VIEWPOINT
The Catholic debate on condoms
By Ted Laguatan, Esq.
INQUIRER.net
03/08/2010
CALIFORNIA, United States—“I don’t get as much pleasure using condoms, but I don’t like playing Russian roulette either.” says Jun who is into massage parlor sex.
Despite calls for her resignation by some Catholic Bishops, Philippine Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral says: “I’ll keep on distributing condoms until my term ends.” She wants to prevent the rapid spread of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) which causes Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), a deadly sexually transmitted disease (STD).
Lipa Archbishop Ramon Arguelles and other bishops take the position that condom distribution promotes promiscuity and that it leads to the increase of AIDS as the use of condoms is not an absolutely fail-safe protection, suggesting that abstinence is the best policy. The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) even wants a total ban on condom advertisements and condom distribution announcements, clearly a violation of constitutionally protected free speech rights.
Should the government distribute condoms?
Here’s my take on this issue:
Abstinence is a good policy, but it’s not the only policy and may not be realistically workable.
If the objective is to stop the spread of AIDS and other STDs, in some circumstances, the abstinence admonition is clearly wishful dreaming. Let’s look at two situations.
Thousands of indigent Filipinos work in the sex industry because of crushing poverty: Men and women, boys and girls, some as young as 12 or even younger all face the likely probability of being infected with the AIDS virus or some other equally deadly STDs. “We now have 4,400 registered HIV cases out of probably 5,000 victims, a 100-percent increase from 2008,” said Cabral.
Another situation pertains to married or unmarried individuals with STD-positive partners.
In both situations, sex is already an ongoing fact of life reality. Admonishing the players to stop and expect them to obey is about as realistic as Kris Aquino becoming Pope. Telling desperately poor sex workers to quit when neither the government nor the church is in a position to provide alternative livelihoods is like telling them to starve.
Rather than for people becoming seriously sick, suffer much, and die early, a more humanistic and Christian attitude is to provide protection. Preventing the spread of AIDS saves already stretched government health care resources, allowing for services in other areas. Educational information campaigns and condoms will help prevent STDs more than harsh lecturing about the evils of sin, although that also may be relevant.
Government condom distribution is good policy. Used properly, condoms protect against deadly STDs and will prevent the lightning spread of these terrible diseases. Granting that there is a 10-percent failure rate due to misuse or manufacturing defects, 90-percent effectivity is still very acceptable.
Whether the easy availability of condoms leads to promiscuity or not is a matter of uncertain conjecture.
A promiscuous person will constantly be looking for sex whether condoms or other contraceptives are available or not. On the other hand, a non-promiscuous person does not necessarily become promiscuous even if he or she has a bagful of contraceptives.
It still boils down to the individual making a choice. It’s not as if he or she is compelled to have sex simply because contraceptives are available. A non-alcoholic with a bar full of liquor does not necessarily mean he will be an alcoholic.
Let’s even assume for the sake of argument that easy access to condoms leads to promiscuity and easy access leads to preventing the rapidly spreading deadly AIDS disease, that is a higher good in the order of discretion priorities.
Consider also that sans condoms, a good number of pregnancies inevitably occur with sex worker girls and women. Some resort to abortion. It’s better to avoid pregnancies by having their customers use condoms than to resort to the greater evil of abortions.
Many Filipino males lose their virginity in their early teenage years and it’s usually with a prostitute. It’s best that they know how to protect themselves from AIDS and other STDs than be infected. They should be made aware of the use of condoms.
Some anti-condom groups claim that in Thailand, despite the government policy of condom distribution, there’s still a high rate of AIDS incidence.
Consider how much higher it would be without condoms. It cannot also be assumed that those who have AIDS in Thailand used condoms and still got infected. More likely than not, many did not use condoms. Many men do not use condoms because of the diminished pleasure. As such, they get infected with AIDS.
The incidence of AIDS in Thailand does not mean the government condom distribution policy is a failure. Some AIDS will always be present in a country’s population because unprotected sex inevitably does happen. Some also live high-risk lifestyles.
The bishops and their supporters mean well. They understandably want to prevent sinful unbridled sex from proliferating which is of course good, but I believe they fail to see the bigger picture. They focus on preventing sin and not so much about caring for human beings despite their sin. The sin we should condemn, but not the sinner. We do so if we don’t save him or her from STDs.
Which is more moral or immoral? Distributing condoms to prevent the spread of deadly STDs that cause people to suffer and die or advocating an unrealistic abstinence policy that factually absolutely does not work.
I believe God gave us two commandments: “Love God above everything else; and love our fellowmen as ourselves.” He also admonished us not to fear life, meaning among other things to have the courage to use our God-given intelligence when we are in good faith even if we have to go against a sometimes blind establishment. In the end, it is not the church which will save us but our own good conscience and God’s love and mercy.
We cannot have a church that proclaims love but does not show love to AIDS-challenged poor and powerless sex workers. We cannot have a church that proclaims life but sows the seeds of death by refusing to allow the use of effective practical means against AIDS.
There are those who see God as a punishing God who brought AIDS into the world to punish sinners.
There are also those who see God as a forgiving loving God who gives us the opportunity and freedom to express our love helping our AIDS-positive fellowmen and preventing others from being infected, and in so doing find meaning in our lives.
I chose to believe in a loving forgiving God. And yes I am a Catholic.
