Reproductive Health Bill 5043 [MERGED]

[jojomonsalud]

I say give those kids to CBCP and let them provide for those kids..

+1, sila magpakain

[uls]

this will be fun to watch

EU vs. filipino bishops

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english201...c_13831222.htm

EU to help poor Filipinos gain free access to contraceptives

MANILA, April 15 (Xinhua) -- European Union officials announced on Friday they would provide an initial fund of 35 million Euros to help poor Filipinos gain free access to contraceptives and strongly backed the controversial Reproductive Health bill.

The Philippine government needs to address its population growth more effectively like other Asian countries to be able to better deal with the problem of poverty, which has forced many job- seeking Filipinos to leave the country, the officials said.

"We've always taken our rights-based approach saying that, unequivocally, with no hesitation at all, we support access to modern family planning," Nicholas Taylor, head of operations section of the EU Delegation to the Philippines, said in a news conference. "Hear my words, access."

In a strong advocacy that could earn the ire of the local Catholic church, the EU officials urged the free provision of contraceptives specially to the rural poor, saying making them pay for pills and other family planning methods is "silly."

"If you find in some rural health units there are modern contraceptives available, say birth control pills but the municipal health officer would say you have to pay 5 pesos (about 0.12 U.S. dollar) a time, that is a denial of access to very poor people," Taylor said. "The issues become ways of helping by working to ensure that service delivery happens through the provision of the actual commodities and making sure that silly things like unnecessary usage charges are not imposed on the poor, " he added.

Joern Dosch, leader of the EU's cooperation program evaluation team to the Philippines, said "other countries in the region are much more advanced in this regard in terms of addressing population growth."

"In terms of population growth, that is certainly an issue in the Philippines and it needs to be addressed at some point," Dosch said. "There might be a sustainable solution to the problem and this of course is directly related to poverty. That's the challenge."

Taylor said the government can promote family planning and access to contraceptives better "if the reproductive health bill is passed because that gives a legal framework for driving it much more effectively."

Philippine President Benigno Aquino III has expressed support for the RH bill, but earned criticisms from the Philippine church and pro-life groups prompting him to come up with a sanitized version of the legislation, called the Responsible Parenthood (RP) bill.

[jansky]

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/218048/n...on-for-rp-bill


He recalled meeting a 16-year-old boy at the Baseco area in Manila, who he said already had two children. He said the boy and his partner both had no jobs and no means to support their children.

“Paano niya pakakainin at papaaralin, walang trabaho ng asawa? Sino po ba ang nagkulang, sino ang nagtulak sa kanila sa ganitong sitwasyon? Paano bumagsak sa kanilang mga balikat ang ganitong pananagutan? At ang pinakamahalagang tanong, ano ba ang aking magagawa?" he said.

[chua_riwap]

grabe naman itong si father......


http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/re...ers-leave-mass

Priest tells RH bill supporters to leave Mass

BAGUIO CITY, Philippines – A priest at the Baguio Cathedral drew flak from some Catholics after he ordered people supporting the reproductive health bill to leave the church and stop hearing Mass.

His remarks drew outrage from some parishioners, who walked out in consternation.


The priest, whose identity was withheld, used his sermon to mock supporters of the bill such as former Akbayan party-list Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel.

"Kung meron nakikimisa dito pero pro-RH bill… Please, go out. It's useless," the priest said.

"What is this mass for if you are pro-RH bill? What is going to Church for if you're pro-RH bill?" he asked.

The priest's statements were recorded on video by a parishioner.

The prelate also criticized Hontiveros-Baraquel. "Ang ganda-gandang babae niya...pero ang pangit-pangit ng stand niya."

The former legistlator said she was shocked by the priest’s statements.

“Nakaka-shock, nakakalungkot, nakakagalit. Can’t they let people worship in peace? Mahal na araw pa naman ngayon."

“Don't use the pulpit, which belongs to all the lay people, as attack vantage point,” she told ABS-CBN.

ABS-CBN News tried to get the side of the priest, but he left for a vacation in Laoag.

