Reproductive Health Bill 5043 [MERGED]

[ghosthunter]

The contrceptive "DIANE" mentioned by Lying Sotto in his crying speech was released to the market in 1978.

But his son died in 1975.

Paano nangyari yan?

He has no credibility ... so it is not surprising he has ALL HIS FACTS WRONG.

[falken]

The contrceptive "DIANE" mentioned by Lying Sotto in his crying speech was released to the market in 1978.

But his son died in 1975.

Paano nangyari yan?

He traveled thru time.

[ghosthunter]

The contrceptive "DIANE" mentioned by Lying Sotto in his crying speech was released to the market in 1978.

But his son died in 1975.

Paano nangyari yan?

He got help from a couple of guys in a car.

[ZENMasterTYL]

and the hits just keep on comin'

Three more blog sites allegedly plagiarized by Senator Tito Sotto

Katatapos lang magbigay ng paliwanag ni Atty. Hector Villacorta, chief of staff ni Senator Vicente "Tito" Sotto III, sa U.S.-based blogger na nagsasabing kinopya ng senador ang isa niyang blog post.

Hindi pa humuhupa ang gulat at dismaya ng mga netizens sa ganitong balita, ngayon naman ay tatlo pang blogs ang lumalabas na kinopya rin umano ng senador para sa speech nito laban sa Reproductive Health Bill na pinagde-debatehan ngayon sa Senado.

Ayon sa ulat ng Interaksyon, na lumabas ngayong Biyernes, Agosto 17, sinabi ng award-winning novelist na si Miguel Syjuco na guilty si Senator Sotto sa pangongopya ng tatlo pang blogs.

Sa personal account niya sa Facebook, binanggit ng Canada-based Filipino novelist ang tatlong blogs na umano’y pinagkopyahan ni Senator Sotto ng ilang parte ng kanyang ikalawang speech sa Senado.

“I've gone just through Tito Sotto's second speech and discovered he lifted, verbatim, from three sources easily found online,” sabi ni Syjuco.

Sa kanyang sumunod na post, nagpasalamat siya sa kapwa blogger na si Raissa Robles, isang Filipina journalist, at sa online community na tumulong sa kanya sa pag-check.

Sinabi rin ni Syjuco: “I found three instances of verbatim plagiarism. And all I had to do was plug in the English chunks of his speech into Google.”

Narito ang paghahambing sa ikalawang talumpati ni Senator Sotto sa tatlo pang blog na nahanap ni Syjuco.

1. Senator Sotto’s speech:



“Sanger was so intent on reducing family size that she seemed to not stop even at abortion. Many believe that under the right circumstances, Sanger would have condoned infanticide. Indeed she wrote in her book Woman and the New Race: ‘The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.’

“This comes from the woman who formed the philosophical base for IPPF.

“But there was even a darker side to Margaret Sanger: a side that IPPF people try to cover up or explain away. That was her belief in ‘eugenics.’ Eugenics is defined as ‘the application of the laws of hereditary to physical and mental improvement, especially of the human race.’”

“Re-imaging Life and Family: The Global Scandal” by Marlon Ramirez on talkingsense.multiply.com, September 2008:

“…Sanger was so intent on reducing family size that she seemed to not stop even at abortion. Many believe that, under the right circumstances, Sanger would have condoned infanticide. Indeed, she wrote in her book Woman And the New Race: ‘The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.’ This comes from the woman who formed the philosophical base for Planned Parenthood. You can also see that her interest in birth control was not just due to some humane concern for health of women (which birth control doesn’t help anyway), but was driven in part by her desire to encourage women to engage in *** without having children.

“But there was another side of Margaret Sanger; a side that Planned Parenthood people try to cover up or explain away. That was her belief in eugenics. Eugenics is defined as ‘the application of the laws of heredity to physical and mental improvement, especially of the human race.’ To Sanger this meant the systematic elimination (through birth control, including abortion) of all those people she and her cohorts considered to be of ‘dysgenic stock’ in order to create a race of superior intellectuals.”

