Aquino defies Church, backs controversial bill
Posted by quintessentialy in INQUIRER.net, Philippines.
By Anna Valmero INQUIRER.net
First Posted 17:07:00 09/28/2009 Filed Under: Politics, Health
MANILA, Philippines – Senator Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III said on Monday he remains firm in supporting the passage of House Bill 5043 or proposed Reproductive Health and Population Development Act even if it means the Catholic church and pro-life groups will not support his presidential bid for 2010.
Aquino said the bill can pave the way for parents’ education in taking responsibility for the growth of their children. The country’s population can balloon to more than 92 million, according to a forecast by the National Statistics Office.
“Whatever they say about my position on the RH bill, I am sticking to it despite the pressure from certain quarters. If I get the support or not of the Church and pro-life groups [for my presidential bid in 2010], it is secondary for my advocacy to get everybody educated on reproductive health,” he said.
“Parents must be reminded they have a responsibility with their children,” Aquino stressed. “I need not go far to see a mother with children having only 10 months gap in between and with the next generation suffering the same poor conditions.”
But even with a law on reproductive health, Aquino said parents should be given independence to decide on how many children they want and whether or not to use natural or artificial methods of contraception.
Aquino said he is not “comfortable” that the government will provide a specific budget in support of artificial family planning. “And it is not right to tell patients that only artificial methods can be used for family planning,” he added.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
Is the RH Bill Necessary?
September 7, 2009...11:41 PM
To Control Or Not to Control: Is the RH Bill Necessary?
Who will win the fiery battle on the passage of the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill now pending in both houses of Congress?
The “stubbornness” of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) hierarchy, said the proponents and supporters of the bill, hinders the passage of the said important piece of legislation, initiated in the House of Representatives by Albay 1st District Rep. Edcel C. Lagman with a counterpart bill in the Senate, authored by Sen. Rodolfo Biazon.
As of this writing, the RH bill in the Lower House is “unfinished business” while in the Senate, the Biazon bill is being reviewed, commented upon and is soon to be amended.
Last February 18, the Forum for Family Planning and Development (FFPD) and the Social Weather Station (SWS) publicized the results of the latest survey showing the “clamor” of the public, particularly the residents of Manila, for the bill’s passage.
However, the RCC’s Episcopal Commission on Family and Life (ECFL) belittled the results of the FFPD-commissioned survey, which involved 600 residents of Manila’s Districts 1 and 5. Based on 2007 data from the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB), Manila has a total population of 1.66 million,Manila had been the focus of the debates on the issues surrounding RH, especially since former Mayor and now Environment Secretary Lito L. Atienza issued Executive Order No. 003 which implicitly “bans” the sale of contraceptives such as condoms, intrauterine device (IUD), and other materials, and the provision of medical services to women suspected to have undergone abortion.
The former Manila government chief has been said to be giving cash gifts to families that have more children.
Some of the NGOs (non-government organization) working in Manila even went “underground”, said the FFPD and its partner women’s NGO, Linangan ng Kababaihan (Likhaan) Center for Women.
Fe Nicodemous, an NGO worker working closely with migrants and families of migrants, said that she had been harassed by some people allegedly connected with the former mayor when she and her colleagues were giving free contraceptives in one of the slum areas of Manila years ago.
Pro-poor or anti-poor?
Using poverty and women’s health as the primary basis for promoting the RH bill, the FFPD released on Sept. 3, 2008 its official statement the issue:
“An effective population management is the road to development. This is not a myth, but a hard fact that has been the subject of numerous researches and studies which revealed that rapid population growth has an adverse impact on economic development. It is also a fact that the very core of a sound population control lies in the implementation of a sustainable family planning program capable of providing much-needed information and supplies to those who need these,” read the first line of the position paper of the FFPD published on their official website (insert URL: http://www.forum4fp.org/html/the-forum-position-paper.html).
FFPD believes that, beyond the glaring indicators related to the current state of reproductive health in the Philippines – the high maternal mortality rate, the rising number of abortion, the increasing child mortality, the growing number of people without access to basic health and social services – the only solution is the enactment and implementation of a Reproductive Health Law that “will enable each Filipino to be accorded the right to information, the right to choose how many children to have and when to have them.”
The position paper further read, “The Forum for Family Planning and Development joins hands with other NGOS in expressing our strong support for the urgent passage of the bill on Reproductive Health. The measure goes beyond its purpose of improving reproductive health and implementing a nationwide program on family planning as it creates a path towards a sound economic policy that will improve the lives of millions of Filipino households.”
The FFPD paper added that couples, but most especially the women, should be given the freedom to choose the path they will take in raising their family.
“We have been waiting for decades for our country to honor its commitments to the world – to make real its promise to uphold our people’s right to reproductive health and family planning. While we have waited and debated for decades on the matter, our women and young girls have been suffering and thousands have lost their lives – 10 women are dying every 24 hours due to pregnancy related complications, while young girls as young as 13 years old are getting pregnant. This because they lack the information and family planning supplies that would have provided them with an option,” the FFPD’s paper further read.
However, the RCC hierarchy does not believe that a big population breeds poverty.
Earlier this year, in his New Year’s message, Pope Benedict XVI said poverty is often considered a consequence of demographic change. “For this reason, there are international campaigns afoot to reduce birth rates, sometimes using methods that respect neither the dignity of the woman, nor the right of parents to choose responsibly how many children to have; graver still, these methods often fail to respect even the right to life,” the Holy Pontiff said in his message.
Furthermore, the Holy Pontiff said there are still millions of people who had escaped from poverty despite experiencing substantial demographic growth.
Based on the 1981 statistics of world poverty incidence, 40 percent of the world’s population is in penury; however, after several years, that number had been halved, the Pope pointed out. “This achievement goes to show that resources to solve the problem of poverty do exist, even in the face of an increasing population,” the Pontiff said.
Good for or detrimental to women’s health?
While proponents and supporters of the bill say that use of artificial contraceptives do not endanger women’s overall health, there are medical experts who say it does.
Dr. Angelita Miguel-Aguirre, head of the Makati Medical Society’s Committee on Ethics, said in a statement that contraceptives inhibit and interfere with normal and healthy reproductive processes, resulting in serious complications and side effects. She added that women pay a high price for “tampering with nature.”