Ted Laguatan is officially certified as an expert/specialist lawyer by the California State Bar. He does immigration law, personal injury, complex litigation, medical malpractice and other cases. He is rated as being among the top 5 percent best lawyers in America by a magazine for lawyers. For communications: 455 Hickey Blvd., Ste.516, Daly City, CA 94015, Tel. (650) 991-1154, Fax (650)991-1186, 101 California St. Ste. 2450, SF, CA 94111 E-mail: laguatanlaw@ gmail.com
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The Condom Controversy
Business Mirror
Thursday
10 March 2010
Thy condo(o)m come
Ding I. Generoso / Second Opinion
10 March 2010
Valentine’s Day may be a good day to distribute condoms to raise public consciousness about the need to protect Filipinos from HIV/AIDS—which is exactly what the Department of Health achieved last month.
But it isn’t exactly right to begin with because, in a way, the Church is right when it protested that the act seemed to “promote promiscuity.” That’s because to many Filipinos, or at least to many in Metro Manila and probably some other urban centers, Valentine’s Day is often associated with couples, married or not, making a bee line for hotels and motels to celebrate the Day of Love.
That being the case, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) was partly correct when it protested against Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral’s distribution of condoms on Valentine’s Day.
The Church’s protest notwithstanding, Cabral made her point and succeeded in, at the very least, bringing the issue of condoms and AIDS to the fore, generating a controversy even and renewing the debate on condom use.
But the distribution of condoms on Valentine’s Day, in reality, does little because the problem with condoms and the Church is not limited to their relation to AIDS but extends to the issue of reproductive health and population management. But that is another matter altogether.
To be sure, the Philippine Catholic Church is just toeing the Vatican line on condoms. No less than Pope Benedict XVI has issued strong words against condoms and their supposed use as protection against HIV transmission.
In March last year, Pope Benedict XVI, on a visit to Cameroon, said condoms were not a solution to fighting AIDS and “even aggravate the problems.” The solution lies in a “spiritual and human awakening” and “friendship for those who suffer,” he said.
That statement earned the ire of many in the scientific and medical community, human-rights groups and even some Catholic leaders.
In a strongly worded statement, Britain’s The Lancet, one of the world’s top medical journals, accused the Pope of distorting scientific evidence and demanded he made a retraction.
“By saying that condoms exacerbate the problem of HIV/AIDS, the Pope has publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue,” The Lancet said in an editorial.
It added: “Whether the Pope’s error was due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology is unclear. But the comment still stands, and the Vatican’s attempts to tweak the Pope’s words, further tampering with the truth, is not the way forward.
“When any influential person, be it a religious or political figure, makes a false scientific statement that could be devastating to the health of millions of people, they should retract or correct the public record. Anything less from Pope Benedict would be an immense disservice to the public and health advocates, including many thousands of Catholics, who work tirelessly to try and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS worldwide.”
The pope’s comment was “irresponsible and dangerous,” Agence France-Presse reported, quoting Jon O’Brien, head of Catholics for Choice in the US. “Few Catholics and even fewer medical personnel agree with his stance,” O’Brien said.
He cited results of a poll commissioned by Catholics for Choice which showed that 90 percent of Catholics in Mexico, 86 percent in Ireland, 79 percent in the United States, 77 percent in the Philippines and 59 percent in Ghana agreed that “using condoms is prolife because it helps save lives by preventing the spread of AIDS.”
O’Brien said several bishops in Africa, including Bishop Kevin Dowling of Rustenburg in South Africa, “have been outspoken in their support of the use of condoms.”
“On a continent where millions of people are infected with HIV, it is morally reprehensible to spread such blatant falsehoods,” said Harry Knox, head of the religion and faith program at Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for equal rights for the gay, lesbian and transgender communities.
“The Pope’s rejection of scientifically proven prevention methods is forcing Catholics in Africa to choose between their faith and the health of their entire community,” Knox said.
The ban on condoms is just one of the many issues that, some reports say, has triggered a debate inside the Catholic Church since 2005 when Pope Benedict XVI took over from Pope John Paul II.
An Agence France-Presse report in 2005 said the Vatican’s hard-line stance has not only triggered the ire of bioscientists, doctors who work in reproductive health, and grassroots workers who fight against AIDS. “Analysts say it has also turned many Catholics into cherry-pickers, taking from their religion the bits they like and can follow—and ignoring the bits they find unpalatable or unfeasible,” the news agency reported.
In a predominantly Catholic nation, many Filipinos would probably feel the same, torn between the doctrine of their church and the practicality of certain Church restrictions. The choice comes between not using condoms and getting AIDS or using condoms and being “condemned” by their church. That puts God into the equation over a simple health issue—or probably a broader reproductive- health or family-planning issue. Not an easy choice to make for most Filipinos, especially when God is put into the equation.
And speaking of God, but in another vein, God is who Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes wants to blame for the energy crisis and the periodic blackouts we are now experiencing.
“If you want to blame somebody, blame God,” he said last week.
Well, some years ago, at the height of the Garci-tape scandal, President Arroyo told TIME magazine in an interview, “The Lord put me here.”
Just so we know who to blame.
Thursday
10 March 2010
Thy condo(o)m come
Ding I. Generoso / Second Opinion
10 March 2010
Valentine’s Day may be a good day to distribute condoms to raise public consciousness about the need to protect Filipinos from HIV/AIDS—which is exactly what the Department of Health achieved last month.
But it isn’t exactly right to begin with because, in a way, the Church is right when it protested that the act seemed to “promote promiscuity.” That’s because to many Filipinos, or at least to many in Metro Manila and probably some other urban centers, Valentine’s Day is often associated with couples, married or not, making a bee line for hotels and motels to celebrate the Day of Love.
That being the case, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) was partly correct when it protested against Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral’s distribution of condoms on Valentine’s Day.
The Church’s protest notwithstanding, Cabral made her point and succeeded in, at the very least, bringing the issue of condoms and AIDS to the fore, generating a controversy even and renewing the debate on condom use.