2. Senator Sotto’s speech:



“The two activists met in December of 1936 when Sanger traveled to India to speak with Gandhi about birth control, population and the plight of women in India. At that time, Sanger staunchly advocated the global use of artificial contraceptives and, in order to make the acceptance of such contraceptives easier to the Indian populace, sought to make Gandhi an ally. While Sanger claimed she merely wanted to pay her respects and give a personal tribute to Gandhi, she coveted nothing less than his endorsement of the widespread use of artificial birth control methods. Gandhi firmly stood by his belief that the spiritual bonds of marriage are strengthened by ***ual abstinence. He thus completely rejected Sanger's plea for contraception as a tool to control population growth, fearing it would lead to an increase in non-procreative ***, which he viewed as immoral lust.

Part 5. Three more blog sites allegedly plagiarized by Senator Tito Sotto | PEP.ph: The Number One Site for Philippine Showbiz

[Monseratto]

Magpalalake ka...hinahamon ka ng babae.

Sotto should be ‘man enough to apologize’, says US blogger
INQUIRER.net
4:54 pm | Saturday, August 18th, 2012

MANILA, Philippines – The American blogger, who accused Senator Vicente Sotto of being a “lying thief” for allegedly plagiarizing her in his anti-Reproductive Health bill speech last week, said the lawmaker should be “man enough to say ‘I’m sorry’ and then just move on”.

Sarah Pope, who writes for the US-based TheHealthyHomeEconomist.com, had cited Russian-born physician Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride as a source in one of her blogs on the use of contraceptives – the same source quoted by Sotto in his speech against the controversial measure.

Both Pope and Sotto quoted McBride separately as claiming that contraceptives “cause an imbalance between good and bad bacteria in the intestines that breaks down the defense against infection.”

Sotto denied plagiarizing Pope although the senator’s chief of staff, Hector Villacorta, admitted that they had used Pope’s blog without any attribution.


“None of this would have happened if he [Sotto] has the guts, he must be very spineless, to not be able to be man enough to just say ‘I’m sorry,’ said Pope in a Skype interview with Radyo Inquirer 990AM Saturday.

“How hard is that to do?” asked Pope.

When asked whether she would file a case against Sotto, Pope said that while she was seeking legal counsel, this wasn’t her style and that the “right course of action would be for the senator to just apologize and then move on”.

“He should take responsibility for his staff as any leader would,” said Pope.

At the same time, Pope said that if there would be anything “positive” that would come out of this, it would be for “the Filipino people see him for what he really is”.

"He thinks he’s above the law, he can do whatever he wants, then the Filipino people should take action and vote him out of office,” said Pope.

When informed of online efforts to have Sotto subjected to an inquiry by the Senate ethics committee, Pope said, “He does need to shunned by his fellow legislators for very bad behaviour.”

Pope also took exception to Sotto’s comments about her being called as just “a blogger”, saying, “I’m not just a stupid blogger, a stupid mom who’s blogging about recipe. I’m no dummy. When a woman is condescended to like that, that is very rude.”

[chua_riwap]

mag apologize kaya?
dapat yung may paiyak effect din. . . . . :sad:

[ghosthunter]

I would prefer if he just resigns.

[Gumusut_Amige]

Double post

[Gumusut_Amige]

Inunahan kasi ng yabang... Kaya pala mahaba speech na sinasabi dahil ang daming pinagkopyahan.
Ito namang mga alipores nya di man lang nagtaka na "nakagawa" si eskalera ng ganung speech outside his normal "powers"??? Dito na ang umpisa ang pagbagsak nya kahit mag sorry pa yan

[Monseratto]

Admitting and taking full responsibility for ones mistake seperate great men from idiots...

MANILA, Philippines – One offense, two different responses.

Like Senator Vicente “Tito” Sotto III, top businessman Manuel V Pangilinan committed plagiarism for a graduation speech at the Ateneo de Manila University in 2010. But unlike Sotto, Pangilinan immediately took responsibility for it after the public took notice.

Pangilinan also resigned as Ateneo's chairman of the board after observers spotted unattributed quotes from US President Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Conan O'Brien, and J. K. Rowling in his much-applauded graduation speech.

