Reproductive Health Bill 5043 [MERGED]

[badkuk]

I hope that the requirement for all employers to provide reproductive health services and criminal liability for those who don't was struck. That's a stupid provision.

Typical government response for me, just like the kasambahay bill. Can't solve it? Don't have the money for it due to rampant corruption? Pass it on to the private sector

[Altis6453]

Typical government response for me, just like the kasambahay bill. Can't solve it? Don't have the money for it due to rampant corruption? Pass it on to the private sector

Yep. Just like their brilliant solution to the Martilyo Gang attacks in the malls. Can't prevent it? Ban the hammers! In fact, ban the wearing of caps and sunglasses, too!

[Monseratto]

No problem naman about those privately hospitals and owned by religious groups since the target group can't afford them. And lahat ng baby factories are goverment hospitals like Fabella...

SC says RH Law constitutional except for some provisions | News | GMA News Online

As soon as the court spokesman uttered the words "not unconstitutional," RH law supporters eagerly awaiting the decision, including former Akbayan party-list Rep. Risa Hontiveros, erupted in cheers. Also joining the pro-RH Law protesters was famed Manila tour guide Carlos Celdran.

Hontiveros said "it was great to hear the words 'not unconstitutional.'" She added her group would still be studying the possibility of asking the SC to reconsider its decision on the RH law portions declared as unconstitutional.

Soon after the announcement of the SC decision, Hontiveros and the other RH Law advocates marched down to the People's Park where they continued their celebration by chanting, singing and dancing.

In Section 7 of the law, the power of the government to oblige private hospitals and those owned by religious groups to refer patients to other facilities that offer reproductive health services was struck down.

Another provision in the same section that allows minors to avail of family planning services without parental consent if they have already given birth or suffered a miscarriage was also declared unconstitutional.

In Section 23 of the law and its implementing rules, the following provisions were declared unconstitutional:

penalties for health care providers who fail to disseminate RH information or refer patients not in an emergency and life threatening case to another health care service provider, regardless of his or her religious beliefs;

punishment for government health workers who refuse to support RH programs or provide RH services to patients, regardless of his or her religious beliefs;

penalties for health service providers that require parental consent from minor patients who are not in an emergency or serious situation;

allowing a married individual, not in an emergency or life-threatening case... to undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse

The high court also nullified portions of Section 17 on the rendering of pro-bono reproductive health services that "affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth accreditation."

[Altis6453]

Move on na daw, sabi ng mga Damaso ng CBCP.

CBCP chief: Let us move on

ABS-CBNnews.com
Posted at 04/08/2014 5:13 PM | Updated as of 04/08/2014 7:49 PM
MANILA (UPDATED) – "Let us move on."

This is the message of Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) President Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Socrates Villegas following the decision of the Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of the divisive Reproductive Health (RH) Law.

In a statement, Villegas said despite the SC decision, the church "will continue to uphold the sacredness of human life, to teach always the dignity of the human person and to safeguard the life of every human person from conception to natural death."

Villegas added the church will continue to teach what is right and moral and proclaim the beauty and holiness of every human person.

The RH Law aims to provide contraceptives to the country's poor who would not otherwise be able to afford or have access to them. The measure also mandates that *** education be taught in schools.

These contentious provisions deeply divided sectors of the country, as the Catholic Church lobbied strongly against the RH Law.

But Villegas said it is now time to move on. He also appealed to Catholics "to maintain respect and esteem for the Supreme Court."

"The Supreme Court has decided on the RH issue based on existing laws in the Philippines.

"We cannot see eye-to-eye with our pro-RH brethren on this divisive issue but we can work hand-in-hand for the good of the country. Let us move on," he said.

Villegas said the Church has survived eras of persecution, authoritarian regimes, wars and revolutions, and it can definitely continue with its mission even in the presence of "such unjust laws."

"Let us move on from being an RH-law-reactionary-group to a truly Spirit empowered disciples of the Gospel of life and love. We have a positive message to proclaim," he said.

Villegas believes that although the SC has upheld the law's constitutionality, it watered it down by striking down certain provisions.

"Although the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the RH law, it has truly watered down the RH law and consequently upheld the importance of adhering to an informed religious conscience even among government workers. It has also stood on the side of the rights of parents to teach their children," Villegas said.