The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines also declined to give a statement, saying the body prefers to air its stand in dialogues. – report from Jeff Canoy, ABS-CBN News

[froshie1]

The Pope said does not limit just to AIDS..... but STD in general.

So if i use a condom with the reason of preventing the possible spread of STD, it is fine.

So it's okay to use a condom as long as the primary reason is prevention of spread of STDs. Never mind the secondary effect that it prevents pregnancies too.


So are we done with the condom issue?

Hindi jinujustify ni Pope Benedict XVI ang paggamit ng condom to prevent the spread of HIV. read on....

What Pope Benedict Did Not Say
To begin with, Pope Benedict did not change one iota of Catholic teaching on the immorality of artificial contraception. In fact, elsewhere in his interview with Peter Seewald, Pope Benedict declares that Humanae vitae, Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical on birth control and abortion, was "prophetically correct." He reaffirmed the central premise of Humanae vitae—that the separation of the unitive and procreative aspects of the ***ual act (in the words of Pope Paul VI) "contradicts the will of the Author of life."

Moreover, Pope Benedict did not say that the use of condoms is "morally justified" or "permissible" in order to stop the transmission of HIV. In fact, he went to great lengths to reaffirm his remarks, made at the beginning of his trip to Africa in 2009, "that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms." The problem is much deeper, and it involves a disordered understanding of ***uality that places ***ual drives and the ***ual act on a higher level than morality. Pope Benedict makes this clear when he discusses the "so-called ABC Theory":

Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalisation of ***uality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing ***uality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves.
So why have so many commentators, including the usually perceptive Damian Thompson, claimed that Pope Benedict has decided that "condoms may be justified, or permissible, in circumstances where not using them would spread HIV"? Because they have fundamentally misunderstood the example that Pope Benedict offered.

What Pope Benedict Did Say
In elaborating on his point about the "banalisation of ***uality," Pope Benedict stated:

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility [emphasis added], on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.
He followed that up immediately with a restatement of his earlier remarks:

But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanisation of ***uality.
The problem here is that very few commentators seem to understand two important points:

1.The Church's teaching on the immorality of artificial contraception is directed at married couples.
2."Moralisation," as Pope Benedict is using the term, refers to a possible result of a particular action, which does not say anything about the morality of the action itself.
These two points go hand-in-hand. When a prostitute (male or female) engages in fornication, the act is immoral. It is not made less immoral if he does not use artificial contraception during the act of fornication; nor is it made more immoral if he uses it. The Church's teaching on the immorality of artificial contraception takes place entirely within the appropriate use of ***uality—that is, within the context of the marriage bed.

On this point, Quentin de la Bedoyere had an excellent post on the Catholic Herald's website over the weekend. As he notes:

No ruling on contraception outside marriage, homo***ual or hetero***ual, has been made, nor has there been any particular reason why the Magisterium should make one.
This is what almost every commentator, pro or con, has missed. When Pope Benedict says that the use of a condom by a prostitute during an act of fornication, in order to try to prevent the transmission of HIV, "can be a first step in the direction of a moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility," he is simply saying that, on a personal level, the prostitute may actually be recognizing that there is more to life than ***.

One can contrast this specific case with the widely circulated story that the postmodern philosopher Michel Foucault, on learning he was dying of AIDS, visited homo***ual bathhouses with the deliberate intention of infecting others with HIV. (Indeed, it's not a stretch to think that Pope Benedict may have had Foucault's alleged action in mind when speaking to Seewald.)

Of course, attempting to prevent the transmission of HIV by using a condom, a device with a relatively high failure rate, while still engaging in an immoral ***ual act (that is, any ***ual activity outside of marriage) is no more than a "first step" (and we might even say it's merely a baby step, at that). But it should be clear by now that the specific example offered by the Pope has no bearing whatsoever on the use of artificial contraception within marriage.

Indeed, as Quentin de la Bedoyere points out, Pope Benedict could have given the example of a married couple, in which one partner was infected with HIV and the other was not, but he did not do so. The fact that he chose instead to discuss a situation that lies outside of the Church's teaching on artificial contraception speaks volumes, but most commentators apparently weren't listening.

