Real pro-life bills

The sponsors and advocates of the RH bill particularly women who openly professed they are Catholics (C4RH) insist that the bill is pro-life. It is pro-life because it promotes the reproductive health of women especially those who cannot afford to be pregnant and have babies. These women are telling us that they own their bodies and it is their right to decide what is good for them as their conscience dictates including the right to take birth control pills to prevent pregnancies if it will endanger their life and health and those of the child.

They insist that the RH bill affords them this right to reproductive health by giving them an informed choice between the natural method of birth control which is now already available without any cost, or the pills and other artificial contraceptive devices and services which entail expenses but which the government will provide free of charge.

They are telling us that the RH bill also enables couples to plan the size of their families according to their earning capacities by making available to them the artificial methods of birth control which is easier but more expensive, aside from the natural method which is harder but absolutely free of any charge.

In other words, the sponsors and supporters are telling us that under the RH bill, women can promote their reproductive health and couples can plan the size of the families much better because they will be given the freedom of choice. And the choice is between the natural method which is really free but harder to do as it entails self-control and self-sacrifice by abstaining from the sexual act during a certain period; or the artificial methods which entail expenses that the government will shoulder and therefore also free, but easier and allegedly more “safe and satisfying” because the sexual act can be done with anybody at any time without risks to health and to having unwanted babies. Therefore, the freedom of choice under the RH bill simply means that whether one chooses the harder or easier method of birth control, it is free of any charge.

And given this kind of “freedom”, anybody will naturally opt for the easier artificial method of contraception where engaging in sexual act can be done at anytime with anybody and supposedly more “safe and satisfying”. But the problem here is that some contraceptives cause abortion or actually kill a conceived but unborn child, the fertilized ovum in the mother’s womb, by preventing it from implanting into the wall of the uterus.

Moreover, the availability of the entire range of contraceptives, whether causing abortion or not, “tends to establish a contraceptive state of mind which leads to absolving responsibility for children conceived which, in turn leads to more abortion” (Donald De Marco PhD, The Contraceptive Mentality). In the same article De Marco cited Jesuit sociologist Stanislas Lestapis who offered statistical and compelling evidence showing that more contraception does not reduce but increases the incidence of abortion particularly in countries like England, Sweden and Switzerland.

Indeed, even the consolidated RH bill itself admits the possibility that contraception may lead to more abortions when it declared in Section 3 (j) that “While this Act recognizes that abortion is illegal and punishable by law, the government shall ensure that all women needing post abortion complications shall be treated and counseled in a humane, non-judgmental and compassionate manner”.

Hence it is not true that the RH bill is pro-life. Its coercive provisions on the use of contraceptives cause abortion or leads to abortion even if it does expressly legalize abortion. If the proponents and advocates really mean that they are pro-life and pro-reproductive health of women, they should sponsor, support and fully endorsed the proposed House Bill 13 of Congressman Roilo Golez and an SB 2497 sponsored by Senator Juan Ponce Enrile.

These bills essentially serve as the implementing law of the Constitutional provision particularly Article II Section 11 which states that “The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights; and Section 12, which provides that “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of their moral character shall receive the support of the Government”.

HB 13 and SB 2497 aim to extend the mantle of legal protection to the basic right to life of the unborn child from the moment of conception equally with the right to life of the mother. They are based on the truism that the right to life is the most fundamental of all rights from which all other rights are derived and without which all other rights are meaningless including the women’s reproductive right. Thus these bills bestow and attach human personality to an unborn child or the fertilized ovum thereby entitling it to possess and enjoy all human rights conferred by law to other persons, first and foremost of which is the right to life, safety and protection while still in the mother’s womb.

In connection with declared policy of the State recognizing the family as the foundation of the nation and strengthening the solidarity of the family as a basic autonomous social institution these bills expressly recognize the rights of the parents of minors with an unborn child superior to that of the State in all matters involving said unborn child, particularly the right to give consent to any decision on the disposition of the unborn child at any stage of development.

On the other hand, these bills also aim to enhance the health of the pregnant mother by prohibiting use of any means adversely affecting the viability of the unborn child at any stage of development particularly abortive acts like the use, administration, dispensation injection or delivery by whatever means, of substances, medicines in any form; or practices such as hilot or abdominal massage which are penalized one degree higher than the penalty imposed by the Revised Penal Code on abortion.

HB 13 and SB 2497 are the real pro-life and pro-reproductive health bills. They should be the ones enacted into law, not the RH bill. –Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)

*      *      *

E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net