Lagman’s bill promotes the use of birth control pills, patch or injectable hormones, intrauterine device (IUD), barrier methods (condoms/diaphragms) and sterilization (ligation for women and vasectomy for men).
Aguirre said hormonal contraceptives such as pills, injectables (DEPO-Provera), implants and patches that contain estrogens and progestins have been classified as carcinogenic, thus raising breast, cervical and liver cancer risks, as well as increasing the possibility of premature hypertension and coronary artery disease resulting to heart attacks and strokes, and thromboembolism/pulmonary embolism.
In addition to these, decreased libido, infertility, cramps, gallstone formation, nausea and bloating are said to be the other side effects of hormonal pills.
Condoms also cannot prevent the spread of sexually-transmitted infections such as the human immune-deficiency virus (HIV) and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
The rubber comprising latex condoms has intrinsic voids about five micra whereas the HIV is only 0.1 micra. Since this is a factor of 50 smaller than the intrinsic voids, the HIV can pass through the condom, she explained.
“The condom and other barrier methods have the highest failure rate in preventing pregnancy and in protecting against sexually transmitted infections (STI) especially the human papilloma virus which is the major cause of cervical cancer in women,” said Aguirre.
However, the RH bill’s advocates say these are not true. The side effects of pills, they say, are just temporary and some of them do even prevent cervical cancer.
Will it promote promiscuity or not?
One of the fears of the conservative Church is that after the passage of the bill, promiscuity will be rampant among the youth.
Rev. Fr. Gregory D. Gaston, academic dean of the Holy Apostles Senior Seminary, Makati City, said that the RH bill seeks to establish a national family planning program that would include mandatory sex education and instruction on use of birth control for students in Grade V and higher levels in all public schools. The Catholic Church, he said, considers this “immoral”.
“The so-called sex-education programs promote promiscuity under the guise of reproductive health and reproductive rights. Children and adolescents will be taught to have satisfying and safe sexual experiences outside marriage. This is exactly the opposite of the virtues of holy purity, modesty and respect for oneself and others being taught by the Holy Church,” he said in a statement.
On the other hand, Emee Lei Albano, a Catholic and a youth advocate of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) in the Philippines, said in an interview with Bulatlat that the youth nowadays are more intelligent and responsible enough to know what is right and what is wrong for them.
“I think the RH bill will just protect them and won’t make them immoral, unlike what some people wants us to believe,” she said.
Will it solve the Philippines’ problems?
Some experts on bioethics say that while they commend efforts to improve the quality of life of the Filipino people and that they agree that there is a need to address present problems in reproductive health, they do not think House Bill No. 5043 address these in a holistic manner for it focuses mainly on pregnancy prevention.
A statement titled “Consensus Statement on Reproductive Bill 5043”, which was signed and approved by Southeast Asian Center for Bioethics, argued that while sex education is an important part in the integral development of the child, the responsibility lies first with the parents.
The statement was signed by Fr. Fausto B. Gomez, OP; Angeles T. Alora, MD; Edna Monzon, MD, president of the Catholic Physicians’ Guild of the Philippines and chairman of Faculty of Medicine and Surgery of Dominican-run University of Santo Tomas, chair of the Department of Bioethics at the University of Santo Tomas (UST) Faculty of Medicine and Surgery; Mayumi Bismark, MD, president of the Bioethics Society of the Philippines; and Mrs. Lucia V. Soltes of the Catholic Nurses Guild of the Philippines in 2008.
“Their role should be stressed. It should also involve the school with teachers who should be educated. The absence of content regarding values in the way sex education is being taught gives an impression that there is no universal value, human sexuality, not sex education, should be taught,” the statement reads.
“The program should provide information and definitions which are accurate and free of contradictions: the antiabortion stance of the bill is contraindicated by the promotion of contractive agents (IUD and hormonal contraceptives) which actually act after fertilization and are potentially abortifacient agents,” the statement further read.
“Nevertheless, clinical decisions, as permeated by RH, cannot be mandated (refusing to refer patients to family planning services based on conscientious objection is penalized) but must be left to the informed conscience of the health practitioner.”
“Human freedom is a universal right. Health professionals and educators should be free to conscientiously object without fear of penalty and sanction,” the statement stressed.
However, the FFPD and other RH advocates maintained:
We strongly believe that couples, especially women, should be given the freedom to choose the path they will take in raising their family. This is a commitment our country made several times. We affirmed this right in 1968, during the International Year for Human Rights where United Nations Member States recognized the right of individuals and couples to decide their family size.
In August 1981, the Philippines ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) which clearly upholds women’s right to reproductive health services and education. And in 1995, we again made a promise to the rest of the world to provide our people with access to reproductive health services when we signed the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Programme of Action and the Beijing Conference on Women Programme of Action.
We have been waiting for decades for our country to honor its commitments to the world – to make real its promise to uphold our people’s right to reproductive health and family planning. While we have waited and debated for decades on the matter, our women and young girls have been suffering and thousands have lost their lives – 10 women are dying every 24 hours due to pregnancy related complications, while young girls as young as 13 years old are getting pregnant. This because they lack the information and family planning supplies that would have provided them with an option.
We need to join hands for this national legislation that will bring tremendous improvements in the lives of our people. This is not about politics or religion. This is about, believing that each one of us should have the chance to live a healthy and dignified life, a human right that must be upheld regardless of one’s faith and belief.
The latest SWS survey about the acceptance of the bill showed that 71 percent of respondents are in favor of the pending RH bill, while 76 percent support the bill’s provision requiring public schools to teach family planning education. (First appeared at Bulatlat.com, February 21, 2009)
To Control Or Not to Control: Is the RH Bill Necessary?
Who will win the fiery battle on the passage of the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill now pending in both houses of Congress?
The “stubbornness” of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) hierarchy, said the proponents and supporters of the bill, hinders the passage of the said important piece of legislation, initiated in the House of Representatives by Albay 1st District Rep. Edcel C. Lagman with a counterpart bill in the Senate, authored by Sen. Rodolfo Biazon.
As of this writing, the RH bill in the Lower House is “unfinished business” while in the Senate, the Biazon bill is being reviewed, commented upon and is soon to be amended.
Last February 18, the Forum for Family Planning and Development (FFPD) and the Social Weather Station (SWS) publicized the results of the latest survey showing the “clamor” of the public, particularly the residents of Manila, for the bill’s passage.