But the distribution of condoms on Valentine’s Day, in reality, does little because the problem with condoms and the Church is not limited to their relation to AIDS but extends to the issue of reproductive health and population management. But that is another matter altogether.
To be sure, the Philippine Catholic Church is just toeing the Vatican line on condoms. No less than Pope Benedict XVI has issued strong words against condoms and their supposed use as protection against HIV transmission.
In March last year, Pope Benedict XVI, on a visit to Cameroon, said condoms were not a solution to fighting AIDS and “even aggravate the problems.” The solution lies in a “spiritual and human awakening” and “friendship for those who suffer,” he said.
That statement earned the ire of many in the scientific and medical community, human-rights groups and even some Catholic leaders.
In a strongly worded statement, Britain’s The Lancet, one of the world’s top medical journals, accused the Pope of distorting scientific evidence and demanded he made a retraction.
“By saying that condoms exacerbate the problem of HIV/AIDS, the Pope has publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue,” The Lancet said in an editorial.
It added: “Whether the Pope’s error was due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology is unclear. But the comment still stands, and the Vatican’s attempts to tweak the Pope’s words, further tampering with the truth, is not the way forward.
“When any influential person, be it a religious or political figure, makes a false scientific statement that could be devastating to the health of millions of people, they should retract or correct the public record. Anything less from Pope Benedict would be an immense disservice to the public and health advocates, including many thousands of Catholics, who work tirelessly to try and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS worldwide.”
The pope’s comment was “irresponsible and dangerous,” Agence France-Presse reported, quoting Jon O’Brien, head of Catholics for Choice in the US. “Few Catholics and even fewer medical personnel agree with his stance,” O’Brien said.
He cited results of a poll commissioned by Catholics for Choice which showed that 90 percent of Catholics in Mexico, 86 percent in Ireland, 79 percent in the United States, 77 percent in the Philippines and 59 percent in Ghana agreed that “using condoms is prolife because it helps save lives by preventing the spread of AIDS.”
O’Brien said several bishops in Africa, including Bishop Kevin Dowling of Rustenburg in South Africa, “have been outspoken in their support of the use of condoms.”
“On a continent where millions of people are infected with HIV, it is morally reprehensible to spread such blatant falsehoods,” said Harry Knox, head of the religion and faith program at Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for equal rights for the gay, lesbian and transgender communities.
“The Pope’s rejection of scientifically proven prevention methods is forcing Catholics in Africa to choose between their faith and the health of their entire community,” Knox said.
The ban on condoms is just one of the many issues that, some reports say, has triggered a debate inside the Catholic Church since 2005 when Pope Benedict XVI took over from Pope John Paul II.
An Agence France-Presse report in 2005 said the Vatican’s hard-line stance has not only triggered the ire of bioscientists, doctors who work in reproductive health, and grassroots workers who fight against AIDS. “Analysts say it has also turned many Catholics into cherry-pickers, taking from their religion the bits they like and can follow—and ignoring the bits they find unpalatable or unfeasible,” the news agency reported.
In a predominantly Catholic nation, many Filipinos would probably feel the same, torn between the doctrine of their church and the practicality of certain Church restrictions. The choice comes between not using condoms and getting AIDS or using condoms and being “condemned” by their church. That puts God into the equation over a simple health issue—or probably a broader reproductive- health or family-planning issue. Not an easy choice to make for most Filipinos, especially when God is put into the equation.
And speaking of God, but in another vein, God is who Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes wants to blame for the energy crisis and the periodic blackouts we are now experiencing.
“If you want to blame somebody, blame God,” he said last week.
Well, some years ago, at the height of the Garci-tape scandal, President Arroyo told TIME magazine in an interview, “The Lord put me here.”
Just so we know who to blame.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
I support RH...does that make me anti-Life?
my comment on Ricky Carandang’s
(http://www.rickycarandang.com/?p=460 ) February 2nd, 2010 23:37
#158
Ricky,my 1st time to see this blog. i greatly appreciate your openly expressing your views on this controversial RH issue. I enjoyed and learned a lot from the pro and anti-RH bloggers, even if it against my views.
I am a Catholic and I support the RH, does that make me an Anti-Life, anti-Family, anti etc.? I think most of us here believes in the “sacredness” of life just like the so called “pro-life” group. ( I am more than just “pro-life” and pro-life to me is not enough! we have to be pro- qualitylife!
…and what kind of “Life” are they referring? is it just a life for the unborn? how about those already born, the malnourished children who, some unnecessarily die at a very young age…how about those neglected, abandoned, neglected or children lying in the streets, begging, scavenging,some snatching, stealing, etc…
where is the sacredness/dignity of life that there? when children/families are living in poverty, a miserable life?
What is the church doing? feeding? for just a day or days? can they provide housing for all of them, can they send all of them to school? or send all of them for treatment when they are sick? etc. Will the church take responsibility for all these?
If No, then let the government decide what is best for the many poor Filipinos.
Even if the RH Bill will be passed they still can promote the NFP, but for those couples whre NFP is not applicable to them, they should be given a CHOICE on what is effective for them. with RH Bill passed, this will now be more available and accesible to poor couples who otherwise cannot afford.
For the many years I’ve been working with the poor families, as a Social Worker, I really see the need of RH programs and services.
(http://www.rickycarandang.com/?p=460 ) February 2nd, 2010 23:37
#158
Ricky,my 1st time to see this blog. i greatly appreciate your openly expressing your views on this controversial RH issue. I enjoyed and learned a lot from the pro and anti-RH bloggers, even if it against my views.
I am a Catholic and I support the RH, does that make me an Anti-Life, anti-Family, anti etc.? I think most of us here believes in the “sacredness” of life just like the so called “pro-life” group. ( I am more than just “pro-life” and pro-life to me is not enough! we have to be pro- qualitylife!