We can illustrate the point with one further example: Imagine if the Pope had discussed the case of an unmarried couple who have been engaging in fornication while using artificial contraception. If that couple gradually came to the conclusion that artificial contraception places ***ual drives and the ***ual act on a higher level than morality, and thus decided to quit using artificial contraception while continuing to engage in *** outside of marriage, could not Pope Benedict have rightly said that "this can be a first step in the direction of a moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants"?

Yet if Pope Benedict had used this example, would anyone have assumed that this meant that the Pope now believes that premarital *** is "justified" or "permissible," so long as one does not use a condom?

The debate over Pope Benedict's remarks will undoubtedly continue, and it may even lead to further clarifications from the Vatican (there have been two so far). But the misunderstanding of what Pope Benedict was trying to say has proved him right on another point: Modern man, including all too many Catholics, has a "sheer fixation on the condom," which "implies a banalisation of ***uality."

And the answer to that fixation, and that banalization, is found, as always, in the Catholic Church's unchanging teaching on the purposes and ends of ***ual activity.

[froshie1]

Could somebody post here what the RH bill is all about? Like what are the details...

Afaik, for as long as the RH Bill has something to do with being anti-life expect that you'll be hearing something from the church.

[nongdatu]

Mercado: Issues raised vs RH bill



Please see link:
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/pampanga/o...rh-bill-145899

1. The RH Bill is anti-Family. The contraceptive lifestyle destroys the very foundations of family. Contraceptives bring about the downgrading of marriage, disrespect for one’s spouse, usually the wife; leads to more extramarital ***; more fatherless children and single mothers – as proven by Nobel Prize winner George Akeriof.


2. Parents are the primary educators of their children. As parents, we do not agree that children from age 10 to 17 should be taught ***ual “rights” and the means to have a satisfying and “safe” *** life as part of their school curriculum (Sec. 16, Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and ***ually Education). We also oppose other provisions such as losing our parental authority over a minor child who was raped and found pregnant (Section 28a. No. 2).


3. As citizens, we do not want to be subjected to imprisonment and not pay a fine, for expressing an opinion is interpreted as constituting “malicious disinformation” (Sec. 28, Prohibited Acts, Par, e and Sec. 29, Penalties)


4. As spouses, we do not agree that our husband or wife can undergo a ligation or vasectomy without our consent or knowledge. (Sec. 28, Prohibited Acts.)


5. As taxpayers, we are against the misuse of our money that the proposed RH Bill will do. If Filipino families are too poor to afford artificial contraceptives, they are also too poor to afford essential medicines that can cure real killer diseases. “HB 5043 places an overwhelming emphasis on contraception at the expense of all other values, including medical care for the sick and the dying. Top 10 causes of Morbidity/Death in the Philippines lists Pneumonia, Bronchitis, Diarrhea, Influenza and Hypertension as the highest ranking causes of death among women. There is a distortion of human values if we prioritize the prevention of procreation over saving lives.”


6. The RH Bill lies about science facts on the use of artificial contraceptives.


* The pill and the IUD kill babies: human life begins at fertilization, when the male sperm penetrates the female egg. The pill has a secondary “postfertilization effect”, according to the American Medical Association. The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology has declared that the intrauterine device brings about “destruction of the early embryo.”


* The pill causes cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2007 reported that the pill causes cancer, giving it the HIGHEST LEVEL OF CARCINOGENICITY, THE SAME AS CIGARETTES AND ASBESTOS. It also causes stroke, and significantly increases the risk of heart attacks.


* The condom has been blamed for the increase in the incidence of HIV/AIDS in countries that resorted to it, notably Africa and Thailand.


7. The RH Bill is based on wrong economics.
“There is no clear correlation between population growth and economic development”, according to Simon Kuznets, Nobel Prize winner in the science of economics.
Population control is not an ingredient for high economic growth, as found by the 2008 Commission on Growth and Development headed by Nobel Prize winner Michael Spence. The growth factors are: Governance, openness to knowledge, stable finances, market allocation, investment and savings.



