The other side

The numerous views and comments I have mentioned in this column are mostly against the RH bill simply because I have yet to receive from its advocates and supporters a point by point refutation of the reasons why it should not be enacted into law. Any response from the RH bill advocates and supporters will likewise receive equal treatment in this space especially if it proves or shows the following: that artificial contraceptives and devices, which are made available particularly to the poor and marginalized at government expense, will not cause or result in abortion or other serious illnesses to the mothers and children; that the problem of poverty in the land can only be solved by controlling the population growth through appropriation of billions of pesos to purchase these contraceptive pills and devices, and not by, among others, checking graft and corruption where 400 billion pesos are lost yearly, or by a more equitable distribution of “wealth” at least in the government like the scrapping of the pork barrel system so as to increase the salaries of other government employees particularly school teachers; and that it is constitutional to impose fine or imprisonment on anyone prohibiting the delivery of “reproductive health services” like dispensing pills and injectables or inserting an IUD, or on health workers refusing to perform such services.

One of the few responses I received deals with the constitutionality of the penalties in the bill. Its defenders, apparently from the women sector, put more emphasis on the women’s right to choose reproductive health care services they want. Thus, according to them, if after going through a long and hard examination of conscience, women decide to go to a health center, clinic or hospital and asked for pills and injectables or the insertion of an IUD, the health workers or doctors cannot, under pain of being fined or imprisoned, refuse to perform those services simply because their own conscience tell them that those health services may lead to abortion or other serious ailments. The women backers of the bill insist that the conscience of doctors and health workers are not superior to those of their clients or patients who are ordinary women so their conscience cannot prevail over the women’s freedom choice.

The RH bill backers also contend that, if these women subsequently resort to clandestine abortion because they nevertheless became pregnant despite following their conscience and taking those contraceptives, then the doctors and health workers cannot once more delay or refuse treatment if they are brought to the hospital already bleeding and in need of treatment just   because their “superior conscience disapproves of these women’s behavior. They have to refer these women to other doctors or health workers or else they are liable to be fined or imprisoned.

Obviously this stance considers the formation of conscience as purely subjective and strictly personal and isolated. It arises from a misunderstanding of the freedom of conscience to mean “doing what I want”. Actually this is the line of reasoning now prevailing in our society. Officials already caught, or are clearly involved in lying, cheating and stealing still deny their guilt because their “conscience is clear”. So they even dare the whistle blowers to “prove it”

But there are many other factors, like the “relational dimension” involved in the formation of conscience. It has to take shape gradually for the sake of the common good and the integrity and dignity of the human person. In other words, conscience must be in accord with both human and natural law and not necessarily with religious or ethical beliefs superior to other beliefs of the ordinary person. So women do not have the freedom to do what they want like using contraceptives that may result in the killing of a defenseless, innocent unborn child simply because their conscience tells them to do so. Women may have the freedom of choice but not to the extent of choosing something harmful and dangerous to the common good and degrading to the integrity of the human person.

Another interesting response I receive from the internet is that coming from Joffre Balce, a Filipino based in Australia forwarded by Jomel Fuentes of Sucat, Paranaque (jomel_fuentes@hotmail.com). His response caught my attention because it tells of the “Ten Real Reasons Why the RH Bill Must Pass in the Philippines”. Obviously he appears to be in favor of the RH bill. Hence, to be fair, his response deserves to be published. Mr. Balce wrote:

“Actually there are three billion reasons but let’s just make it one billion pesos (US$75 million). However let’s give the RH proponents a bonus and leave this one out first….

1) By the silence of the RH Bill in protecting the rights of the unborn child, it has voiceless victims, so it may freely pursue its other agenda, as follows:

2) It promotes a safe and more enjoyable sex life, free of responsibility — which should really be the title of the Bill;

3) It blames the defenseless for the poverty in the Philippines — the poor and marginalized — just for the fact they were born; and in the same breathe dedicates the law to them while letting the crooks go scot-free and promoting a consumerist, materialistic lifestyle;

4) It creates jobs in the government sector, particularly for new political appointees in the proposed POPCOM who will be paid whether they do their jobs well, or not at all;

5) It raises the sales of the pharmaceutical companies already enjoying the protection of the Philippine Government’s compliance with the WTO/GATT by keeping cheap generics out of reach of the ordinary Filipino;

6) It distracts attention from the more difficult, serious and important task of social justice and reforms that directly address poverty and socio-economic inequality so that the traditional politicians don’t have to work so hard;

7) It gives the State the authority to intervene in more matters that used to be the right, responsibility and accountability of the parents and the family as the basic and core social unit, and puts the burden on health workers and institutions to be accountable for consequences of such acts as abortions — which the family could have avoided;

8) It means more business for the media, in terms of government promo materials, and free advertising for the pharmaceutical companies — which is why there is much less media covering the opposition to the RH Bill despite their superiority in numbers;

9) It means more grants to government and NGOs for population control, from people like Bill Gates, Ted Turner, George Soros and Warren Buffet who have more than two children — contrary to the RH Bill’s two children policy — thus promoting a belief that the poor have less a right to reproduce than them.

These are indeed some insights that have remained unexpressed until now. –Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)