In a letter to then Ateneo president Fr Bienvenido Nebres, Pangilinan described the incident as “a source of deep personal embarrassment.” “I am afraid the damage has been done – wala talaga akong mukhang ihaharap pagkatapos,” said Pangilinan, explaining his decision to resign. (Now I have no face to show.)

The respected businessmen, of course, could have told the public to blame his speechwriters. But he himself confronted the issue. “I have had some help in the drafting of my remarks, but I take full and sole responsibility for them,” he told the Ateneo president.

Nebres, in convincing him to stay as Ateneo chair, said the incident happened “without (his) full awareness, though (he takes) full and sole responsibility.”

But Pangilinan wouldn't budge. He stepped down, because he “would seek only the honorable and principled way out.”

Not saying sorry

In contrast, Sotto has refused to say sorry “because he can't apologize for something he did not know.” His camp said it was a speechwriter who copied quotes, without attribution, from a blogger who calls herself “The Healthy Home Economist.” Sotto used the quotes for a speech against the Reproductive Health bill.

In fact, a day after the Filipino Freethinkers exposed similarities between Sotto's speech and blogger Sarah Pope's piece, the senator flatly denied accusations of plagiarism.

“Bakit ko naman iko-quote ang blogger? Blogger lang iyon. Ang kino-quote ko si Natasha Campbell-McBride,” Sotto said in an ANC interview, referring to the the source whom Pope quoted. (Why should I quote a blogger? She’s just a blogger. I’m quoting Natasha Campbell-McBride.)

On the same day, Pope confirmed that Sotto plagiarized her work. At this point, it was Sotto's chief of staff, lawyer Hector Villacorta, who came forward to apologize for what he called a “single trespass.”

But Villacorta told Rappler it was a “semi-apology” since both Sotto and Pope quoted Campbell-McBride anyway. "If you wish that you also be credited with the contents of this book,” Villacorta told the blogger, “let this be your affirmation. I can do it and by this message, I am doing it. Hope this satisfies you.”

Rappler contributor Analiza Perez-Amurao, however, pointed out such reasoning is unacceptable. The acceptable way is to cite the “source in another source,” said Amurao, an educator who teaches at a leading state university in Thailand.

A common definition of the word “plagiarize,” based on Merriam-Webster, is “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own,” or to “use (another's production) without crediting the source. It is also “to commit literary theft” or “present as new and original and idea or product derived from an existing source.”

Feedback on stories on Sotto's speech indicates public outrage over plagiarism. In the story about Villacorta's apology, for example, over 70% of readers voted angry on the Rappler Mood Meter.

[falken]

This guy really has no shame at all.

Sotto sets privilege speech vs critics
By Marvin Sy (The Philippine Star) Updated August 19, 2012 12:00 AM Comments (0) View comments

MANILA, Philippines - Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III will again take the floor on Wednesday to deliver a privilege speech, which would take the place of the last part of his turno en contra (rebuttal) speech.

“It’s their fault. I am ready to close my turno but now I will postpone this for my privilege speech,” Sotto said yesterday, referring to American blogger Sarah Pope, who had accused him of plagiarism over his speech against the Reproductive Health bill, and several pro-RH bill groups and individuals.

He said he is fighting back and has threatened to take Pope and the proponents of the RH bill head-on in his scheduled privilege speech.

After two days of hearing the exchanges between Pope, the people attacking him in social media and his Senate staff over an entry the American made in her blog about the pill, Sotto admitted that certain lines in his turno en contra speech against the RH bill were lifted from Pope’s blog.

However, he has repeatedly denied that he committed plagiarism, as alleged by Pope, because he said he made it clear in his speeches that the contents, including the references to ideas, thoughts or medical and scientific findings were not his own.

“She was not the author of the book. If I did not mention her name then she should know that I also did not mention several other people’s names (in my speech),” he said in an interview.

Sotto’s chief of staff, lawyer Hector Villacorta, admitted that they lifted parts of Pope’s blog to present some information contained in a book written by Dr. Natasha McBride.

Pope has since gone on a campaign to make Sotto accountable for what she felt was the stealing of her intellectual property and quickly drew the support of her fellow bloggers here and abroad.

