Same old dog

It’s the same old dog with a different collar. This can be said of Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s version of the RH bill. The old version of the bill is also compliant with the Philippines’ commitment to several international treaties. And it is precisely because of such feature in the bill which makes it inherently wrong.

Santiago cites Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which recognizes the “right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”. It looks and sounds alright. But in recognizing such right especially pertaining to women, it could trample upon the right to life of an unborn child. This is a possibility which Santiago did not even mention. Whether her omission is done advertently or inadvertently, the implication is that this right in Article 12 of the ICESCR takes precedence over the right to life which is the first and foremost human right.

That this is what Santiago implies becomes clearer when she further added that “the right to health is understood not just as a right to be healthy, but as a right to control one’s own health and body, including sexual and reproductive freedom”. Then citing the International Conference on Population and Development Program of Action (ICPD-POA) she even defined “reproductive health as a “state of complete physical, mental and social well being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity in all matters relating to the reproductive health system and to its functions and processes”. It “implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capacity to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how to do so”.

The old version of the RH bill is also based on these policies. Almost the same wordings are used. The emphasis and the clear inference or conclusion is that reproductive health and reproductive right are very important and must therefore be unconditionally recognized and upheld. It does not consider at all the more primordial right to life especially of the unborn child from the moment of conception.

The term “reproduction” itself is already degrading when applied to human beings. For it is more of a process necessary for plants and animals to assure continuity of their species, and not for individuals. It does not require any bond between persons. So it actually cheapens the sexual act which is a process through which God may create a new person. Following this concept espoused by Santiagos’s version of the bill, the sexual act is nothing more but a means to satisfy the baser instincts of men and women. Hence the bill guarantees “sexual freedom” and will just ensure that the sexual act is “safe” for reproductive health purposes. Men, and more so, women therefore become mere objects of pleasure while the nobler purpose of the sexual act, which is procreation, as distinguished from mere reproduction, is completely disregarded.

The reality however is that when a sexual act is performed there is a possibility that a new life will be formed. So even if satisfying and safe sex is assured, safe in the sense that sexual diseases are supposedly prevented, the uninhibited sexual freedom may still result in unwanted pregnancies which may cause mental anguish and social embarrassment. And since the definition of reproductive health according to Santiago includes the mental and social well being of a person, access to contraception and abortion becomes imperative. This is not merely hypothetical. Several Sates in the US have already legalized abortion precisely to preserve the mental and social health of teenagers who became pregnant because of unrestricted sex.

Statistics may show that maternal mortality ratio to the number of live births is still high in the Philippines. But the solution here is not to provide universal access to reproductive health services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information on the matter. Such solution means that a woman could have access to such device as the IUD and she can choose to use it after being properly informed that it is medically safe, legal and affordable to her. But this intrauterine device can kill a 5-day old baby by preventing him or her from implanting in the mother’s womb. This is already abortion or a “most violent, unjust and inhumane act committed against the most harmless, defenseless and weakest member of our society — the baby”. This is wrong not because the Church says so but because it kills a human being who is one of us.

Santiago insists however that her version of the RH bill is not pro-abortion; it is pro-life. It is pro-life according to her because it “ensures that women who need care for post abortion complication shall be treated and not left to die”. Obviously when she says that the bill is pro-life she refers to the life of the woman who has committed abortion and not to the life of the child. This is the same line peddled by those who want to decriminalize abortion committed because of unwanted pregnancies due to rape or sheer indiscretions. They are justifying the commission of a wrong by the victims of another wrong instead of merely adopting measures to prevent the commission of the wrong on the victims.

Actually, maternal and infant mortality rates will be decreased not by providing women with universal access to such methods and devices but by giving sufficient and improved medical care and services to pregnant mothers before, during and after childbirth. But Santiago’s version of the bill and the original one completely ignores this solution.

Santiago’s RH bill as she said cannot ignore the issue of population “to eradicate poverty, pursue sustainable development and improve our quality of life”. But this is another myth. Our population may still be growing but demographic data shows that our fertility rate is decreasing and in 15 years it will be below replacement level and our population will be aging. Indeed, as P-Nnoy said, this is not the solution to our poverty problem. It is “kung walang corrupt walang mahirap”.

It looks like the foreign funded lobby groups for this bill are applying more and more “pressure”. Let’s hope and pray that the majority of our legislators will not succumb to this “pressure”.

Email us at jcson@pldtdsl.net –Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)