…and what kind of “Life” are they referring? is it just a life for the unborn? how about those already born, the malnourished children who, some unnecessarily die at a very young age…how about those neglected, abandoned, neglected or children lying in the streets, begging, scavenging,some snatching, stealing, etc…
where is the sacredness/dignity of life that there? when children/families are living in poverty, a miserable life?
What is the church doing? feeding? for just a day or days? can they provide housing for all of them, can they send all of them to school? or send all of them for treatment when they are sick? etc. Will the church take responsibility for all these?
If No, then let the government decide what is best for the many poor Filipinos.
Even if the RH Bill will be passed they still can promote the NFP, but for those couples whre NFP is not applicable to them, they should be given a CHOICE on what is effective for them. with RH Bill passed, this will now be more available and accesible to poor couples who otherwise cannot afford.
For the many years I’ve been working with the poor families, as a Social Worker, I really see the need of RH programs and services.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Imposing once own values to the poor ???
"Families have the right to choose... what is the best FP method for them! because it is the poor families and their children who will suffer directly - no food, no clothes, no etc. (not the church nor the priest, nor others who impose their values to the poor...)
and it is the gov't responsibility to provide them the opportunities so the poor families can decide responsibly on how they can have a better Quality of Life"
Pro QUALITY LIFE Training & Dev't. Inc. (Q-Life) proqualitylife@gmail.com
and it is the gov't responsibility to provide them the opportunities so the poor families can decide responsibly on how they can have a better Quality of Life"
Pro QUALITY LIFE Training & Dev't. Inc. (Q-Life) proqualitylife@gmail.com
FAMILIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
FAMILIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
By FORMER PRESIDENT FIDEL V. RAMOS
January 30, 2010, 8:33pm
Romance Mathematics
Smart man + smart woman = romance
Smart man + dumb woman = affair
Dumb man + smart woman = marriage
Dumb man + dumb woman = pregnancy.
- Jimmy Teo
Quoted above is a practical bit of 21st century wisdom attributed to
Singapore journalist Jimmy Teo. Like me, Jimmy writes regularly for ASEAN
BizTimes, a widely circulated magazine in the Asia-Pacific region. His
sardonic commentary on modern-day man-woman relationships may not be
completely accurate, but does portray today's dilemma of couples (married or not) who are into some romantic or intimate involvement.
Saving The HR Bill From Oblivion
This column, however, is not really about mathematics per se, but is really
one more appeal for the approval of the Reproductive Health Bill – perhaps
my last hopeful try – before the 14th Congress lapses into history on 05
February. The entire tedious cycle of sponsorship, hearings, debates,
"horse-trading," bicam compromises, and Malacañang approval may have to be
again undertaken in the next Congress – if it reaches that point. But, the
present RH Bill, and other equally meritorious pending legislative proposals which are on the verge of extinction, could still be saved from the oblivion of "nice-tries."
Only PGMA now, and her Cabinet advisers and Congressional allies – thru
their exercise of consistent political will – still can get such urgent
legislation finally approved before the deadline. It would take firm
Presidential direction to get essential reforms enacted with few days
remaining – even if this would entail a Special Session.
But, this can be done. In earlier times, even more contentious legislative
issues were resolved through the President's power to certify, persuade and
compel.
Forum for Family Planning and Development
Population management advocates and women's rights champions got together
last 15 January to make one more push. The occasion was the investiture of
Loida Nicolas-Lewis as FFPD's 6th Eminent Person. She joins a select company of concerned Filipinos: former PM Cesar Virata, SGV founder Washington Sycip, PopCom Commissioner Mercedes Concepcion, Lopez Group Chairman Oscar Lopez, and FVR.
The FFPD's investiture program says it all, thus:
"Families have the right to choose"
It is State's responsibility to provide them the means to make that choice
"We recognize that every couple has the right to decide how many children
they can raise while ensuring health/well-being. But it is a grim reality
that in the Philippines, poorer families are the ones who have more children than they want and can decently provide for.
Population, economic growth and poverty
"We also recognize that women bear a disproportionate portionate burden in
child-bearing, child-rearing, producing, and managing family resources to
meet everyday needs. We refuse to accept that mothers should still die from
pregnancy and childbirth-related causes as almost all are preventable.
"Further, we acknowledge the close association between population growth,
economic development, and persistent poverty. Population affects everything
– from food security to education, health, housing, water, energy,
environment, transportation, communications, law and order, productivity,
and human welfare in general.
Clear, firm government policy
"We call on the government in partnership with business and civil society to adopt a clear, firm population policy to enable couples to freely and
responsibly manage their families, using all available effective and safe
family planning methods according to their values and beliefs. Such
population policy and family planning development minimize unintended and
mistimed pregnancies, thereby preventing induced/illegal abortions which
total over 500,000 annually. This we find absolutely abhorrent and
unacceptable.
RH Bill is against abortion
"We believe that the Reproductive Health Bill – which is explicitly against
abortion – will be an effective instrument of national population policy.
Therefore, we strongly endorse its passage by Congress and urge the national leadership's full support – to indicate Government's seriousness in pursuing long-term economic growth and poverty reduction."
Loida Nicolas-Lewis, women's rights champion
And who is Loida Nicolas-Lewis? She, is first of all, a highly respected
FIlipino-American, a world-class entrepreneur, mother of two Harvard
cum-laude daughters, and member of New York's St. Ignatius Loyola Catholic
Church. Loida also is:
Chairperson of the multi-million dollar TLC Group;
An attorney by profession; first Filipina to pass the N.Y. bar without
attending a U.S. law school;
One of the founders, now Chair Emeritus, of the National Federation of
Filipino-American Associations (NaFFAA); Founder/President of Lewis College in Sorsogon.