However, the RCC’s Episcopal Commission on Family and Life (ECFL) belittled the results of the FFPD-commissioned survey, which involved 600 residents of Manila’s Districts 1 and 5. Based on 2007 data from the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB), Manila has a total population of 1.66 million,Manila had been the focus of the debates on the issues surrounding RH, especially since former Mayor and now Environment Secretary Lito L. Atienza issued Executive Order No. 003 which implicitly “bans” the sale of contraceptives such as condoms, intrauterine device (IUD), and other materials, and the provision of medical services to women suspected to have undergone abortion.
The former Manila government chief has been said to be giving cash gifts to families that have more children.
Some of the NGOs (non-government organization) working in Manila even went “underground”, said the FFPD and its partner women’s NGO, Linangan ng Kababaihan (Likhaan) Center for Women.
Fe Nicodemous, an NGO worker working closely with migrants and families of migrants, said that she had been harassed by some people allegedly connected with the former mayor when she and her colleagues were giving free contraceptives in one of the slum areas of Manila years ago.
Pro-poor or anti-poor?
Using poverty and women’s health as the primary basis for promoting the RH bill, the FFPD released on Sept. 3, 2008 its official statement the issue:
“An effective population management is the road to development. This is not a myth, but a hard fact that has been the subject of numerous researches and studies which revealed that rapid population growth has an adverse impact on economic development. It is also a fact that the very core of a sound population control lies in the implementation of a sustainable family planning program capable of providing much-needed information and supplies to those who need these,” read the first line of the position paper of the FFPD published on their official website (insert URL: http://www.forum4fp.org/html/the-forum-position-paper.html).
FFPD believes that, beyond the glaring indicators related to the current state of reproductive health in the Philippines – the high maternal mortality rate, the rising number of abortion, the increasing child mortality, the growing number of people without access to basic health and social services – the only solution is the enactment and implementation of a Reproductive Health Law that “will enable each Filipino to be accorded the right to information, the right to choose how many children to have and when to have them.”
The position paper further read, “The Forum for Family Planning and Development joins hands with other NGOS in expressing our strong support for the urgent passage of the bill on Reproductive Health. The measure goes beyond its purpose of improving reproductive health and implementing a nationwide program on family planning as it creates a path towards a sound economic policy that will improve the lives of millions of Filipino households.”
The FFPD paper added that couples, but most especially the women, should be given the freedom to choose the path they will take in raising their family.
“We have been waiting for decades for our country to honor its commitments to the world – to make real its promise to uphold our people’s right to reproductive health and family planning. While we have waited and debated for decades on the matter, our women and young girls have been suffering and thousands have lost their lives – 10 women are dying every 24 hours due to pregnancy related complications, while young girls as young as 13 years old are getting pregnant. This because they lack the information and family planning supplies that would have provided them with an option,” the FFPD’s paper further read.
However, the RCC hierarchy does not believe that a big population breeds poverty.
Earlier this year, in his New Year’s message, Pope Benedict XVI said poverty is often considered a consequence of demographic change. “For this reason, there are international campaigns afoot to reduce birth rates, sometimes using methods that respect neither the dignity of the woman, nor the right of parents to choose responsibly how many children to have; graver still, these methods often fail to respect even the right to life,” the Holy Pontiff said in his message.
Furthermore, the Holy Pontiff said there are still millions of people who had escaped from poverty despite experiencing substantial demographic growth.
Based on the 1981 statistics of world poverty incidence, 40 percent of the world’s population is in penury; however, after several years, that number had been halved, the Pope pointed out. “This achievement goes to show that resources to solve the problem of poverty do exist, even in the face of an increasing population,” the Pontiff said.
Good for or detrimental to women’s health?
While proponents and supporters of the bill say that use of artificial contraceptives do not endanger women’s overall health, there are medical experts who say it does.
Dr. Angelita Miguel-Aguirre, head of the Makati Medical Society’s Committee on Ethics, said in a statement that contraceptives inhibit and interfere with normal and healthy reproductive processes, resulting in serious complications and side effects. She added that women pay a high price for “tampering with nature.”
Lagman’s bill promotes the use of birth control pills, patch or injectable hormones, intrauterine device (IUD), barrier methods (condoms/diaphragms) and sterilization (ligation for women and vasectomy for men).
Aguirre said hormonal contraceptives such as pills, injectables (DEPO-Provera), implants and patches that contain estrogens and progestins have been classified as carcinogenic, thus raising breast, cervical and liver cancer risks, as well as increasing the possibility of premature hypertension and coronary artery disease resulting to heart attacks and strokes, and thromboembolism/pulmonary embolism.
In addition to these, decreased libido, infertility, cramps, gallstone formation, nausea and bloating are said to be the other side effects of hormonal pills.
Condoms also cannot prevent the spread of sexually-transmitted infections such as the human immune-deficiency virus (HIV) and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
The rubber comprising latex condoms has intrinsic voids about five micra whereas the HIV is only 0.1 micra. Since this is a factor of 50 smaller than the intrinsic voids, the HIV can pass through the condom, she explained.
“The condom and other barrier methods have the highest failure rate in preventing pregnancy and in protecting against sexually transmitted infections (STI) especially the human papilloma virus which is the major cause of cervical cancer in women,” said Aguirre.
However, the RH bill’s advocates say these are not true. The side effects of pills, they say, are just temporary and some of them do even prevent cervical cancer.
Will it promote promiscuity or not?
One of the fears of the conservative Church is that after the passage of the bill, promiscuity will be rampant among the youth.
Rev. Fr. Gregory D. Gaston, academic dean of the Holy Apostles Senior Seminary, Makati City, said that the RH bill seeks to establish a national family planning program that would include mandatory sex education and instruction on use of birth control for students in Grade V and higher levels in all public schools. The Catholic Church, he said, considers this “immoral”.
“The so-called sex-education programs promote promiscuity under the guise of reproductive health and reproductive rights. Children and adolescents will be taught to have satisfying and safe sexual experiences outside marriage. This is exactly the opposite of the virtues of holy purity, modesty and respect for oneself and others being taught by the Holy Church,” he said in a statement.
On the other hand, Emee Lei Albano, a Catholic and a youth advocate of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) in the Philippines, said in an interview with Bulatlat that the youth nowadays are more intelligent and responsible enough to know what is right and what is wrong for them.