The RH Bill is based on flawed data on population growth rates and fertility levels. In 1960, the average number of children per Filipina in her lifetime was seven. By 1980 it was five. By 2000 it was 3.5. In 2010 the NSO projected in at 3.0 and about 2.65 by 2020 – near the replacement of 2.25. The RH Bill ignores the negative impact on the economy and society of an ageing population.


PH’s Population Growth Rate has declined since the Year 2000 Census of 2.36%. UN states it at 1.8%, whilst the NCSO reports 1.94% for 2005-2010. RP’s – without the benefit of government-funded contraceptives envisioned by the RH Bill.


Therefore based on the aforementioned facts, we, concerned Filipino Families, join the national government, particularly our legislators, to SCRAP THE RH BILL pending in the Congress.


Furthermore, we enjoin our fellow countrymen to know the facts about the arguments in this national issue seriously affecting families, and to make a stand protect the right of the Filipino families.

Published in the Sun.Star Pampanga newspaper on March 21, 2011.

[Monseratto]

hehehe...^^may bagong kalaro si GH.

[ghosthunter]

http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011...gun-marriages/

[SIZE="4"]Know your Pro-Life rhetoric: Shotgun Marriages[/SIZE]

Posted on 24 March 2011 by Twin-Skies.

For those not familiar with the term, a shotgun marriage is another term for forced marriages (though not necessarily under the business end of a gun). The term originated in the United States, and is used to describe marriages that are enacted not out of love, but due to an accidental pregnancy.

Regardless, it doesn’t take a genius to understand that shotgun marriages are not an ideal model for what a proper modern marriage should be like, where couples today are often united under a mutual declaration of love (Sue me – I’m a romantic).

But you’re probably asking: What am I doing talking about shotgun marriages, and what do they have to do with the matter of the Reproductive Health Bill? The Anti-RH side of the discussions have shown continually that they are more than willing to distort otherwise credible research, just so they can parade its data around as ammunition for their screeds. In today’s example, I’ll be tackling one of their more common statements used against RH, which goes something like this:

Wide contraceptive use leads to more premarital ***, more fatherless children, more single mothers, more poverty, more abortions; and also a decline of marriage, less domesticated men, more crimes, more social pathology and poverty, according to the studies of Nobel prize winner, George Akerlof. Many other studies reached the same conclusion.

At first glance, it sounds like a solid case. You’ve got a Nobel Prize Winner who appears to back up the Pro-Lifer’s claims that contraceptive use will lead to the destruction of the concept of the family, leading to general moral decay in society.

Or does it?

The study under discussion in this case is titled “An Analysis on Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States,” and a copy of its abstract can be found here.

This paper relates the erosion of the custom of shotgun marriage to the legalization of abortion and the increased availability of contraception to unmarried women in the United States. The decline in shotgun marriage accounts for a significant fraction of the increase in out-of-wedlock first births. Several models illustrate the analogy between women who do not adopt either birth control or abortion and the hand-loom weavers, both victims of changing technology. Mechanisms causing female immiseration are modeled and historically described. This technology-shock hypothesis is an alternative to welfare and job-shortage theories of the feminization of poverty. Copyright 1996, the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Nowhere does the abstract say anything about “moral decay” in the family. What the abstract does say, however, is that there is a close link between the decrease of forced marriages with the prevalence of legal abortions and modern birth control.

On the matter of out-of-wedlock first births, Akerlof himself has stated in a separate article that this trend may be more of a case of the decreasing stigma against single mothers.

Before 1970, the stigma of unwed motherhood was so great that most women would only engage in ***ual activity if it came with a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy. Men were willing to make (and keep) that promise, for they knew that even if they left one woman, they would be unlikely to find another who would not make the same demand. In the 1970s, women who were willing to get an abortion, or who used contraception reliably, no longer found it necessary to condition ***ual relations on a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy. But women who found abortion unacceptable, or who were unreliable in their contraceptive use, found themselves pressured to participate in premarital ***ual relations as well. These women feared, correctly, that if they refused ***ual relations, they would risk losing their partners.