Commission on Population
In 1970, the National Population Program was launched following the creation of the Commission on Population (POPCOM). Its principal thrust was the reduction of fertility and the provision of family planning services using a clinic-based and contraceptive-oriented approach.
According to the 2002 National Demographic and Health Survey of the National Statistics Office, the weak Philippine economic situation in the early 1980s and during the Aquino Administration affected population policy. In addition, the program was faced with institutional instability because of changing POPCOM leadership and opposition from the Catholic Church. In response, the program changed its emphasis to family welfare/development, which broadened to include status of women; maternal/child health; and mortality/morbidity. Other areas included population distribution/structure and migration.
Its two-pronged strategy was: 1) integration of population and development,
and 2) responsible parenthood and family planning.
Philippine Population Management Program
The NSO went on to record that the Ramos Administration, which strongly
supported the population program, paved the way for the redefinition of the
country's "population control" to "population program" to "population
management." Anchored by the "population-resource-environment" (PRE or
sustainable development) framework, its totality was renamed the Philippine
Population Management Program. This led to the Philippines' participation in various international fora as a model for developing countries. Under the Local Government Code, health service delivery including family planning, and counseling, became a mandate of LGUs.
Better quality of life
POPCOM further expanded this framework by: 1) considering human resource
development (expansion of knowledge/skills, and improved health/nutrition to enhance productivity), 2) incorporating other major concerns of reproductive health, adolescent health, and gender equity, and 3) reducing unmet needs for family planning, and helping couples achieve fertility preferences.
Besides respecting the balance among population, resources, and environment,the Population and Sustainable Development framework redefined "development" as the "sustained capacity to achieve people's well-being or a better "quality of life," meaning the capacity to be free from avoidable illness, be nourished, be educated, have employment and income opportunities, meet one's fertility preferences, and enjoy social justice and equity."
The 2008 population survey
The 2008 NDHS is a nationally representative survey of 13,594 women,
covering 794 clusters throughout the Philippines. Its main findings are:
High Fertility Level. Current Philippine fertility level is relatively high
compared with other countries in Southeast Asia, such as Thailand, Singapore and Indonesia, where the rate is below 2 children per woman.
Unplanned Fertility. Despite a steady rise in the level of contraceptive
use, unplanned pregnancies are common. Overall, one in three births in the
Philippines is either unwanted (16 percent) or mistimed/wanted later (20
percent).
Fertility Preferences. A significant desire exists among married Filipino
women to stop having children. Over half (54 percent) of married women do
not want another child and an additional 9 percent are already sterilized.
Nineteen percent of married women want to have another child, but prefer to
wait two or more years.
Use of Contraceptives. At least 90 percent of married women have heard of
the pill, condoms, injectables, IUDs and sterilization. The most commonly
used modern method is the pill (16 percent), followed by female
sterilization (9 percent). Another 17 percent are using traditional methods,including abstinence and withdrawal.
Unmet Need. "Unmet need" for family planning is that percentage of married
women who either do not want any more children or want to wait before having another birth, but are not using any family planning method.
Current data shows that total unmet need for family planning in the Philippines is 22 percent, of which 13 percent is for "limiting" and 9 percent is for "spacing," an increase from 17 percent in 2003 – which represents retrogressive backsliding.
Loida's intimate admonition
"No one else should be in the matrimonial bedroom when the man and woman
express their love for each other in that most intimate expression of love – their physical union.
"The decision of how many children the couple should have remains between
the husband and wife, because they alone know how best to maintain the
harmony and love they have for one another and their children," admonishes
Loida-Nicolas-Lewis.
LAST CHANCE FOR QUALITY POPULATION???
TODAY'S RH BILL MAY BE OUR LAST CHANCE FOR DEVELOPING QUALITY POPULATION –
WITHIN A GENERATION. YES, IT TAKES AT LEAST 20-25 YEARS TO ACHIEVE THAT, BUT WE'VE ALREADY LOST 9 YEARS UNDER PGMA.
THINK OF THE ADVANTAGE OF QUALITY PHILIPPINE POPULATION, WITHOUT BEGGARS AND STREET CHILDREN. UNBEATABLE!!!
Please send any comments to fvr@rpdev.org. Copies of articles are available
at www.rpdev.org.
By FORMER PRESIDENT FIDEL V. RAMOS
January 30, 2010, 8:33pm
Romance Mathematics
Smart man + smart woman = romance
Smart man + dumb woman = affair
Dumb man + smart woman = marriage
Dumb man + dumb woman = pregnancy.
- Jimmy Teo
Quoted above is a practical bit of 21st century wisdom attributed to
Singapore journalist Jimmy Teo. Like me, Jimmy writes regularly for ASEAN
BizTimes, a widely circulated magazine in the Asia-Pacific region. His
sardonic commentary on modern-day man-woman relationships may not be
completely accurate, but does portray today's dilemma of couples (married or not) who are into some romantic or intimate involvement.
Saving The HR Bill From Oblivion
This column, however, is not really about mathematics per se, but is really
one more appeal for the approval of the Reproductive Health Bill – perhaps
my last hopeful try – before the 14th Congress lapses into history on 05
February. The entire tedious cycle of sponsorship, hearings, debates,
"horse-trading," bicam compromises, and Malacañang approval may have to be
again undertaken in the next Congress – if it reaches that point. But, the
present RH Bill, and other equally meritorious pending legislative proposals which are on the verge of extinction, could still be saved from the oblivion of "nice-tries."
Only PGMA now, and her Cabinet advisers and Congressional allies – thru
their exercise of consistent political will – still can get such urgent
legislation finally approved before the deadline. It would take firm
Presidential direction to get essential reforms enacted with few days
remaining – even if this would entail a Special Session.