“I think the RH bill will just protect them and won’t make them immoral, unlike what some people wants us to believe,” she said.
Will it solve the Philippines’ problems?
Some experts on bioethics say that while they commend efforts to improve the quality of life of the Filipino people and that they agree that there is a need to address present problems in reproductive health, they do not think House Bill No. 5043 address these in a holistic manner for it focuses mainly on pregnancy prevention.
A statement titled “Consensus Statement on Reproductive Bill 5043”, which was signed and approved by Southeast Asian Center for Bioethics, argued that while sex education is an important part in the integral development of the child, the responsibility lies first with the parents.
The statement was signed by Fr. Fausto B. Gomez, OP; Angeles T. Alora, MD; Edna Monzon, MD, president of the Catholic Physicians’ Guild of the Philippines and chairman of Faculty of Medicine and Surgery of Dominican-run University of Santo Tomas, chair of the Department of Bioethics at the University of Santo Tomas (UST) Faculty of Medicine and Surgery; Mayumi Bismark, MD, president of the Bioethics Society of the Philippines; and Mrs. Lucia V. Soltes of the Catholic Nurses Guild of the Philippines in 2008.
“Their role should be stressed. It should also involve the school with teachers who should be educated. The absence of content regarding values in the way sex education is being taught gives an impression that there is no universal value, human sexuality, not sex education, should be taught,” the statement reads.
“The program should provide information and definitions which are accurate and free of contradictions: the antiabortion stance of the bill is contraindicated by the promotion of contractive agents (IUD and hormonal contraceptives) which actually act after fertilization and are potentially abortifacient agents,” the statement further read.
“Nevertheless, clinical decisions, as permeated by RH, cannot be mandated (refusing to refer patients to family planning services based on conscientious objection is penalized) but must be left to the informed conscience of the health practitioner.”
“Human freedom is a universal right. Health professionals and educators should be free to conscientiously object without fear of penalty and sanction,” the statement stressed.
However, the FFPD and other RH advocates maintained:
We strongly believe that couples, especially women, should be given the freedom to choose the path they will take in raising their family. This is a commitment our country made several times. We affirmed this right in 1968, during the International Year for Human Rights where United Nations Member States recognized the right of individuals and couples to decide their family size.
In August 1981, the Philippines ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) which clearly upholds women’s right to reproductive health services and education. And in 1995, we again made a promise to the rest of the world to provide our people with access to reproductive health services when we signed the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Programme of Action and the Beijing Conference on Women Programme of Action.
We have been waiting for decades for our country to honor its commitments to the world – to make real its promise to uphold our people’s right to reproductive health and family planning. While we have waited and debated for decades on the matter, our women and young girls have been suffering and thousands have lost their lives – 10 women are dying every 24 hours due to pregnancy related complications, while young girls as young as 13 years old are getting pregnant. This because they lack the information and family planning supplies that would have provided them with an option.
We need to join hands for this national legislation that will bring tremendous improvements in the lives of our people. This is not about politics or religion. This is about, believing that each one of us should have the chance to live a healthy and dignified life, a human right that must be upheld regardless of one’s faith and belief.
The latest SWS survey about the acceptance of the bill showed that 71 percent of respondents are in favor of the pending RH bill, while 76 percent support the bill’s provision requiring public schools to teach family planning education. (First appeared at Bulatlat.com, February 21, 2009)
Monday, July 20, 2009
The Pope and the President's meeting
Washington DC - Jon O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, issued the following statement about the meeting today between President Barack Obama and Pope Benedict XVI in Rome.
"In the last few weeks, many have speculated about the first meeting between President Barack Obama and Pope Benedict XVI. We at Catholics for Choice have repeatedly been asked about our take on this meeting. Certainly, for US Catholics it is an exciting moment to see our pope and our president meet.
"It is worth noting, however, that earlier this week, in his social encyclical 'Caritas in Veritate,' Pope Benedict claimed that the church does not "interfere in any way in the politics of States." These words are especially pertinent for Friday's meeting.
"While both men are world leaders, the pope and the president maintain distinctly different roles as a religious leader and a political leader, respectively. We must be clear that the pope does not command the same type of global responsibility as a member of the Group of Eight, such as the United States, and to expect G8-type political outcomes from this meeting would be unrealistic and wrong.
"Although Pope Benedict and President Obama play different roles in the world, there are undoubtedly valuable issues that the two men can and should discuss. Taking even a quick look at this week's encyclical, one will find many examples of the similar outlooks the two leaders share on issues pertaining to poverty, the rights of immigrants and the benefits of scientific progress. Both men strive for an end to war and hunger. Both aim to safeguard the environment and protect religious freedoms. The pope may have the moral stature to promote these causes but the president has the political power to effect change at a policy level.
"The common views the pope and president share affect the lives of people in the US and around the world, especially those living in poverty. As such, it would be beneficial for them to discuss these issues. With several wars on and financial crises overwhelming us, it is always positive when people of good will and good intent can agree, discuss and inspire one another to work even harder to better our world.
"At their meeting, President Obama certainly need not lecture the pope about the inner workings of the Catholic church. It is a widely known fact that Catholics the world over disagree with the dictates of the Vatican on issues pertaining to sexual and reproductive health and rights. Catholics must let the pope and other members of the church hierarchy know that the Vatican is out of touch, the teachings are flawed and that people suffer as a result. That message need not come from President Obama; rather, it is up to Catholics to raise these concerns..
"In the same vein, Pope Benedict should not lecture the president about the needs of people in the US. This nation was founded by those who suffered from religious persecution and fled to America to be free to practice religion as they saw fit. It is therefore no surprise that the separation of church and state was and continues to be a cornerstone of US democracy. Politics should not interfere with religion nor should religion interfere with politics. People of every religion and no religion should be equally represented; freedom of religion and freedom from religion must be guaranteed. With this in mind, the pope should not feel the need to lecture President Obama on matters of internal US policy.
"However, recent evidence suggests that the pope's claims that church does not "interfere in any way in the politics of States" are more than a little disingenuous.
"In the United States alone, we have several examples. Take, for instance, when the US bishops successfully lobbied to strip life-saving family planning measures from the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) bill. Moreover, the bishops continue to lobby for conscience clauses (or, more correctly, refusal clauses) that protect entire institutions- not individuals- and exclude abortion and contraception from healthcare reform. Both measures would limit access to vital reproductive healthcare services.. These are all classic examples of how the pope, through the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, interferes in US politics.
