RH Bill - Do we really need it?

I will not speak religion here.

House Bill 4244, otherwise known as The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011 is long been talked-about proposal in the Lower House. Personally, I haven't read its full context. But what I know is, our constitution has already provided us policies for reproductive health and responsible parenthood---- and all we have to do is to fully enforce it. (Article II: "Declaration of Principles and State Policies" and Article XV: "The Family")

So, what about it? What is reproductive health?

In its plain meaning, reproductive health (RH) refers (or ought to refer) to a person's health in both body and mind, in the mature and responsible use of his or her reproductive organs and faculties; its primary concern is the safe, licit and natural generation and proper upbringing of a new human being (a child). As used in House Bill 4244, "reproductive health" is not concerned with the safe, licit and natural generation and moral upbringing of any new human being. Its main thrust is the very opposite---- how to prevent pregnancy and reproduction through contraception and sterilization. The bill, strictly speaking, is an anti-reproduction bill.

Then maybe you're wondering, "If that is true, then why are our legislators still pursuing this bill?"

First, the international society specially the United States is pressuring the government to treat the subject of population growth control as a matter of paramount importance. And when a law of population control is passed, massive funding support from international organizations will pour on our politician's pockets is guaranteed. Our RH politician's primary concern is our people's well-being aren't they? That is what they say.

Second, supporters says that this bill is needed to prevent maternal death during pregnancy and childbirth. They claim that 10 poor women die everyday from complications during pregnancy or child birth. If that is correct, can't this complications be treated or aren't these preventable? Can't our government just put the allocated fund for this bill in obstetrics care and medical personnel? It seems that they much like interested to cure child- bearing---- which is not a disease.

Another thing: safe sex. Sex without responsibility. Sex as a mere exchange of sensation or pleasure. Clearly, it destroys the main purpose of this gift - the union of man and wife sharing with each other the highest power within their nature, to become the means of transmitting new life from God the Creator. But I'm not saying that married couples have to breed like rabbits, or to have sexual intercourse at all times. Remember that man is gifted with intellect and will. And he has the power to control his urges.

Senator Francisco Tatad is right when he wrote in his article "The Truth and Half-Truths About Reproductive Health" that the State has the right to define the duties of the citizen and the duty to recognize his rights. It may tax him to its heart's content, expropriate his most valued piece of land for public use, and send him to war in defense of the flag. But it may not tell him how to live the truth of his person-hood or how to manage his personal relationship with God. The State may not tell a citizen how to think, how to feel, how to worship, how to hope, how to believe, it may not tell him how to love, and be loved, how to embrace his wife, or father her child. The State may neither promote nor prohibit the private use of contraceptives, without violating the absolute privacy of the most intimate aspect of a couple's family life. This is the clearest reason why the State cannot be a party to a program of contraception and sterilization.

While the supporters are claiming that this bill is against abortion, their bill clearly declares on Section 3 that "the government shall ensure that all women needing care for post-abortion complications shall be treated and counseled in a humane, non-judgmental and compassionate manner". We all know that abortion is illegal. Yet RH bill protects those who do this crime.

Another point from our pro-RH congressmen: Overpopulation is a hindrance for progress. Reasonable? The few aren't always richer. Macau has the highest population density in the world with 18,428 inhabitants per square km. yet they are progressive. Monaco has a population density of 16,754 inhabitants per square km. but its GDP per capita is among the highest. And let's not forget our neighbors Singapore and HongKong. Singapore with 6,489 inhabitants per square km., third highest in the world but they have the highest GDP per capita in all of Asia. HongKong with 6,407 inhabitants per square km. has GDP per capita that is second highest in Asia. I believe the problem is not overpopulation. The problem lie elsewhere. No rich couple has suddenly become poor just because they chose to have children. On the contrary, so many poor families lifted themselves from poverty because of their children.

What if the birth rate drops? Would it transform the Philippines into a welfare state? Would it make people more morally upright, less pleasure-seeking, self-indulgent and selfish? I don't think so.

"If we could correct our mistakes, and put good governance in place, then there is much hope. How people conduct themselves is the critical issue, not how many they are." -Senator Francisco Tatad