But, this can be done. In earlier times, even more contentious legislative
issues were resolved through the President's power to certify, persuade and
compel.
Forum for Family Planning and Development
Population management advocates and women's rights champions got together
last 15 January to make one more push. The occasion was the investiture of
Loida Nicolas-Lewis as FFPD's 6th Eminent Person. She joins a select company of concerned Filipinos: former PM Cesar Virata, SGV founder Washington Sycip, PopCom Commissioner Mercedes Concepcion, Lopez Group Chairman Oscar Lopez, and FVR.
The FFPD's investiture program says it all, thus:
"Families have the right to choose"
It is State's responsibility to provide them the means to make that choice
"We recognize that every couple has the right to decide how many children
they can raise while ensuring health/well-being. But it is a grim reality
that in the Philippines, poorer families are the ones who have more children than they want and can decently provide for.
Population, economic growth and poverty
"We also recognize that women bear a disproportionate portionate burden in
child-bearing, child-rearing, producing, and managing family resources to
meet everyday needs. We refuse to accept that mothers should still die from
pregnancy and childbirth-related causes as almost all are preventable.
"Further, we acknowledge the close association between population growth,
economic development, and persistent poverty. Population affects everything
– from food security to education, health, housing, water, energy,
environment, transportation, communications, law and order, productivity,
and human welfare in general.
Clear, firm government policy
"We call on the government in partnership with business and civil society to adopt a clear, firm population policy to enable couples to freely and
responsibly manage their families, using all available effective and safe
family planning methods according to their values and beliefs. Such
population policy and family planning development minimize unintended and
mistimed pregnancies, thereby preventing induced/illegal abortions which
total over 500,000 annually. This we find absolutely abhorrent and
unacceptable.
RH Bill is against abortion
"We believe that the Reproductive Health Bill – which is explicitly against
abortion – will be an effective instrument of national population policy.
Therefore, we strongly endorse its passage by Congress and urge the national leadership's full support – to indicate Government's seriousness in pursuing long-term economic growth and poverty reduction."
Loida Nicolas-Lewis, women's rights champion
And who is Loida Nicolas-Lewis? She, is first of all, a highly respected
FIlipino-American, a world-class entrepreneur, mother of two Harvard
cum-laude daughters, and member of New York's St. Ignatius Loyola Catholic
Church. Loida also is:
Chairperson of the multi-million dollar TLC Group;
An attorney by profession; first Filipina to pass the N.Y. bar without
attending a U.S. law school;
One of the founders, now Chair Emeritus, of the National Federation of
Filipino-American Associations (NaFFAA); Founder/President of Lewis College in Sorsogon.
Commission on Population
In 1970, the National Population Program was launched following the creation of the Commission on Population (POPCOM). Its principal thrust was the reduction of fertility and the provision of family planning services using a clinic-based and contraceptive-oriented approach.
According to the 2002 National Demographic and Health Survey of the National Statistics Office, the weak Philippine economic situation in the early 1980s and during the Aquino Administration affected population policy. In addition, the program was faced with institutional instability because of changing POPCOM leadership and opposition from the Catholic Church. In response, the program changed its emphasis to family welfare/development, which broadened to include status of women; maternal/child health; and mortality/morbidity. Other areas included population distribution/structure and migration.
Its two-pronged strategy was: 1) integration of population and development,
and 2) responsible parenthood and family planning.
Philippine Population Management Program
The NSO went on to record that the Ramos Administration, which strongly
supported the population program, paved the way for the redefinition of the
country's "population control" to "population program" to "population
management." Anchored by the "population-resource-environment" (PRE or
sustainable development) framework, its totality was renamed the Philippine
Population Management Program. This led to the Philippines' participation in various international fora as a model for developing countries. Under the Local Government Code, health service delivery including family planning, and counseling, became a mandate of LGUs.
Better quality of life
POPCOM further expanded this framework by: 1) considering human resource
development (expansion of knowledge/skills, and improved health/nutrition to enhance productivity), 2) incorporating other major concerns of reproductive health, adolescent health, and gender equity, and 3) reducing unmet needs for family planning, and helping couples achieve fertility preferences.
Besides respecting the balance among population, resources, and environment,the Population and Sustainable Development framework redefined "development" as the "sustained capacity to achieve people's well-being or a better "quality of life," meaning the capacity to be free from avoidable illness, be nourished, be educated, have employment and income opportunities, meet one's fertility preferences, and enjoy social justice and equity."
The 2008 population survey
The 2008 NDHS is a nationally representative survey of 13,594 women,
covering 794 clusters throughout the Philippines. Its main findings are:
High Fertility Level. Current Philippine fertility level is relatively high
compared with other countries in Southeast Asia, such as Thailand, Singapore and Indonesia, where the rate is below 2 children per woman.
Unplanned Fertility. Despite a steady rise in the level of contraceptive
use, unplanned pregnancies are common. Overall, one in three births in the
Philippines is either unwanted (16 percent) or mistimed/wanted later (20
percent).
Fertility Preferences. A significant desire exists among married Filipino
women to stop having children. Over half (54 percent) of married women do
not want another child and an additional 9 percent are already sterilized.
Nineteen percent of married women want to have another child, but prefer to
wait two or more years.
Use of Contraceptives. At least 90 percent of married women have heard of
the pill, condoms, injectables, IUDs and sterilization. The most commonly
used modern method is the pill (16 percent), followed by female
sterilization (9 percent). Another 17 percent are using traditional methods,including abstinence and withdrawal.
Unmet Need. "Unmet need" for family planning is that percentage of married
women who either do not want any more children or want to wait before having another birth, but are not using any family planning method.