She even went as far as calling Sotto a “lying thief,” which drew the ire of the senator.

He said he was convinced the pro-RH groups are behind the latest attacks against him and that they are the ones orchestrating the smear campaign using Pope as its centerpiece.

“This is clearly a wrecking job. The pro-RH people are the same ones making a big issue out of this. If the blogger and I are on the same side in the RH debate, then I don’t need enemies” Sotto said.

“Plagiarism, whether you give attribution or not, applies only if you contend that the contents (used) are yours.

Sotto sets privilege speech vs critics - The Philippine Star » News » Headlines

[ZENMasterTYL]

Admitting and taking full responsibility for ones mistake seperate great men from idiots...

well, what do you expect from a comedian/idiot politician? make people laugh and cringe whenever they open their mouths

this one proves my point

“Bakit ko naman iko-quote ang blogger? Blogger lang iyon. Ang kino-quote ko si Natasha Campbell-McBride.”

[falken]

well, what do you expect from a comedian/idiot politician? make people laugh and cringe whenever they open their mouths

this one proves my point

“Bakit ko naman iko-quote ang blogger? Blogger lang iyon. Ang kino-quote ko si Natasha Campbell-McBride.”

Reasoning ng bopols.

[marg]

WANBOL University grad si Sotto.

[Gerbo]

It would just been easier to apologize.

The furor is out. Now Sotto should know why pride is one of one the deadly sins.

Sa hanapbuhay kelangan talaga integridad unless you want to be called a criminal.

[explorer]

If Dr. Jose Rizal still alive today...I suspect that he will probably be doing a violent revolt like Andres Bonifacio instead of a peaceful one...

from: Catholic Church goes after Ateneo professors for heresy

Catholic Church goes after Ateneo professors for heresy

By Kristine L. Alave
Philippine Daily Inquirer
12:25 am | Tuesday, August 21st, 2012

It’s not exactly an inquisition but 159 members of the Ateneo de Manila University faculty may face investigation for heresy, and sacked—not excommunicated—if found guilty.

Bishop Leandro Medroso, in an interview over Church-run Radio Veritas Monday, called for an investigation of the Ateneo faculty members who signed a statement declaring support for the controversial reproductive health (RH) bill being pushed by the Aquino administration in Congress.

Medroso, the permanent council member of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and chairman of the Episcopal Commission on Canon Law, said the university should make sure that the teachers who endorsed House Bill No. 4244 were not teaching concepts against Church laws.

“That has to be investigated. The first principle of Canon law about this matter is that we don’t allow teaching that which is against the official teachings of the Church. Now, if there is somebody who is giving instructions against the teachings of the Church, then they have to investigate immediately,” Medroso said.

Those found guilty of teaching students concepts contrary to Church teachings could be fired, he said. Church officials have previously raised the possibility of excommunication for Catholics espousing population control.

Ateneo officials were not available for comment Monday, a holiday.

Recently, Archbishop Jose Palma of Cebu, the current CBCP president, warned Catholic schools and teachers to toe the line or end up in hot water.

“They should be consistent and true to the nature of their calling, which is to enlighten and teach the Catholic doctrine. They should realize how important their vocation and their mission is, which is of course to impart the Catholic teaching,” Palma said.

The CBCP acknowledges that there are some differences in the beliefs of teachers and Church teachings on topics like reproductive health. The group said that while it respected academic freedom in colleges and universities, Catholic institutions should adhere to Church laws.

In issuing the statement of support, Ateneo’s faculty members said the RH bill would provide much-needed maternal and infant health care to all Filipinos regardless of religious beliefs.

“The reality is, despite the Philippines being predominantly Catholic, the majority of Filipinos want the full range of family planning services, including ‘artificial’ contraception,” they said.

“Our reflected and collective appraisal of the Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Bill is that it is a vital piece of legislation that needs to be passed urgently,” the paper said.

The Guidon, Ateneo’s student newspaper, said it was not the first time that its professors had released a statement endorsing the bill, which has been pending for more than a decade. The first statement was issued in 2008, with 66 signatories.