"When Pope Benedict and President Obama meet, the president should not tell the pope how to run his church nor should the pope tell the president how to run his country. In reality, this meeting is more about symbolism and respect for each other and the institutions they represent than anything else. As Pope Benedict is a religious leader and does not take on the responsibilities that President Obama has as a political leader, we cannot and should not expect any substantial outcomes. However, the two men can definitely discuss what they agree on and inspire one another to move forward doing good work."
Post-Meeting Update
The meeting today between Pope Benedict XVI and President Obama was, by all accounts, cordial, despite the fact that the two men discussed many issues, some of which they agree about, others not.
According to the Vatican’s chief spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, SJ, their conversation started with “the defense and promotion of life and the right to abide by one’s conscience,” and also encompassed a host of other topics including the Middle East peace process, the economic crisis, food security and immigration.
They are both men of principle who are convinced that the policies they support are the correct ones. While there are many issues on which they agree, it is refreshing to see that it is possible to have discussions about abortion and stem-cell research that do not descend into shrill protests.
The pope and the president’s cordial meeting should be an example to the loud minority that opposed the very idea of Obama’s presence at the University of Notre Dame in the US earlier this year.
It is also very refreshing to hear that the pope acknowledged the importance of conscience in making decisions that have ethical and moral consequences. Catholic teachings place a high value on an individual’s conscience, and we hope that the reference to this teaching reminds the pope, the president and everybody else to respect the conscientious decisions of others.
Source: Press Release by Catholics for Choice 10 July 2009
http://www.cath4cho ice.org/PopeMeet sObama.asp
"In the last few weeks, many have speculated about the first meeting between President Barack Obama and Pope Benedict XVI. We at Catholics for Choice have repeatedly been asked about our take on this meeting. Certainly, for US Catholics it is an exciting moment to see our pope and our president meet.
"It is worth noting, however, that earlier this week, in his social encyclical 'Caritas in Veritate,' Pope Benedict claimed that the church does not "interfere in any way in the politics of States." These words are especially pertinent for Friday's meeting.
"While both men are world leaders, the pope and the president maintain distinctly different roles as a religious leader and a political leader, respectively. We must be clear that the pope does not command the same type of global responsibility as a member of the Group of Eight, such as the United States, and to expect G8-type political outcomes from this meeting would be unrealistic and wrong.
"Although Pope Benedict and President Obama play different roles in the world, there are undoubtedly valuable issues that the two men can and should discuss. Taking even a quick look at this week's encyclical, one will find many examples of the similar outlooks the two leaders share on issues pertaining to poverty, the rights of immigrants and the benefits of scientific progress. Both men strive for an end to war and hunger. Both aim to safeguard the environment and protect religious freedoms. The pope may have the moral stature to promote these causes but the president has the political power to effect change at a policy level.
"The common views the pope and president share affect the lives of people in the US and around the world, especially those living in poverty. As such, it would be beneficial for them to discuss these issues. With several wars on and financial crises overwhelming us, it is always positive when people of good will and good intent can agree, discuss and inspire one another to work even harder to better our world.
"At their meeting, President Obama certainly need not lecture the pope about the inner workings of the Catholic church. It is a widely known fact that Catholics the world over disagree with the dictates of the Vatican on issues pertaining to sexual and reproductive health and rights. Catholics must let the pope and other members of the church hierarchy know that the Vatican is out of touch, the teachings are flawed and that people suffer as a result. That message need not come from President Obama; rather, it is up to Catholics to raise these concerns..
"In the same vein, Pope Benedict should not lecture the president about the needs of people in the US. This nation was founded by those who suffered from religious persecution and fled to America to be free to practice religion as they saw fit. It is therefore no surprise that the separation of church and state was and continues to be a cornerstone of US democracy. Politics should not interfere with religion nor should religion interfere with politics. People of every religion and no religion should be equally represented; freedom of religion and freedom from religion must be guaranteed. With this in mind, the pope should not feel the need to lecture President Obama on matters of internal US policy.
"However, recent evidence suggests that the pope's claims that church does not "interfere in any way in the politics of States" are more than a little disingenuous.
"In the United States alone, we have several examples. Take, for instance, when the US bishops successfully lobbied to strip life-saving family planning measures from the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) bill. Moreover, the bishops continue to lobby for conscience clauses (or, more correctly, refusal clauses) that protect entire institutions- not individuals- and exclude abortion and contraception from healthcare reform. Both measures would limit access to vital reproductive healthcare services.. These are all classic examples of how the pope, through the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, interferes in US politics.
"When Pope Benedict and President Obama meet, the president should not tell the pope how to run his church nor should the pope tell the president how to run his country. In reality, this meeting is more about symbolism and respect for each other and the institutions they represent than anything else. As Pope Benedict is a religious leader and does not take on the responsibilities that President Obama has as a political leader, we cannot and should not expect any substantial outcomes. However, the two men can definitely discuss what they agree on and inspire one another to move forward doing good work."
Post-Meeting Update
The meeting today between Pope Benedict XVI and President Obama was, by all accounts, cordial, despite the fact that the two men discussed many issues, some of which they agree about, others not.
According to the Vatican’s chief spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, SJ, their conversation started with “the defense and promotion of life and the right to abide by one’s conscience,” and also encompassed a host of other topics including the Middle East peace process, the economic crisis, food security and immigration.
They are both men of principle who are convinced that the policies they support are the correct ones. While there are many issues on which they agree, it is refreshing to see that it is possible to have discussions about abortion and stem-cell research that do not descend into shrill protests.
The pope and the president’s cordial meeting should be an example to the loud minority that opposed the very idea of Obama’s presence at the University of Notre Dame in the US earlier this year.
It is also very refreshing to hear that the pope acknowledged the importance of conscience in making decisions that have ethical and moral consequences. Catholic teachings place a high value on an individual’s conscience, and we hope that the reference to this teaching reminds the pope, the president and everybody else to respect the conscientious decisions of others.