Current data shows that total unmet need for family planning in the Philippines is 22 percent, of which 13 percent is for "limiting" and 9 percent is for "spacing," an increase from 17 percent in 2003 – which represents retrogressive backsliding.
Loida's intimate admonition
"No one else should be in the matrimonial bedroom when the man and woman
express their love for each other in that most intimate expression of love – their physical union.
"The decision of how many children the couple should have remains between
the husband and wife, because they alone know how best to maintain the
harmony and love they have for one another and their children," admonishes
Loida-Nicolas-Lewis.
LAST CHANCE FOR QUALITY POPULATION???
TODAY'S RH BILL MAY BE OUR LAST CHANCE FOR DEVELOPING QUALITY POPULATION –
WITHIN A GENERATION. YES, IT TAKES AT LEAST 20-25 YEARS TO ACHIEVE THAT, BUT WE'VE ALREADY LOST 9 YEARS UNDER PGMA.
THINK OF THE ADVANTAGE OF QUALITY PHILIPPINE POPULATION, WITHOUT BEGGARS AND STREET CHILDREN. UNBEATABLE!!!
Please send any comments to fvr@rpdev.org. Copies of articles are available
at www.rpdev.org.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Options & Opportunities! to rise above poverty ...
PRO QUALITY LIFE Training & Development Inc. (Q-LIFE)
Advocating Poverty Reduction and Quality of Life for the Poor Filipinos
1-93 J. Osmeña Ext. Cebu City Tel (032) 2590989/4166084,
e-add:proqualitylife@gmail.com
Jan 25, 2010
To: Educators, Information Officers, Media People and other Socially Responsible Grps / Individuals,
Our NGO, is strongly advocating Poverty Reduction and Quality of Life for the Poor Filipino Families, which I think is very similar to many of the development agencies objective.
What makes it different, is our strong belief ( among others…) that Quality of Life can be achieved even to the poor families, If they are RESPONSIBLE enough in whatever decisions / actions they undertake, including getting married and having a family and planning the number of children they can afford and attend to.
With our economic situation, even if both parents are working, but there are several children, they will still encounter financial difficulties. How much more for families with several children but have low or no definite income? They have to be RESPONSIBLE also, and aside from being Economically Productive, they have to be Less Reproductive! so they can be financially independent and will not also be a burden to others, to the government and to our society. We cannot and do not have to wait for the government or the church to solve Poverty.
Since we want them to be RESPONSIBLE, we also have to educate them and provide them with Options or Choices as well as Opportunities.
There is an upcoming Option and Opportunity - aside from being FREE (this is no longer free even in gov’t hospital, ( P3,000/procedure in a private facility), these will also be performed by expert US Urologists, ( pls. refer to the attached) and because client will have no income 2-3 days after NSV, financial assistance will be extended to them for loss of income and other related expenses.
We have been conducting NSV Education for months now and also during the mission. It is very important that they have access to proper NSV education. Our opinions differ, but I hope we will not impose our own values to them, because it is not us who will directly suffer, but the poor children and the family members, so the decision should be theirs ! ours is only to disseminate /educate. NSV education is for all , but NSV is voluntary, intended only for those who are interested.
If foreign nationals and Filipinos living comfortably in the U.S. are concern with our poor Filipino families living in poverty, how much more for us who are seeing their sufferings more often, families with little children living in the streets,some scavenging or begging for food…at times we will also be victimized by these children snatchers hold uppers and or we will be affected with other socio-eco problems of our society.
I hope those who are in the best position to widely disseminate this, will do so, to help the poor Filipinos to rise above poverty and to gradually reduce unattended, neglected, abandoned, malnourished, out-of-school and or children in the streets. Thank you very much !
Very truly yours,
MS. FROHNIE D. CAGALITAN, RSW
Executive Director
Advocating Poverty Reduction and Quality of Life for the Poor Filipinos
1-93 J. Osmeña Ext. Cebu City Tel (032) 2590989/4166084,
e-add:proqualitylife@gmail.com
Jan 25, 2010
To: Educators, Information Officers, Media People and other Socially Responsible Grps / Individuals,
Our NGO, is strongly advocating Poverty Reduction and Quality of Life for the Poor Filipino Families, which I think is very similar to many of the development agencies objective.
What makes it different, is our strong belief ( among others…) that Quality of Life can be achieved even to the poor families, If they are RESPONSIBLE enough in whatever decisions / actions they undertake, including getting married and having a family and planning the number of children they can afford and attend to.
With our economic situation, even if both parents are working, but there are several children, they will still encounter financial difficulties. How much more for families with several children but have low or no definite income? They have to be RESPONSIBLE also, and aside from being Economically Productive, they have to be Less Reproductive! so they can be financially independent and will not also be a burden to others, to the government and to our society. We cannot and do not have to wait for the government or the church to solve Poverty.
Since we want them to be RESPONSIBLE, we also have to educate them and provide them with Options or Choices as well as Opportunities.
There is an upcoming Option and Opportunity - aside from being FREE (this is no longer free even in gov’t hospital, ( P3,000/procedure in a private facility), these will also be performed by expert US Urologists, ( pls. refer to the attached) and because client will have no income 2-3 days after NSV, financial assistance will be extended to them for loss of income and other related expenses.
We have been conducting NSV Education for months now and also during the mission. It is very important that they have access to proper NSV education. Our opinions differ, but I hope we will not impose our own values to them, because it is not us who will directly suffer, but the poor children and the family members, so the decision should be theirs ! ours is only to disseminate /educate. NSV education is for all , but NSV is voluntary, intended only for those who are interested.
If foreign nationals and Filipinos living comfortably in the U.S. are concern with our poor Filipino families living in poverty, how much more for us who are seeing their sufferings more often, families with little children living in the streets,some scavenging or begging for food…at times we will also be victimized by these children snatchers hold uppers and or we will be affected with other socio-eco problems of our society.