The Guidon said another statement followed in 2011, signed by more than 200 faculty members from Ateneo and the University of the Philippines.

[CoDer]

^ Sira ulo talaga tong Medroso o.

[Monseratto]

Sotto's selective, self-serving, error-laden, copied speeches...

The other sins of Senator Vicente Sotto III
by Sylvia Estrada Claudio Posted on 08/20/2012 6:30 PM | Updated 08/21/2012 8:28 AM

One of the keys to national progress is to increase our people's scientific literacy. Apparently we have failed so badly that a senator and his staff do not know the difference between evidence-based scientific arguments and the chicanery they have managed to put together.

The scientific arguments regarding contraceptives, abortion, ***uality education, etc., have already been repeatedly discussed in the course of the debate on the RH bill. I have no intention of reiterating them because no amount of repetition seems to make a dent in the minds of people like Senator Sotto.

The real problem here is that they can't discern what good science is and therefore tend to believe the gunk they come up with.

And how do I know this is gunk? Sit back, dear reader, and note the tell tale signs of folly:

1) Citing outdated studies a.k.a Rip Van Winkle Does Science

When Sotto does cite his sources instead of plagiarizing them, we note that they are at least 30 years old. In his first speech, which can be accessed at the Senate website, he mentions only 3 books, one dated 1975 and the two others, 1974. His second speech does not mention the dates of any of the sources he cites to bolster his case. Where dates are mentioned, it is of UN documents he wishes to criticize.

Why do we teachers insist that this is a sign of possible chicanery? Because scientific knowledge is continually evolving, renewed and revised. To claim that something believed more than 30 years ago would still be true now, must raise some red flags. While it is true that this may be possible, it is unlikely.

In fact the claim that Sotto makes, which he supports by these books from the 1970s, is that, “Individual human life begins at conception and is progressive, ongoing continuum until natural death. This is a fact so well established that no intellectually honest physician in full command of modern medical knowledge would dare to deny it.”

That claim is false.

Current medical text books do not support this view and neither do a majority of physicans. Indeed, even in the 1970s, it was by no means the dominant position.

In 1976, Theodosius Dobzhansky, geneticist and evolutionary biologist, commenting on the question about when life begins observed, "The wish felt by many people to pinpoint such a stage probably stems from the belief that a soul, conceived as a preternatural entity, descends upon a formerly soulless living stuff, and suddenly transforms the latter into human estate. I hope that modern theologians can accept the idea that the transformation is not sudden, but gradual.”

2) Citing extremists, outliers and unproven claims a.k.a. Crackpot Alert!

Why do I claim that the mainstream of medical opinion does not support this view? Simple. I listen to reputable scientific organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO). I invite anyone out there who still believes in the disinformation against the RH bill, to visit the WHO website.

Why should I believe the WHO? Well, it has not been perfect. No human institution is. But its opinions are based on the exhaustive reviews by panels of experts of the research available. In any area of science, there will always be contradictory studies (like those of Dr Natasha Campbell McBride which Sotto cites).

The role of reputable scientists is to see the whole of the data and disregard those that are contradictory to the majority because the claims are not backed by reputable research (this is the case in Dr McBride's theories) or are just contradicted by more researches. Usually, well-run studies that contradict the majority are pointed out in the reputable literature.

To take the outlier study or the crackpot's views and to claim that this is scientific proof is, in my mind, even more egregious than an outright lie.

3) Misrepresentation a.k.a. LIAR, LIAR!

Sotto misrepresents studies or quotes them out of context. I get the impression that he and his staff really don't read what they quote or they are deliberately distorting the findings. Again I will give just one example.

In his speech he says this, “The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) announced on July 29, 2005 that after a thorough review of the published scientific literature, it has concluded that combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (and combined estrogen-progestogen menopausal therapy) are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1 category. This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.).”

First, the date of the study is wrong. The study was conducted in 1999 and can be accessed in full here.

Secondly, he misrepresents what the study is saying. Here is the full statement of the study seen in page 294 of the monograph: “Combined oral contraceptives are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). There is also conclusive evidence that these agents have a protective effect against cancers of the ovary and the endometrium.”