To be fair to the Pro-Lifers though, the prevalence of contraceptives did lead to an increase in the incidence of incidences of single-parent births and abortions; Akerlof coined the event as “Reproductive Technology Shock.”

But instead of going off on the Pro-Life rant about this being evidence of the decay of family values in the United States, Akerlof’s analysis indicates that the trend is going in the direction of women empowerment – women of the time realized that they did not need to be dependent on a partner to be survive, and were given the opportunity to have kids on their terms, as opposed to being forced to submit to the whims of their spouse.

But getting back on topic, while Akerlof cited that the increased access to birth control contributed to the increase of unmarried (Note: NOT unwanted) births and abortions, enacting restrictions on women at this point of time – as most Pro-Lifers have asserted time and time again – are counterproductive. Quoting Akerlof’s exact statement:

What should be done? Even if possible, attempts to turn back the technological clock by restricting abortion and contraception would now be counterproductive. Besides denying reproductive freedom to women, such efforts would increase the number of children born and reared in impoverished single-parent families. Most children born out of wedlock are reported by their mothers to have been “wanted,” but “not at that time.” Some are reported as not having been wanted at all. Easier access to birth-control information and devices and to abortion could reduce the number of unwanted children and improve the timing of those whose mothers would have preferred to wait.

Straight from the horse’s mouth.

It is because of cases like this, where an uncscrupulous opponent of reproductive health resorts to misrepresenting the statements of an otherwise credible researcher to hoodwink people who don’t know any better, that we have to remember to be vigilant in our efforts. This is not the first time I’ve caught them lying through their teeth, and it certainly won’t be the last.

And from this same case, we can also see the Pro-Life side’s poorly veiled misogyny, and their contempt for family concept outside that of their ideal. Back in 2009, The Philippines Government had signed the Magna Carta for women into law.

Among other tenets, this Magna Carta secured several rights for pregnant women, one being their right not to be expelled due to their condition:

Expulsion and non-readmission of women faculty due to pregnancy outside of marriage shall be outlawed. No primary or secondary school shall turn out or refuse admission to a female student solely on account of her having contracted pregnancy outside of marriage during her term in school

The CBCP, being the organization that it is, howled in protest over the new law, saying that the it was an invasive of the religious freedom of Catholic schools, which made pregnancy a punishable offense.

Women’s welfare and empowerment seen as a threat to male authority. Gnashing of teeth for perceived enroachment of “religious rights.” Demonization of single parents as being less than the ideal.

Sound familiar?

[ghosthunter]

You say:

Mercado: Issues raised vs RH bill

Please see link:
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/pampanga/o...rh-bill-145899



6. The RH Bill lies about science facts on the use of artificial contraceptives.


* The pill and the IUD kill babies: human life begins at fertilization, when the male sperm penetrates the female egg. The pill has a secondary “postfertilization effect”, according to the American Medical Association. The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology has declared that the intrauterine device brings about “destruction of the early embryo.”


* The pill causes cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2007 reported that the pill causes cancer, giving it the HIGHEST LEVEL OF CARCINOGENICITY, THE SAME AS CIGARETTES AND ASBESTOS. It also causes stroke, and significantly increases the risk of heart attacks.

UP and Ateneo Professors say:

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/03...upport-rh-bill

UP, Ateneo profs voice out support for RH Bill
abs-cbnNEWS.com
Posted at 03/23/2011 2:34 PM | Updated as of 03/23/2011 4:01 PM

MANILA, Philippines - Lending more academic backing to a national advocacy, faculty professors from the University of the Philippines and Ateneo de Manila University gave their overwhelming support to the Reproductive Health Bill.

In a joint statement signed by 241 faculty members, the group said “our studied and collective opinion is that House Bill 4244 is a vital piece of legislation. Its passage will mandate policies which will save women’s and men’s lives, improve infant survival, enhance young people’s health and well-being, and enable couples and individuals to make responsible decisions in planning their families.”