I hope those who are in the best position to widely disseminate this, will do so, to help the poor Filipinos to rise above poverty and to gradually reduce unattended, neglected, abandoned, malnourished, out-of-school and or children in the streets. Thank you very much !
Very truly yours,
MS. FROHNIE D. CAGALITAN, RSW
Executive Director
No Needle NSV Mission in the Visayas by NSV International, USA
FOR PRESS RELEASE
US Urologists to conduct
FREE No-Needle NSV Mission
in the Visayas
NSV International, Inc. (USA) will conduct FREE No-Needle/No-Scalpel Vasectomy Mission, in Negros (Feb.5-La Libertad), Leyte (Feb8-Hilongos) and Cebu, ( Feb. 10-11, 2010 - Talisay Dist. Hosp)
The President, Dr. Ramon U. Suarez, M.D.,F.A.C.S. Diplomate, American Board of Urology,(from Pennsylvania) with another Urologists, Dr. Douglas G. Stein, one of America’s top doctor (from Florida) affiliated with 4 star hospital and 4 star medical school. Dr. Stein has performed over 20,300 vasectomies, (as of July 2009 www.vasweb.com).Another practicing Physician in New York Dr. Ron Suarez, the son of Dr. Ramon Suarez, will also join the NSV Team. Both father and son have undergone vasectomy and are satisfied, thus actively promoting NSV.
No-Needle NSV, first introduced in the Phils, Jan. 2009 by NSV International, is a modern technique of Vasectomy which is a Safe, Simple & Quick (15 min. ave.) procedure, entail no incision, no suture, just Band-Aid! and No-Needle, only pressure spray applicator (MadaJet) is used for anesthesia. It is 99.85 % effective if instructions are followed. After NSV there is No change in the semen, No change in sex drive, No change in climax sensation, No change in the testes or scrotum, No change in erections. There are already many Filipinos in various parts of the country, workers, drivers, laborers who have already undergone NSV.
The Founders of NSV International Inc, Dr. Ramon Suarez and Engr. Bob Kiamco (both and their family members have undergone Vasectomy) and their spouses Dr. Nenita Suarez and Dr. Benie Kiamco, Filipino-Americans residing in the U.S are very concern of their fellow Filipinos particularly the low income families. For a number of years now, they have been subsidizing the expense of NSV at Sacred Heart Hospital and providing it for FREE to those who this (in other private clinics it is P3,000+ per procedure).
NSV is voluntary and intended only for those who don’t want additional children anymore and are interested to avail of it. NSV Orientation has been going on for several months already. We have to make sure clients are well informed before any procedure.
For more information, pls contact: Ms. Frohnie D. Cagalitan - T 032-2590989, 4166084, 0927 5719399,or Ms. Myrna H. Danuco of Sacred Heart Hospital, Cebu City - T 032-4188980.
Ms. Frohnie D. Cagalitan, RSW
Pro QUALITY LIFE Trng. & Devt. Inc (Q-Life Inc.)
e-add: proqualitylife@gmail.com
US Urologists to conduct
FREE No-Needle NSV Mission
in the Visayas
NSV International, Inc. (USA) will conduct FREE No-Needle/No-Scalpel Vasectomy Mission, in Negros (Feb.5-La Libertad), Leyte (Feb8-Hilongos) and Cebu, ( Feb. 10-11, 2010 - Talisay Dist. Hosp)
The President, Dr. Ramon U. Suarez, M.D.,F.A.C.S. Diplomate, American Board of Urology,(from Pennsylvania) with another Urologists, Dr. Douglas G. Stein, one of America’s top doctor (from Florida) affiliated with 4 star hospital and 4 star medical school. Dr. Stein has performed over 20,300 vasectomies, (as of July 2009 www.vasweb.com).Another practicing Physician in New York Dr. Ron Suarez, the son of Dr. Ramon Suarez, will also join the NSV Team. Both father and son have undergone vasectomy and are satisfied, thus actively promoting NSV.
No-Needle NSV, first introduced in the Phils, Jan. 2009 by NSV International, is a modern technique of Vasectomy which is a Safe, Simple & Quick (15 min. ave.) procedure, entail no incision, no suture, just Band-Aid! and No-Needle, only pressure spray applicator (MadaJet) is used for anesthesia. It is 99.85 % effective if instructions are followed. After NSV there is No change in the semen, No change in sex drive, No change in climax sensation, No change in the testes or scrotum, No change in erections. There are already many Filipinos in various parts of the country, workers, drivers, laborers who have already undergone NSV.
The Founders of NSV International Inc, Dr. Ramon Suarez and Engr. Bob Kiamco (both and their family members have undergone Vasectomy) and their spouses Dr. Nenita Suarez and Dr. Benie Kiamco, Filipino-Americans residing in the U.S are very concern of their fellow Filipinos particularly the low income families. For a number of years now, they have been subsidizing the expense of NSV at Sacred Heart Hospital and providing it for FREE to those who this (in other private clinics it is P3,000+ per procedure).
NSV is voluntary and intended only for those who don’t want additional children anymore and are interested to avail of it. NSV Orientation has been going on for several months already. We have to make sure clients are well informed before any procedure.
For more information, pls contact: Ms. Frohnie D. Cagalitan - T 032-2590989, 4166084, 0927 5719399,or Ms. Myrna H. Danuco of Sacred Heart Hospital, Cebu City - T 032-4188980.
Ms. Frohnie D. Cagalitan, RSW
Pro QUALITY LIFE Trng. & Devt. Inc (Q-Life Inc.)
e-add: proqualitylife@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)