The high court partially granted the petition of pro-life advocates by declaring several provisions of RH Law unconstitutional, including several provisions in Section 7.

Section 7 provides that: "All accredited public health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family planning methods, which shall also include medical consultations, supplies and necessary and reasonable procedures for poor and marginalized couples having infertility issues who desire to have children…"

The SC, however, said Sec. 7 is only unconstitutional insofar as the law "requires private health facilities and non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group to refer patients, not in an emergency or life-threatening case…to another health facility which is conveniently accessible."

Section 7's provision on "allowing minor parents or minors who have suffered a miscarriage access to modern methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or guardians" was also struck down.

Section 23.a.1 was also struck down insofar as “it punishes any health care provider who fails or refuses to disseminate information regarding programs and services on RH regardless of his or her religious beliefs.”

Section 23.a.2.1 was also declared unconstitutional only insofar as it allows “married individual, not in an emergency or life-threatening case…to undergo RH procedures without the consent of the spouse.”

Section 23.a.3 was also struck down insofar as “they punish any health care provider who fails/refuses to refer a patient not in an emergency or life-threatening case…to another health care service provider…”

Section 23.b was also dropped insofar as it punishes public officials “who refuse to support RH programs…or hinder the full implementation” of the law.

Section 23.a.2.ii was also adjudged unconstitutional insofar as “it penalizes a health service provider who will require parental consent from the minor in not emergency or serious situations.”

Another section struck down is section 17 only insofar as the rendering of pro-bono RH services will “affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth accreditation.”

Section 3.01.a and j of the IRR was also struck down since it uses the qualifier “primarily”. By using the qualifier, the law contravenes section 12, article II of the Constitution.

Tama si Miriam Defensor Santiago. Today, reason triumphed over superstition.

[niky]

Hmmm: reactions:

*In Section 7 of the law, the power of the government to oblige private hospitals and those owned by religious groups to refer patients to other facilities that offer reproductive health services was struck down. - agree with removal.

*Another provision in the same section that allows minors to avail of family planning services without parental consent if they have already given birth or suffered a miscarriage was also declared unconstitutional. - disagree with removal - If the minor has already given birth or suffered a miscarriage, then there is reason to believe that they require assistance and are not receiving the proper guidance at home.

Ergo: Either they are having *** without parental consent, in which case, it makes little sense to deny them contraceptives without it.

Or:

They are having *** with parental consent, and thus the parents are possibly accessories in aiding underage ***, which is technically against the law.

*penalties for health care providers who fail to disseminate RH information or refer patients not in an emergency and life threatening case to another health care service provider, regardless of his or her religious beliefs; - if Private, Agree with removal

*punishment for government health workers who refuse to support RH programs or provide RH services to patients, regardless of his or her religious beliefs; - Disagree with removal. The provision of government service must not hang on religious beliefs. If your religious beliefs prevent you from rendering government service, get out of the government. Or at the very least, require government health service personnel to point people towards those who will provide the services, as this is part of their job.

*penalties for health service providers that require parental consent from minor patients who are not in an emergency or serious situation; Agree with removal. On the topic of minors having ***, providing aid to such acts may fall afoul of other laws. Until this is rationalized, it is difficult to implement such things.

*allowing a married individual, not in an emergency or life-threatening case... to undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse Disagree with removal. A lot of spouses are complete assholes. Part of the RH bill's goal is woman empowerment. Let the woman have complete control and responsibility for her body, period. Damaso wins this round, stupidly.

*The high court also nullified portions of Section 17 on the rendering of pro-bono reproductive health services that "affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth accreditation." Agree with removal.

*Section 23.b was also dropped insofar as it punishes public officials “who refuse to support RH programs…or hinder the full implementation” of the law. Disagree with removal... or at least provide administrative sanctions. LGUs are supposed to support all government programs applicable in their area. Not just the ones they like. Again: If you're working in government, you do government work. Period. Don't like it? Get the hell out of the government.

The CBCP won more of this round than most people think. If the government can't enforce its own laws on its own people, this law has no legs at all. This means the RH Bill will probably have no effect in about 20-30% of the areas that really need it, or will have to be enforced by the DOH itself without LGU support.

Crap. Better than nothing, but it's still crap.

[Retz]