Parenthood same as pending RH bill

THERE is no need to come up with a responsible parenthood (RP) bill to compliment the pending reproductive health (RH) bill measure proposed in the House of Representatives, an RH bill author in the House said Wednesday. House Minority Leader Edcel Lagman noted that the responsible parenthood bill parallels Lagman’s House Bill 96 along with five other pending allied bills as shown by its title “An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population and Development, and For Other Purposes.”

“Maybe there is no need to craft another bill because they [RH and RP] are identical and complimentary. Besides, the pending bills are in the final stages of consolidation. Entertaining another bill will only deter the timetable [for the passage of the RH bill],” Lagman told reporters.

Moreover, Lagman cited five other similarities of the RH and Palace’s responsible parenthood measure namely: the absence of demographic or population target, poverty reduction or alleviation as a principal agenda, promotion of voluntary family planning based on freedom of informed choice, making all kinds of family planning methods from the natural to the artificial which are legal, medically safe and effective accessible and prohibiting and penalizing abortion.

The Lagman bill defines responsible parenthood as “the will, ability and commitment of parents to adequately respond to the needs and aspirations of the family and children by responsibly and freely exercising their reproductive health rights.”

“The RH bill is not intended to be a population control measure. The reduction of the population growth rate is incidental to the promotion of reproductive health and human development,” Lagman pointed out.

Lagman, however, underscored that while an RH law is not a panacea to poverty, the government’s anti-poverty strategies will continue to be undermined by a ballooning population, high rates of unwanted fertility and equally alarming maternal and infant mortality and morbidity without a clear policy on RH.

“Neither the Church nor the State has the right to dictate on the faithful or citizens which form of family planning they should use. The choice primarily and ultimately belongs to the couple, especially to women who bear the brunt of pregnancy, child birth and child care,” Lagman emphasized.

The controversial six pending reproductive health bills in the House of Representatives have been referred to a Technical Working Group for consolidation on December 2010.

Meanwhile, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) said it would increase its efforts to promote natural family planning (NFP) to step up its campaign against artificial contraception.

In its online news, the CBCP said that artificial contraception violates Catholic teaching but that it harms women’s bodies and the environment.

The CBCP has lined up a reorientation seminar on NFP for priests and religious in Manila to be more effective in convincing couples to practice the method.

In a circular dated January 17, Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales of Manila called on his priests to attend the seminar set on two dates to give them enough opportunity.

The seminar entitled “Appreciating the Gift of NFP” is scheduled on February 8 and 22 at the San Carlos Seminary Auditorium in Makati City.

It will be facilitated by the John Paul II Natural Family Planning Center of the Commission on Family and Life of the Archdiocese of Manila.

“This is part of our pro-active response to the challenge of fostering a genuine civilization of life and love,” Rosales said. –LLANESCA T. PANTI AND JOMAR CANLAS REPORTERS, Manila Times