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 7th, 2008 at 9:27 am
I beg to disagree on many of the points the writer of the article raised. You mentioned China having the biggest population that contributed to its development. If you have a fair knowledge of geography, then you would know that that country has a very wide land area thus it is only fitting to have a big population. Again, you fail to notice that in China they have one to two child per household policy. Two in the provinces, one in the urban areas. In excess of that you have to pay a sort of heavy tax on additional children. You are also saying that our extraneous population is needed in other countries as their workforce and in return remitting the much needed dollars in our country. I think it is not hard to think that those Filipinos going abroad are educated and have trades and skills to offer. The slum areas in our country is the biggest contributor to our overpopulation if you will note. They have as many children per household. Do you think our exported laborers came from these areas? Also, you should have a clear definition of abortion. Do you mean by using the pill when it is only a temporary way to control fertility already abortion? Do you mean using the condom as catch of semen already abortion? It is only natural for humans to need sex. If you don’t need it then you are abnormal. The women even have this “in heat” period. I think you need to live in a slum area so that you can have the “immersion” and can truly write an educated article about the topic.
October 7th, 2008 at 8:06 am
This month of October we are celebrating Children’s Month. I find it very inconsistent though that the very same body which started all these rights-of-the-child thing, the United Nations, would be the very same body also that would spearhead something that violates one of the basic rights that have been ratified by governments and states of the world after a decade of consultations with various religions, cultures, societies, institutions, organizations, etc. Then here in the Philippines which is one of the states which ratified the Rights of the Child our lawmakers are trying to pass a law which once again destroys the spirit of the Rights of the Child through a bill comfortably labeled as something for the sake of women.
This very fundamental right is the RIGHT TO BE BORN. Maybe I see it in a very simplistic way but isn’t it ironic that the United Nations initiated this activity but then again they would disregard such a very important right (the very first right according to the Rights of the Child) and promote the use of contraceptives among its member-nations? It is written in very simple English and has been translated in all languages and dialects I suppose. This right is a very significant part of the entire list of children’s rights because upon it stands all other rights. It is a foundation upon which all the other rights stand as pillars. Without this right all the other rights would be useless. How can one enjoy the right to grow and develop if he or she is not provided with all the support to enjoy the right to be born? The celebration of the Children’s Month would be another useless waste of time, money and resources if the sanctity of this right would not be upheld. If we really wnat to have a true celebration of Children’s Month then let us support all the rights of the child especially the fundamental right which is the right to be born and oppose every program, project or activity that would make this right a thing of the past!
October 6th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
NOOOOOOOOOOO to REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!!! may natural way po to prevent pregnancy. dapat nating tandaan na ang pagbubuntis po ay di isang sakit na dapat iwasan, ang ovulation po ay di rin isang sakit na dapat pigilan. natural po lamang ang ovulation, ang dapat po dito ay alamin kung kelan ito nangyayari, kami pong mag-asawa ay volunteer teacher ng natural family planning, handa po kaming magturo nito sa kahit kanino, ano man ang iyong katayuan sa buhay, ano man ang antas ng iyong pinag-aralan. ito po ay libreng pagtuturo at pag-aaral. kami po ay nakalaan upang magturo nito ng walang bayad. ang atin pong simbahan ay di ninais na tayo po ay mapahamak, gaya ng ating mga magulang na walang sawa sa pangangaral sa mga anak sapagkat ayaw natin silang mapahamak. ganun din po ang simbahang katolika, na laging nandiyan upang manguna at mangaral. di po namin sinasabi na dapat lang na magparami o mag-anak lang ng mag-anak, ang pag-aanak po ay may kalakip na responsibilidad ang parehong magulang. wag po nating i-bombard ng artificial contraceptive ang ating mga kababaihan sapagkat may natural na paraan kung saan dapat malaman ng mag-asawa kung kailan dumarating ang ovulation ng asawang babae, sa pamamagitan nito ay mapipigilan ang pagbubuntis. ang ovulation po ay kusang nangyayari, gaya ng bulkan na kusang sumasabog sa takdang panahon na di kayang pigilan ng tao. ang artificial contraceptive po ay susubukang pigilan ang ovulation, ngunit sa marami at madalas na pagkakataon ay di niya ito mapipigilan sa kadahilanang ito nga ay natural na mangyayari sa kababaihan, dahil di niya ito napigilan ang susunod niyang gagawin ay ang padulasin ang endometrium lining ng sa ganun kapag may nangyaring fertilization ay di ito mag-iimplant sa endometrium lining sapagka’t ito ay pinadulas na ng artificial at susunod ay mahuhulog na ang sanggol sa sinapupunan, na di pa man naisisilang ay binawian na ng karapatan upang mabuhay. kung ang sariling ina o ama ay kayang gumawa nito sa kanyang anak paano pa kaya niya ito di magagawa sa kanyang kapwa. sana po ay may natutunan tayo. u can contact us at 09204763227 karen (free teaching of nfp)
October 6th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
@Emrys Capati
The mechanics of the Reproductive health bill, among other things, aim to educate them regarding the intricacies of human sexuality.
AFAIK, The matter of giving the masses enough to eat, or teaching them a sustainable livelihood, falls under a different outreach program altogether.
Then again, you make a good point - it’s very hard to enlighten a crowd that’s running on empty stomachs. This only indicates all the more how important it is for multiple Gov’t outreach programs to properly coordinate with each other to bear fruit.
Given our current situation however, it’ll probably sooner for a certain place down South freezes over than for our admin to get their act together.
October 5th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
At the outset, Primer C. Pagunuran’s thinking is way out of whack, distorted, illogical, and fundamentally flawed. Please listen carefully, Mr. Pagurunan.
You say that the chief architect of RH 5043, Rep. Edcel Lagman, is not even a doctor. Are you nuts? One does not have to have a doctor’s degree to understand the basics of this issue. Just plain common sense. Listen some more please.
You are contradictiing yourself. You state that this bill PREVENTS unwanted pregnancies, unplanned, mistimed pregnancies. If the pregnancy is prevented, where is the pregnancy? Biology 101 will tell you that pregnancy ONLY occurs when the sperm fertilizes the ovum. Before fertilization happens, there is no chance of pregnancy to occur. Got it? This pregnancy can be prevented by the rhythm method as you and your illiterate cohorts advocate and a host of other artificial means. Please follow throuhg if you can. If there is no pregnancy, your talk about abortion is meaningless. In short, no pregnancy, no abortion. You cannot abort a non-existent fetus. Got it? I hope you are sober when you are reading my explanation.
Wrtier Steve advises you to go back to kindergarten. I will go further and offer to pay your your tuition fees and daily baon and pangmirienda. You can repeat kindergarten as many times as necessary until you pass it, and I will be willing to shoulder all you expenses. Parang awa at tulong sa iyo. I am pretty sure kindergarten will help you clear up your thinking.
In the meantime, lets get to worik and support this bill so that it becomes a law-fast.
Sorry for the tirade.