On page 293 the monograph notes that the basis for saying combined oral contraceptives cause cancer is that there is sufficient evidence that high dose preparations cause hepatocellular cancer. I have italicized the term high dose because the currently available preparations are not high dose preparations.

4) Inacuracies a.k.a. LIAR, LIAR, LIAR

Sotto has too many inaccuracies. I shall add only one more example here having noted his inaccuracies over the IARC monograph.

The pill Diane, which he claims his wife was taking when she got pregnant in 1975, was only available in 1978, as shown in the website entry of Bayer here.

5) Ignorance of statistical reasoning a.k.a. Really? You Studied in Harvard?

In his second speech he says this: "Kung tutuusin sa pinagawa ko sa mga staff ko, hindi pa nga umabot man lang sa kalahati ng 11 maternal deaths ang nakalap nila sa mga hospitals sa Pilipinas nung 2011 eh. For example, sa Nueva Viscaya Provincial Hospital, ang maternal deaths na naitala nila ay 2 lamang sa 2011. Let me emphasize, this is for the entire year of 2011, hindi po ito kada-araw. Sa Pangasinan Provincial Hospital, 4 lamang ang naitalang namatay sa panganganak sa nakaraang taon. Sa Batangas Regional Hospital, 7 out of 2584 deliveries ang naitala .27%. Hindi pa nga umabot sa 1%. Sa Cavite Naval Hospital, wala silang naitala na namatay sa panganganak sa taong 2011. Kaya ang hirap paniwalaan ang kanilang figure na 11 mothers die every day."

Extrapolating Sotto's numbers to a nationwide count would show that 18 mothers die a day. According to Likhaan, one of the NGOs he maligned, “Sotto failed to grasp that a small number – such as the 0.27% he calculated for Batangas and belittled – becomes large when multiplied by a huge number like the millions of births per year. If we assume that the Batangas data can be applied to all births in the country in 2011, the national figure becomes 2,385,000 births × 0.27% = 6,461 maternal deaths per year, or nearly 18 per day.” (See the computation here.)

6. Mistaking temporal contiguity for correlation and correlation as causation a.k.a. Conspiracy Theories and Witch Hunting Are So Dark Ages!

The biggest one is that because certain UN agencies and international NGOs that support reproductive health are concerned with abortion services in OTHER countries, therefore they are using the RH bill as a means to legalize abortion in the Philippines.

In his speech where he accuses my NGO, Likhaan, as pushing abortion, he flashes a few pages of our translation of the book, “Where Women Have No Doctor” from the world renowned publisher the Hesperian Foundation. Of the several hundred pages of that book, he chooses to show those where the book discusses how abortions are done.

Hesperian works with NGOs for translations of its many wonderful books and indeed, we were its partners for the Filipino translation. The translated version is faithful to the English original, because unlike Sotto, we don't censor or mistranslate other people's material. Also, last I heard, it is not a crime to discuss abortion in the Philippines.

Conspiracy theorists and witch hunters work through innuendos and insinuations. It is very difficult to protect oneself from these accusations because they essentially ask that people think the darkest and worst thoughts of other people.

Sotto is guilty indeed of failures in proper attribution, misrepresentation, logical fallacies and inaccuracies. But these things are the fruit of the lack of discipline in tracking down the real evidence; conceit in refusing to listen to the experts; narrow-mindedness in refusing to accept evidence that is contrary to his beliefs; and the low-mindedness of one who can deal in insinuation and innuendo.

Perhaps Sotto should take a break from legislative work and try to learn basic lessons of scientific reasoning and civility in argumentation. If he does, he is less likely to cause the kind of morbid fascination that we give to train wrecks, when he makes his speeches. - Rappler.com

[falken]

If Dr. Jose Rizal still alive today...I suspect that he will probably be doing a violent revolt like Andres Bonifacio instead of a peaceful one...

from: Catholic Church goes after Ateneo professors for heresy

The damasos are pissed that these professors have not been brainwashed by them.

[falken]

Sotto's selective, self-serving, error-laden, copied speeches...

Just because he got elected by some idiots, he thinks there are a lot more idiots out there that will believe all the crap he's putting out.