They said the bill is also necessary to achieve the goals of “social equity, poverty reduction, and national development. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that these goals can be achieved without resorting to population control.”

They said they have been abreast with issues being hurled against the bill, even undertaking their own studies and participating in legislative processes.

“Our reading of HB 4244 is that it is not a population control bill, nor does it violate any other rights and freedoms. HB 4244 in fact promotes the ***ual and reproductive rights, the right to health, and the right to informed decision making of all Filipinos but especially the poor, in fulfillment of the provisions of our Constitution and our obligations under international covenants,” they added.

They lambasted the way science has been “misused” by those opposing the bill.

“We have seen the misrepresentation of easily verifiable information, such as the actual text of the proposed bill. We have witnessed the misuse of outdated studies, data that have already been disproven, or studies that cannot be replicated to support what are merely ideological positions,” they stressed.

The faculty members also expressed concerns over reports that some teachers offer incentives to students who make or engage in anti-RH activities.

“We believe that it is an abuse of our role as value formators to dictate the political actions of our students in this way. We denounce any such violations of our duties to inculcate critical thinking and respect our students’ right to their own opinions. We denounce this, regardless of whether the teacher is for or against the RH Bill,” they stressed.

[CVT]

Top 10 causes of Morbidity/Death in the Philippines lists Pneumonia, Bronchitis, Diarrhea, Influenza and Hypertension as the highest ranking causes of death among women. There is a distortion of human values if we prioritize the prevention of procreation over saving lives.”

Sasabihin nila,- heto ang mga issues ngayon. But, you only have limited resources at any given time,- in the past, now and in the future.

Di ba't kapag maraming anak ang isang magulang na hindi kayang palakihin ng maayos ang mga ito,- mas lalong marami ang magkakasakit? Solve the issue from the cause, not on the effect. And, now is the time to do it.

Let us stop being reactive.

12.9K:foshizzle:

[ghosthunter]

Anti-RH fanatics say:

Mercado: Issues raised vs RH bill

Please see link:
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/pampanga/o...rh-bill-145899


1. The RH Bill is anti-Family. The contraceptive lifestyle destroys the very foundations of family. Contraceptives bring about the downgrading of marriage, disrespect for one’s spouse, usually the wife; leads to more extramarital ***; more fatherless children and single mothers – as proven by Nobel Prize winner George Akeriof.

Here's a quote from By George A. Akerlof and Janet L. Yellen saying something else...

http://www.slate.com/id/2389/

What should be done? Even if possible, attempts to turn back the technological clock by restricting abortion and contraception would now be counterproductive. Besides denying reproductive freedom to women, such efforts would increase the number of children born and reared in impoverished single-parent families. Most children born out of wedlock are reported by their mothers to have been "wanted," but "not at that time." Some are reported as not having been wanted at all. Easier access to birth-control information and devices and to abortion could reduce the number of unwanted children and improve the timing of those whose mothers would have preferred to wait.

[ghosthunter]

http://filipinofreethinkers.org/category/politics/

[SIZE="4"]Should the CBCP excommunicate themselves?[/SIZE]

Posted on 19 April 2011. Tags: cbcp, contraception, Oscar Cruz, RH Bill, Roman Catholic Church, secularism, separation of church and state

In a recent interview, Ex-CBCP President Oscar Cruz said that Noynoy deserved to be excommunicated if he was proven to have an indirect hand in abortions due to the passage of the RH Bill:

There are 2 ways for someone to be excommunicated. Abortion or harming the pope. But just in case the President signs the bill into law…he will not be excommunicated. Unless, if the church proves that he has an indirect hand on abortions, meaning because of his approval of the bill and abortions happen, then he becomes guilty,” Cruz warned.

According to Oscar, indirectly causing an abortion is grounds for excommunication. According to this logic, if the passage of the RH Bill causes a single person to have an abortion, then all those involved in passing the RH Bill are equally deserving of excommunication.

