenting and communication between spouses, not contraception! If having less time per child as a result of unplanned pregnancies decreases the quality of parentage, does that not also constitute a social ill?
Seventh: “To give people the freedom to decide, if, when and how often to have a satisfying and safe sex life, as claimed, tears at the very moral fabric of our social existence.” – Don’t you think that marital rape, unplanned pregnancies, and maternal deaths due to childbirth tear at the moral fabric of our society more seriously than the right to have knowledge about sex? If we truly are mature individuals, no matter what our religion, having freedom will not immediately direct us to moral debauchery. A responsible individual will exercise freedom responsibly. For those who don’t, then they would commit debaucheries whether or not they had knowledge of sex. At the very least, teaching everybody about reproductive health can help prevent disasters that are preventable.
Eighth: “Pregnancies – whether or not wanted, planned, or timed – are pregnancies. Any act or means to be sought to prevent it should be called as what? It would not be abortion, would it?” – So you say that there is no difference in the quality of life between someone who has a child when she is married, financially prepared and in love and someone who is raped and left for dead, and pregnant? This is what you imply if you say that all pregnancies are similar, and desirable. Think about it. As for the definition of abortion: “abortion is a medical operation in which a developing baby is removed from a woman’s body so it is not born alive” – Macmillan English Dictionary, 2002. As for the definition of contraception: “methods for preventing a woman from becoming pregnant, or the use of such methods.” Prevention of pregnancy is clearly distinct from removing a baby from the womb of a mother is it not? By allowing contraception, you also prevent unnecessary abortions. Is that not preferable?
Ninth: “Whoever invented these labels without any scientific basis ought to be a murderer?” – Whoever confused abortion and contraception is what then? I think that forcing people to commit abortion out of a lack of choice is more of a murderer than someone who clearly defines the distinction between abortion and contraception.
Tenth: “Such a would-be law that prohibits and in fact penalizes any healthcare service provider who refuses to perform medically safe reproductive health care services in the absence of spousal consent or authorization is revolting.” – So, a healthcare provider who is giving contraceptives to a wife who is raped by her husband is revolting? We live in the 21st century, where a wife is no longer the chattel of her husband, and has the right to decide on matters of reproduction. Preventing her from doing so is a violation of her basic human rights.
If we look at the arguments of Mr. Pagunuran, we can see the ideas of a man who rejects the idea of equality between men and women, has a poor understanding of economics and human development, and prioritizes a warped ideal of piety in place of the welfare of our entire country. For goodness sakes, reject these perverse ideals, and support what the reproductive health bill truly stands for: equity, a better standard of life for all, and the rationality of a planned population programme.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Dude. You are ignorant. And your logic is dangerous. A deadly combination.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
All this may be correct and all critics may be correct, too. But the real problem is much shorter and much easier to tackle.
Allow every municipal, barangay health center togive, cheap or free, contraceptives, advise people what and how to use, supply enough matriel and then bar the Church from interfering and opposing the program during the mass.
The church is doing nothing to help affected families, does not suport unwanted children grown up because of following the church’s rules. Contrary, the churches want poor families because the poor and the suffering fill the churches.
Maybe it would need laws like in China whrn the government started to fight overpopulation. Sanctions for having children before parents are married and are able to maintain children. Limiting children to 2 or maybe 3 with also sanctions for more children. Making babies like rabbits, without to be able to maintain their welfare, health, education, is a crime against the children. The nation can never create enough jobe and not even food enough for the 100 million people expected within a near future. And just exporting its people to working abroad and to run the government of their remittances is also criminal. Not to mention that soon there will be a time when OFW’s will have to go home instead of finding jobs abroad, the more as their education is by far not competitive to the needs of future jobs.
It does not need a lot of new commissions and dozens of overpaid executives. All it needs is support and supply from the government, advice and no damning of the church. I remember, still during Marcos time, I have been told by a woman with eight children and no husband that the priest was warning during mass that the government condoms are not safe and if still there is a pregnancy, the child could have a long tail or feet like goats, the usual Satan picture. Such hbit should be prosecuted as crime.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I’d like to point out that China has a One-Child Policy. In fact, their officials attribute their current economic upswing on the fact that they have about 3 to 4,000,000 less people today than they would have had had they not had this policy in place. Their slower population growth concurrently reduced the severity of social problems which come with overpopulation like epidemics, slums, overwhelmed social services (such as health, education, law enforcement), and strain on the ecosystem from abuse of fertile land and production of high volumes of waste.
As regards OFWs and their importance to the economy, isn’t the government in fact trying to stem the tide of the exodus by creating more opportunities here at home? Isn’t that precisely why we invest so much effort in attracting foreign investments to the country? The importance of the OFW dollars to the Philippine economy cannot be denied. But at the same time, neither can we deny that to depend on such a lifeline would be complete and utter folly. As more than a few economic experts have pointed out, the lifeline offered by OFW dollars are dangerously artificial and provide no real growth for the economy.
And even assuming that the thrust of the government now is to depend wholly on remittances from our countrymen abroad, isn’t it our claim that the reason our workforce is so sought after abroad is because we have a SKILLED workforce? How then will we be able to maintain that skill level that the world has come to expect from us if our basic social services were to be overburdened even more by a burgeoning population?
I am not a doctor. So I leave the discussion on health issues to those better-equipped than I.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Thanks to PDI/GMA for giving Primer C. Pagunuran give the other side of the debate on the reproductive health bill. In contrast, I was aghast at the program of ANC Crossroads which I saw the other day where the host had 4 resource persons agreeing among themselves favoring the bill. I heard Bishop Bacani also has an argument against the bill, but since he or of someone of same mind, was not one of the resource persons, how can I, or readers/viewers, come to an informed decision on the bill?
I am really glad Mr.Pagunuran did give us an in-depth analysis of what the bill is all about, hence, genuine thanks to PDI.