Source: Press Release by Catholics for Choice 10 July 2009
http://www.cath4cho ice.org/PopeMeet sObama.asp
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
76% want FP Educ in School; 71 Favor Passage RH Bill
taken from the SWS website: http://www.sws.org.ph/
16 October 2008
Third Quarter 2008 Social Weather Survey:
76% Want Family Planning Education in Public Schools;
71% Favor Passage of the Reproductive Health Bill
Social Weather Stations
Seventy-six percent of adult Filipinos want family planning education in the public schools, and 71% favor passage of the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill, according to the Third Quarter 2008 Social Weather Survey, done on September 24-27, 2008.
Support for the RH Bill is an overwhelming 84% among those previously aware of the bill, and a majority 59% among those who became aware of it on account of the survey.
Support for both family planning education and for passage of the RH Bill is very high among both Catholics and non-Catholics. Regularity of church-going, and trust in the Catholic church, have no effect on support for the RH Bill.
Support for family planning education and for passage of the RH Bill is very high among both men and women, whether single or married, in all areas of the country, and among all socioeconomic classes.
76% want family planning education for youth
To the test statement, “There should be a law that requires government to teach family planning to the youth”, 76% agreed, and only 10% disagreed [Table 1].
Support for family planning is high in all areas: agreement is 78% in Balance Luzon, 77% in the Visayas, 76% in Metro Manila, and 72% in Mindanao.
It is also high across socioeconomic classes: 78% in class ABC, 78% in class D, and 71% among class E.
71% favor the passage of the RH Bill
The September 2008 survey found 46% already aware of the RH Bill prior to the survey. The balance of 54% learned about it on account of the survey [Table 2].
Prior awareness of the RH Bill is 54% in Metro Manila, 47% in Balance Luzon, 44% in Mindanao, and 42% in the Visayas. It is higher in the upper-to-middle class ABC (69%) than in class D (45%) and class E (41%).
Regardless of whether they knew of the bill before, or learned of it during the interview, the survey asked all respondents if they favor it or not, and found 71% in favor, 21% undecided, and only 8% opposed [Table 3].
Those in favor of the RH Bill are 78% in Metro Manila, 72% in Mindanao, 69% in Balance Luzon, and 68% in the Visayas. They are 77% in class ABC, 70% in class D, and also 70% in class E.
Support for the passage of the RH Bill among those previously aware of it is an overwhelming 84%, and is a majority 59% among those who learned of it because of the survey [Table 4].
Family planning education and RH Bill supported by Catholic and non-Catholics
Seventy-six percent of Catholics and 78% of non-Catholics support family planning education for the youth. Such support is high regardless of frequency of church-going, and regardless of trust in the Catholic church [Table 5].
Awareness of the RH Bill, and public support for it, do not vary by religion, regularity of church-going, and trust in the Catholic church [Tables 6 and 7]. Seven out of ten Catholics (71%) and non-Catholics (68%) favor the passage of the RH Bill.
Men and women, single or married, support family planning education and the RH Bill
Three out of four men (75%) and women (77%) support having a law requiring family planning education for the youth. The support is equally high among singles and marrieds [Table 8].
Prior awareness of the RH Bill is slightly higher among women (50%) than men (42%), but support for it is equally high among men (70%) and women (71%), regardless of marital status [Tables 9 and 10].
Support for family planning education is high even among those against the RH Bill
The September 2008 survey found that support for family planning education is four out of five among those who favor the passage of the RH Bill (80% agree), and two out of three among those not in favor (68% agree) and those undecided (65% agree) [Table 11].
Survey Background
The Third Quarter of 2008 Social Weather Survey was conducted over September 24-27, 2008 using face-to-face interviews of 1,500 adults divided into random samples of 300 each in Metro Manila, Visayas, and Mindanao, and 600 in Balance Luzon (sampling error margins of ±2.5% for national percentages and ±6% for Metro Manila, Visayas, and Mindanao, and ±4% for Balance Luzon). The area estimates were weighted by National Statistics Office medium-population projections for 2008 to obtain the national estimates.
The Social Weather Survey on Reproductive Health Bill is a non-commissioned item, and is included on SWS’s own initiative and released as a public service, with first printing rights assigned to BusinessWorld.
16 October 2008
Third Quarter 2008 Social Weather Survey:
76% Want Family Planning Education in Public Schools;
71% Favor Passage of the Reproductive Health Bill
Social Weather Stations
Seventy-six percent of adult Filipinos want family planning education in the public schools, and 71% favor passage of the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill, according to the Third Quarter 2008 Social Weather Survey, done on September 24-27, 2008.
Support for the RH Bill is an overwhelming 84% among those previously aware of the bill, and a majority 59% among those who became aware of it on account of the survey.
Support for both family planning education and for passage of the RH Bill is very high among both Catholics and non-Catholics. Regularity of church-going, and trust in the Catholic church, have no effect on support for the RH Bill.
Support for family planning education and for passage of the RH Bill is very high among both men and women, whether single or married, in all areas of the country, and among all socioeconomic classes.
76% want family planning education for youth
To the test statement, “There should be a law that requires government to teach family planning to the youth”, 76% agreed, and only 10% disagreed [Table 1].
Support for family planning is high in all areas: agreement is 78% in Balance Luzon, 77% in the Visayas, 76% in Metro Manila, and 72% in Mindanao.
It is also high across socioeconomic classes: 78% in class ABC, 78% in class D, and 71% among class E.
71% favor the passage of the RH Bill
The September 2008 survey found 46% already aware of the RH Bill prior to the survey. The balance of 54% learned about it on account of the survey [Table 2].
Prior awareness of the RH Bill is 54% in Metro Manila, 47% in Balance Luzon, 44% in Mindanao, and 42% in the Visayas. It is higher in the upper-to-middle class ABC (69%) than in class D (45%) and class E (41%).
Regardless of whether they knew of the bill before, or learned of it during the interview, the survey asked all respondents if they favor it or not, and found 71% in favor, 21% undecided, and only 8% opposed [Table 3].
Those in favor of the RH Bill are 78% in Metro Manila, 72% in Mindanao, 69% in Balance Luzon, and 68% in the Visayas. They are 77% in class ABC, 70% in class D, and also 70% in class E.
Support for the passage of the RH Bill among those previously aware of it is an overwhelming 84%, and is a majority 59% among those who learned of it because of the survey [Table 4].