If the RH Bill passes, popular support will be one of the main reasons. According to a 2008 SWS survey, 7 out of 10 Catholics favor the passage of the RH Bill. Should pro-RH Catholics be excommunicated as well?

Whatever the CBCP decides, excommunication is their call — the Vatican’s, to be more precise. But consider this: If indirectly causing an abortion is grounds for excommunication, then the CBCP should excommunicate themselves first.

Here are the facts. Studies from all over the world show that increased contraception use reduces the number of induced abortions1:

Recent studies offer strong evidence of a widely supposed but difficult-to-demonstrate benefit of reproductive health services: that increasing the use of effective contraception leads to declines in induced abortion rates.

In 2008, there were an estimated 560,000 induced abortions. If CBCP hadn’t been blocking the passage of an RH Bill for 13 years prior, this number would probably be a lot smaller. Stated more plainly, the CBCP is indirectly responsible for every abortion in the Philippines that could have been avoided through the information and contraception that a family planning program could have provided.

So before Oscar and the CBCP goes excommunication-happy on pro-RH Catholics, they should study the facts and check whether they still have the authority to excommunicate. They might have been auto-excommunicated a long time ago.

------------------

In cases where increased contraception use fails to reduce abortion incidence, here’s the story:

In seven countries—Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria, Turkey, Tunisia and Switzerland—abortion incidence declined as prevalence of modern contraceptive use rose. In six others—Cuba, Denmark, Netherlands, the United States, Singapore and the Republic of Korea—levels of abortion and contraceptive use rose simultaneously. In all six of these countries, however, overall levels of fertility were falling during the period studied. After fertility levels stabilized in several of the countries that had shown simultaneous rises in contraception and abortion, contraceptive use continued to increase and abortion rates fell. The most clear-cut example of this trend is the Republic of Korea…

Rising contraceptive use results in reduced abortion incidence in settings where fertility itself is constant. The parallel rise in abortion and contraception in some countries occurred because increased contraceptive use alone was unable to meet the growing need for fertility regulation in situations where fertility was falling rapidly.

[myk384]

Didn't you know that our population is already at 101M people in our 7, 107 islands??

[ghosthunter]

Taken from: http://filipinofreethinkers.org/

[SIZE="4"]Ten Good Reasons to Pass the RH Bill Now[/SIZE]
Posted on 05 February 2011.


Just a few years ago, say “RH” in ordinary talks and you’ll get blank looks. Now, most Filipinos know that RH is reproductive health. It has entered presidential debates, topped the news, been surveyed to death. Moreover, majority have plainly said their piece: “We support RH.” Why? Loads of reasons—from the practical “We need help” to the proud “It’s my choice!” But 10 good ones should be enough to convince rational people and thoughtful policy-makers. So here are our top picks.



1 RH will: Protect the health & lives of mothers

The WHO (World Health Organization) estimates that complications arise in 15% of pregnancies, bad enough to hospitalize or kill women. From the 2 million plus live births alone, some 300,000 maternal complications occur yearly. This is 7 times the DOH’s annual count for TB, 19 times for heart diseases and 20 times for malaria in women. As a result, more than 11 women die needlessly each day.

Enough skilled birth attendants and prompt referral to hospitals with emergency obstetric care are proven curative solutions to maternal complications. For women who wish to stop childbearing, family planning (FP) is the best preventive measure. All these are part of RH.



2 Save babies

Proper birth spacing reduces infant deaths. The WHO says at least 2 years should pass between a birth and the next pregnancy. In our country, the infant mortality rate of those with less than 2 years birth interval is twice those with 3. The more effective and user-friendly the FP method, the greater the chances of the next child to survive.



3 Respond to the majority who want smaller families

Times have changed and people want smaller families. When surveyed about their ideal number of children, women in their 40s want slightly more than 3, while those in their teens and early 20s want just slightly more than 2.

Moreover, couples end up with families larger than what they planned. On average, Filipino women want close to 2 children but end up with 3. This gap is unequal, but shows up in all social classes and regions. RH education and services will help couples fulfill their hopes for their families.


