Substantially similar RH bill

Every Congress opening, the RH bill is re-filed and its proponents and supporters always come out with statements that it will surely be enacted into law this time around because more and more legislators are supporting it, particularly the leadership in both Houses. Yet at the closing of every Congress, said bill still remains un-enacted. Apparently its sponsors have not realized up to now that as long as the contents of said bill substantially remains the same, it will never become a law simply because it is contrary to the Constitution and not because the Church opposes it.

First of all, up to now, the legislators-sponsors of said bill have not told the people that it is not their own creation; that they did not draft the bill; that the bill was drafted by a foreign funded group particularly the “Philippine Legislative Committee on Population Development” (PLCPD); that they just adopted said draft or patterned the bill on said draft and introduced it in Congress relying on the group’s disputable and unproven representation that “population management” (originally called “population control”) is the answer to our country’s economic development and progress.

Most of the proposals in the bill are found in the declaration of policies and principles invoking international human rights and conventions some of which run counter to our Constitution. Thus as a matter of policy, the bill declares that the State guarantees access to a full range of supposedly medically-safe, legal, affordable and quality health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information thereon. It also upholds and promotes a responsible parenthood, birth spacing and respect for life in conformity with “universally recognized human rights”.

Then in the definition of terms, they adopt the UN definition of “Reproductive Health” that added the “mental and social” well being and not merely absence of disease or infirmity and closely associate it with the people’s right to have “safe and satisfying sex life”. So to avoid mental anguish caused by sex that is not “safe and satisfying”, due to possible risk of pregnancy, the bill provides for the following:

1. A State program of contraception and sterilization for married couples before engaging in marital intercourse where contraceptives and sterilization devices including those proven to have caused abortion, are made available as “essential medicines” even to unmarried individuals. Tubal ligation, vasectomy and other family planning methods requiring hospital services are made available in all national and local government hospitals.

2. Mandatory reproductive health care services, upon demand, for “abused minors and abused pregnant minors” without parental consent even when there is no showing that the parents are the ones guilty of the abuse.

3. A requirement that all collective bargaining agreements provide for free delivery of reasonable quantity of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers by the employers including employers where there is no CBA or workers’ union.

4. Imposition of jail term of one to six months or a fine ranging from P10,000 to P50,000 or both, on any health provider who, among others: (a) knowingly withhold or impede disseminaton of information, and/or intentionally provide incorrect information regarding reproductive health programs and services, including the “right to informed choice” and access to a full range of legal, medically safe and effective family planning methods; (b) refuse to perform voluntary ligation and vasectomy and other medically safe reproductive health care services on any person of legal age on the ground of lack of spousal consent or authorization; (c) refused to provide reproductive health care services and information on account of the patient’s status, gender or sexual orientation, age, religion personal circumstances and nature of work.

5. Imposition of same penalty on: (a) any public official who prohibit or restrict personally or through a subordinate the delivery of legally and medically safe health care services including family planning; (b) any employer who discriminate against a female applicant employee for reasons of reproductive health, or compel her to undergo sterilization or use any other form of contraceptives or as a condition for employment; (c) any person who falsify the certificate of family planning compliance required for the issuance of the marriage license; and (d) any person who maliciously engage in disinformation about the intent or provisions of the bill.

6. Mandatory sex education for children from Grade V until high school without parental consent.

7. A State program promoting the two-child family as the ideal family size for all.

Undoubtedly, these proposals in the bill which may be in accordance with universally recognized rights and/or in compliance with International conventions run counter to some of the provisions of the Constitution particularly the following:

1. Section 12, Article II where the State is required to: (a) recognize the sanctity of family life; (b) protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution; (c) equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception; (d) recognize the natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing, education and development of the moral character of their children.

2. Section 5, Article III, “No law shall be passed respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed”.

3. Article XV Section 1, the State shall strengthen family solidarity and actively promote its total development as foundation of the nation; and

4. Article XV Section 3, the State shall defend the right of the spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood.

These objectionable provisions in the RH bill must be closely scrutinized and duly addressed by our legislators. They should be amended or cancelled. Otherwise the RH bill may be declared unconstitutional even if our legislators are “pressured” to pass them. –Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)

* * *

E-mail us at jcson@pldtdsl.net