Family planning education and RH Bill supported by Catholic and non-Catholics
Seventy-six percent of Catholics and 78% of non-Catholics support family planning education for the youth. Such support is high regardless of frequency of church-going, and regardless of trust in the Catholic church [Table 5].
Awareness of the RH Bill, and public support for it, do not vary by religion, regularity of church-going, and trust in the Catholic church [Tables 6 and 7]. Seven out of ten Catholics (71%) and non-Catholics (68%) favor the passage of the RH Bill.
Men and women, single or married, support family planning education and the RH Bill
Three out of four men (75%) and women (77%) support having a law requiring family planning education for the youth. The support is equally high among singles and marrieds [Table 8].
Prior awareness of the RH Bill is slightly higher among women (50%) than men (42%), but support for it is equally high among men (70%) and women (71%), regardless of marital status [Tables 9 and 10].
Support for family planning education is high even among those against the RH Bill
The September 2008 survey found that support for family planning education is four out of five among those who favor the passage of the RH Bill (80% agree), and two out of three among those not in favor (68% agree) and those undecided (65% agree) [Table 11].
Survey Background
The Third Quarter of 2008 Social Weather Survey was conducted over September 24-27, 2008 using face-to-face interviews of 1,500 adults divided into random samples of 300 each in Metro Manila, Visayas, and Mindanao, and 600 in Balance Luzon (sampling error margins of ±2.5% for national percentages and ±6% for Metro Manila, Visayas, and Mindanao, and ±4% for Balance Luzon). The area estimates were weighted by National Statistics Office medium-population projections for 2008 to obtain the national estimates.
The Social Weather Survey on Reproductive Health Bill is a non-commissioned item, and is included on SWS’s own initiative and released as a public service, with first printing rights assigned to BusinessWorld.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Quality Life is a Choice!
I believe Quality Life is Choice! of course not yet for children . . . they are still helpless and are dependent on the parents/adults around them.
Quality of Life will defer from one person to another and different from the rich and to the poor.As one goes up the ladder, his/her "needs", plus the "wants" will also increase. But for the poor, they are already contended with the very basics in life ... food, shelter and clothing but at least education, health/hospitalization, must be met, aside from the physiological needs.)
Quality Life is a CHOICE! and attainable ... if one is determine! knows how to manage their life,if one is RESPONSIBLE and accountable of their decisions and actions!
A young adult, even if she comes from a poor family who could not send her to school, can still be in sch, if she can sacrifice to be a working student,focus on her studies and work after and help her family siblings first and settle down only when READY. More likely this person will have a better quality of life compared to one who did not seek look for better ways to improve their life, worst if she settle down early and be dependent on a poor parent and a jobless + abusive partner who might just leave her.
Even if a couple is just renting small room in a squatters area,if they will only have one or two children educate and guide them and work hard ... eventualy they can be out in that squatters area and will have at least a better quality of life.
To attain a better quality of Life ... is really a Choice! but I think the government should also help the poor in attaining quality of life, by providing them the needed Reproductive Health education, programs and services
Quality of Life will defer from one person to another and different from the rich and to the poor.As one goes up the ladder, his/her "needs", plus the "wants" will also increase. But for the poor, they are already contended with the very basics in life ... food, shelter and clothing but at least education, health/hospitalization, must be met, aside from the physiological needs.)
Quality Life is a CHOICE! and attainable ... if one is determine! knows how to manage their life,if one is RESPONSIBLE and accountable of their decisions and actions!
A young adult, even if she comes from a poor family who could not send her to school, can still be in sch, if she can sacrifice to be a working student,focus on her studies and work after and help her family siblings first and settle down only when READY. More likely this person will have a better quality of life compared to one who did not seek look for better ways to improve their life, worst if she settle down early and be dependent on a poor parent and a jobless + abusive partner who might just leave her.
Even if a couple is just renting small room in a squatters area,if they will only have one or two children educate and guide them and work hard ... eventualy they can be out in that squatters area and will have at least a better quality of life.
To attain a better quality of Life ... is really a Choice! but I think the government should also help the poor in attaining quality of life, by providing them the needed Reproductive Health education, programs and services
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Catholics4 Reproductive Health
For people to know Why there there are Catholics who are OPENLY supporting RH, because many Catholics who are supporters are just "SILENT"!
-----------------------------------------
Pledge of Commitment and Support
to The Catholics for Reproductive Health (C4RH-Cebu)
I believe in the sanctity and dignity of human life. I believe that Reproductive Health will save lives and improve the quality of life of the poor and marginalized women, children, adolescent and youth and people under threat of reproductive health infections and diseases;
I believe in compassion and social justice. I believe that reproductive health will enable us to respond to those who are in most need of counseling, care and support especially among the poor, vulnerable, and weakest members of our society and in the process alleviate further poverty and helplessness;
I believe in truth telling, openness and transparency. I believe that accurate information about reproductive health should be given to the public and not be distorted by religious and laity alike;
I believe in being God’s steward on earth and that Reproductive Health will promote pro-quality of life, responsible decision-making and affirmation of the goodness of the human being;
I believe that reproductive health is consistent with our faith as Catholics and that the time has come to speak up in support of the passage of the reproductive health bill;
By signing this pledge of commitment and support, I declare my involvement to speak up and openly support the passage of a national Reproductive Health Bill and similar local ordinances which will promote the common good and advance Catholic values that binds us together in faith and love.
“I am a Catholic and I support the right to Reproductive Health.”
Please submit the signed portion below to any of the C4RH member or to the Secretariat:
c /o Frohnie D. Cagalitan PRO QUALITY LIFE Training & Dev’t. 1-93 J. Osmeña Ext. Cebu City.