4 Promote equity for poor families

RH indicators show severe inequities between the rich and poor. For example, 94% of women in the richest quintile have a skilled attendant at birth, while only 26% of the poorest can do so. The richest have 3 times higher tubal ligation rates. This partly explains why the wealthy hardly exceed their planned number of children, while the poorest get an extra 2. Infant deaths among the poorest are almost 3 times that of the richest, which in a way explains why the poor plan for more children. An RH law will help in attaining equity in health through stronger public health services.



5 Prevent induced abortions

Unintended pregnancies precede almost all induced abortions. Of all unintended pregnancies, 68% occur in women without any FP method, and 24% happen to those using traditional FP like withdrawal or calendar-abstinence.

If all those who want to space or stop childbearing would use modern FP, abortions would fall by some 500,000. In our country where abortion is strictly criminalized, and where 90,000 women are hospitalized yearly for complications, it would be reckless and heartless not to ensure prevention through FP.



6 Support and deploy more public midwives, nurses and doctors

RH health services are needed wherever people are establishing their families. For example, a report by the MDG Task Force points out the need for 1 fulltime midwife to attend to every 100 to 200 annual live births. Other health staff are needed for the millions who need prenatal and postpartum care, infant care and family planning. Investing in these core public health staff will serve the basic needs of many communities.



7 Guarantee funding for & equal access to health facilities

RH will need and therefore support many levels of health facilities. These range from health stations that can do basic prenatal, infant and FP care; health centers for safe birthing, more difficult FP services like IUD insertions, and management of ***ually transmitted infections; and hospitals for emergency obstetric and newborn care and surgical contraception. Strong RH facilities can be the backbone of a strong and fairly distributed public health facility system.



8 Give accurate & positive ***uality education to young people

Currently, most young people enter relationships and even married life without the benefit of systematic inputs by any of our social institutions. We insist on young voters’ education for events that occur once every few years, but do nothing guiding the young in new relationships they face daily. The RH bill mandates the education and health departments to fill this serious gap.



9 Reduce cancer deaths

Delaying ***, avoiding multiple partners or using condoms prevent HPV infections that cause cervical cancers. Self breast exams and Pap smears can detect early signs of cancers which can be cured if treated early. All these are part of RH education and care. Contraceptives do not heighten cancer risks; combined pills actually reduce the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers.



10 Save money that can be used for even more social spending

Ensuring modern FP for all who need it would increase spending from P1.9 B to P4.0 B, but the medical costs for unintended pregnancies would fall from P3.5 B to P0.6 B, resulting in a net savings of P0.8 B. There is evidence that families with fewer children do spend more for health and education.
You may want to copy this (or expand the list) and send to family, friends and acquaintances until it reaches our legislators. We need the support of everyone we can reach and convince.

[marg]

if it is OK for the Italian catholics to have their own RH Bill, then it should be OK for Pinoys too.

Are we TRYING HARD to be more "catholic" than the original ROMAN catholics?

Have you ever heard pope Benedict say anything against the RH Bill in Italy?

Bakit dito ang INGAY ng mga obispo?

[Lucius]

if it is OK for the Italian catholics to have their own RH Bill, then it should be OK for Pinoys too.

Are we TRYING HARD to be more "catholic" than the original ROMAN catholics?

Have you ever heard pope Benedict say anything against the RH Bill in Italy?

Bakit dito ang INGAY ng mga obispo?

Ung iba sa kanila hindi naman obispo talaga, obispa. You know what I'm sayin?

[renzo_d10]

Ung iba sa kanila hindi naman obispo talaga, obispa. You know what I'm sayin?

[jansky]

if it is OK for the Italian catholics to have their own RH Bill, then it should be OK for Pinoys too.

Are we TRYING HARD to be more "catholic" than the original ROMAN catholics?

Have you ever heard pope Benedict say anything against the RH Bill in Italy?

Bakit dito ang INGAY ng mga obispo?

because they are STUPID

[ghosthunter]