Tel 2590989 TelFax 4166084; Mobile: 09275719399; e-add: proqualitylife@gmail.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name and Signature: _________________________________________________________
Home Address: _____________________________________________________________
Telephone number:__________________________ Mobile number: ________________
Email: ______________________________________ Birthday: _______________________
Occupation: ________________________________ Sex: ________ Civil Status: _______
Organization: _________________________________ Tel: __________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________________________
-----------------------------------------
Pledge of Commitment and Support
to The Catholics for Reproductive Health (C4RH-Cebu)
I believe in the sanctity and dignity of human life. I believe that Reproductive Health will save lives and improve the quality of life of the poor and marginalized women, children, adolescent and youth and people under threat of reproductive health infections and diseases;
I believe in compassion and social justice. I believe that reproductive health will enable us to respond to those who are in most need of counseling, care and support especially among the poor, vulnerable, and weakest members of our society and in the process alleviate further poverty and helplessness;
I believe in truth telling, openness and transparency. I believe that accurate information about reproductive health should be given to the public and not be distorted by religious and laity alike;
I believe in being God’s steward on earth and that Reproductive Health will promote pro-quality of life, responsible decision-making and affirmation of the goodness of the human being;
I believe that reproductive health is consistent with our faith as Catholics and that the time has come to speak up in support of the passage of the reproductive health bill;
By signing this pledge of commitment and support, I declare my involvement to speak up and openly support the passage of a national Reproductive Health Bill and similar local ordinances which will promote the common good and advance Catholic values that binds us together in faith and love.
“I am a Catholic and I support the right to Reproductive Health.”
Please submit the signed portion below to any of the C4RH member or to the Secretariat:
c /o Frohnie D. Cagalitan PRO QUALITY LIFE Training & Dev’t. 1-93 J. Osmeña Ext. Cebu City.
Tel 2590989 TelFax 4166084; Mobile: 09275719399; e-add: proqualitylife@gmail.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name and Signature: _________________________________________________________
Home Address: _____________________________________________________________
Telephone number:__________________________ Mobile number: ________________
Email: ______________________________________ Birthday: _______________________
Occupation: ________________________________ Sex: ________ Civil Status: _______
Organization: _________________________________ Tel: __________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________________________
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Business World Vol. XXII, No. 181
Friday, April 17, 2009 | MANILA, PHILIPPINES
The Nation
PHILIPPINE SENATE STARTS PLENARY DEBATES ON POPULATION MEASURE
THE SENATE started to tackle a controversial population control bill called reproductive health on Wednesday amid continuing objections by the Catholic Church.
With provisions similar to that of the House counterpart bill that is a few votes shy of being endorsed by a majority of congressmen, the Senate version is targeted to be approved before Congress adjourns its second regular session on June 5, Majority Leader Juan Miguel F. Zubiri said Wednesday evening.
The committee on health and demography recommended the approval of Senate Bill 3122, a measure that consolidated five proposals, to improve the quality of life of Filipinos.
"A genuine reproductive health policy will ensure that no woman will have to face a horrific situation in which she will have to choose between her life and her child’s. Promoting family planning practice along with making sure that all Filipino families will have access to all acceptable family planning methods will reduce unintended pregnancies," said Senator Rodolfo G. Biazon, principal sponsor of the "Reproductive Health Care Act of 2009."
He said modern family planning methods such as hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices and injectables will be made available in government hospitals and classified as so-called essential medicine.
The bill would require local government units to deploy a minimum of one full-time skilled birth attendant for every 150 deliveries per year, while each province and city will have a hospital equipped with emergency obstetric care supplies and services.
An annual maternal death review would monitor death rates. Sexuality education would be taught by teachers to fifth grade and high school students. Barangay health workers will also undergo training to promote reproductive health.
"This bill does not encourage nor promote abortion. It does not impose a national policy on the freedom of couples to make choices," Mr. Biazon said. "This bill is about providing informed choice through an education and information program. It is about making available reproductive health care services and supplies to our people, especially to those who need it most."
He said adopting a reproductive health policy would minimize rapid population growth which "impedes economic growth."
Although the June 5 target approval for the bill has been set, Mr. Zubiri said he was noncommittal if majority of his colleagues would favor the "controversial" proposal.
"It’s a very important measure that needs to be discussed lengthily and with clarity. It’s a very controversial measure. We will take it up everyday," said Mr. Zubiri in an interview.
"I want to strengthen the portion that abortion should not be allowed. It’s an illegal act," he added.
The counterpart measure, House Bill 5043 authored by Albay Rep. Edcel C. Lagman (1st district), is up for approval on second reading. It was identified as one of the chamber’s priority bills. — Bernard U. Allauigan
Friday, April 17, 2009 | MANILA, PHILIPPINES
The Nation
PHILIPPINE SENATE STARTS PLENARY DEBATES ON POPULATION MEASURE
THE SENATE started to tackle a controversial population control bill called reproductive health on Wednesday amid continuing objections by the Catholic Church.
With provisions similar to that of the House counterpart bill that is a few votes shy of being endorsed by a majority of congressmen, the Senate version is targeted to be approved before Congress adjourns its second regular session on June 5, Majority Leader Juan Miguel F. Zubiri said Wednesday evening.
The committee on health and demography recommended the approval of Senate Bill 3122, a measure that consolidated five proposals, to improve the quality of life of Filipinos.
"A genuine reproductive health policy will ensure that no woman will have to face a horrific situation in which she will have to choose between her life and her child’s. Promoting family planning practice along with making sure that all Filipino families will have access to all acceptable family planning methods will reduce unintended pregnancies," said Senator Rodolfo G. Biazon, principal sponsor of the "Reproductive Health Care Act of 2009."
He said modern family planning methods such as hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices and injectables will be made available in government hospitals and classified as so-called essential medicine.
The bill would require local government units to deploy a minimum of one full-time skilled birth attendant for every 150 deliveries per year, while each province and city will have a hospital equipped with emergency obstetric care supplies and services.
An annual maternal death review would monitor death rates. Sexuality education would be taught by teachers to fifth grade and high school students. Barangay health workers will also undergo training to promote reproductive health.
"This bill does not encourage nor promote abortion. It does not impose a national policy on the freedom of couples to make choices," Mr. Biazon said. "This bill is about providing informed choice through an education and information program. It is about making available reproductive health care services and supplies to our people, especially to those who need it most."
He said adopting a reproductive health policy would minimize rapid population growth which "impedes economic growth."
Although the June 5 target approval for the bill has been set, Mr. Zubiri said he was noncommittal if majority of his colleagues would favor the "controversial" proposal.
"It’s a very important measure that needs to be discussed lengthily and with clarity. It’s a very controversial measure. We will take it up everyday," said Mr. Zubiri in an interview.
"I want to strengthen the portion that abortion should not be allowed. It’s an illegal act," he added.
The counterpart measure, House Bill 5043 authored by Albay Rep. Edcel C. Lagman (1st district), is up for approval on second reading. It was identified as one of the chamber’s priority bills. — Bernard U. Allauigan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)