CHOOSE LIFE, REJECT THE RH BILL

No comments

(A Pastoral Letter of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines) Our Filipino Brothers and Sisters: The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights (Art. II, Section 11). The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception (Art. II, Section 12). Background We begin by citing the Philippine Constitution. We do so because we intend to write you on the basis of the fundamental ideals and aspirations of the Filipino people and not on the basis of specifically Catholic religious teachings. We are at a crossroads as a nation. Before us are several versions of a proposed bill, theReproductive Health bill or sanitized as a Responsible Parenthood bill. This proposed bill in all its versions calls us to make a moral choice: to choose life or to choose death. At the outset we thank the government for affording us an opportunity to express our views in friendly dialogue. Sadly our dialogue has simply revealed how far apart our respective positions are. Therefore, instead of building false hopes, we wish at the present time to draw up clearly what we object to and what we stand for. Moral Choices at the Crossroads -- at EDSA I and Now Twenty five years ago in 1986 we Catholic Bishops made a prophetic moral judgment onpolitical leadership. With this prophetic declaration we believe that we somehow significantly helped open the door for EDSA I and a window of political integrity. Today we come to a new national crossroads and we now have to make a similar moral choice. Our President rallied the country with the election cry, Kung walang corrupt walang mahirap. As religious leaders we believe that there is a greater form of corruption, namely, moral corruption which is really the root of all corruption. On the present issue, it would be morally corrupt to disregard the moral implications of the RH bill. This is our unanimous collective moral judgment: We strongly reject the RH bill. Commonly Shared Human and Cultural Values Two Fundamental Principles Far from being simply a Catholic issue, the RH bill is a major attack on authentic human values and on Filipino cultural values regarding human life that all of us have cherished since time immemorial.

Simply stated the RH Bill does not respect moral sense that is central to Filipino cultures. It is the product of the spirit of this world, a secularist, materialistic spirit that considers morality as a set of teachings from which one can choose, according to the spirit of the age. Some it accepts, others it does not accept. Unfortunately, we see the subtle spread of this post-modern spirit in our own Filipino society. Our position stands firmly on two of the core principles commonly shared by all who believe in God: (1) Human life is the most sacred physical gift with which God, the author of life, endows a human being. Placing artificial obstacles to prevent human life from being formed and being born most certainly contradicts this fundamental truth of human life. In the light of the widespread influence of the post-modern spirit in our world, we consider this position as nothing less than prophetic. As religious leaders we must proclaim this truth fearlessly in season and out of season. (2) It is parents, cooperating with God, who bring children into the world. It is also they who have the primary inalienable right and responsibility to nurture them, care for them, and educate them that they might grow as mature persons according to the will of the Creator. What We Specifically Object to in the RH Bill Advocates contend that the RH bill promotes reproductive health. The RH Bill certainly does not. It does not protect the health of the sacred human life that is being formed or born. The very name contraceptive already reveals the anti-life nature of the means that the RH bill promotes. These artificial means are fatal to human life, either preventing it from fruition or actually destroying it. Moreover, scientists have known for a long time that contraceptives may cause cancer. Contraceptives are hazardous to a womans health. Advocates also say that the RH bill will reduce abortion rates. But many scientific analysts themselves wonder why prevalent contraceptive use sometimes raises the abortion rate. In truth, contraceptives provide a false sense of security that takes away the inhibition to sexualactivity. Scientists have noted numerous cases of contraceptive failure. Abortion is resorted to, an act that all religious traditions would judge as sinful. Safe sex to diminish abortion rate is false propaganda. Advocates moreover say that the RH bill will prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. This goes against the grain of many available scientific data. In some countries where condom use is prevalent, HIV/ AIDS continues to spread. Condoms provide a false security that strongly entices individuals towards increased sexual activity, increasing likewise the incidence of HIV/AIDS. Safe sex to prevent HIV /AIDS is false propaganda. Advocates also assert that the RH Bill empowers women with ownership of their own bodies. This is in line with the post-modern spirit declaring that women have power over their own bodies without the dictation of any religion. How misguided this so-called new truth is! For, indeed, as created by God our bodies are given to us to keep and nourish. We are stewards of our own bodies and we must follow Gods will on this matter according to an informed and right conscience. Such a conscience must certainly be enlightened and guided by religious and moral teachings provided by various religious and cultural traditions regarding the fundamental dignity and worth of human life. Advocates also say that the RH bill is necessary to stop overpopulation and to escape from poverty. Our own government statistical office has concluded that there is no overpopulation in the Philippines but only the over-

concentration of population in a number of urban centers. Despite other findings to the contrary, we must also consider the findings of a significant group of renowned economic scholars, including economic Nobel laureates, who have found no direct correlation between population and poverty. In fact, many Filipino scholars have concluded that population is not the cause of our poverty. The causes of our poverty are: flawed philosophies of development, misguided economic policies, greed, corruption, social inequities, lack of access to education, poor economic and social services, poorinfrastructures, etc. World organizations estimate that in our country more than P400 billion pesos are lost yearly to corruption. The conclusion is unavoidable: for our country to escape from poverty, we have to address the real causes of poverty and not population. In the light of the above, we express our clear objections: 1. We object to the non-consideration of moral principles, the bedrock of law, in legislative discussions of bills that are intended for the good of individuals and for the common good. 2. We are against the anti-life, anti-natal and contraceptive mentality that is reflected in media and in some proposed legislative bills. 3. We object strongly to efforts at railroading the passage of the RH bill. 4. We denounce the over-all trajectory of the RH bill towards population control. 5. We denounce the use of public funds for contraceptives and sterilization. 6. We condemn compulsory sex education that would effectively let parents abdicate their primary role of educating their own children, especially in an area of life sexuality which is a sacred gift of God. What We Stand For On this matter of proposed RH bills, these are our firm convictions: 1. We are deeply concerned about the plight of the many poor, especially of suffering women, who are struggling for a better life and who must seek it outside of our country, or have recourse to a livelihood less than decent. 2. We are pro-life. We must defend human life from the moment of conception or fertilization up to its natural end. 3. We believe in the responsible and natural regulation of births through Natural Family Planning for which character building is necessary which involves sacrifice, discipline and respect for the dignity of the spouse. 4. We believe that we are only stewards of our own bodies. Responsibility over our own bodies must follow the will of God who speaks to us through conscience. 5. We hold that on the choices related to the RH bill, conscience must not only be informed but most of all rightly guided through the teachings of ones faith.

6. We believe in the freedom of religion and the right of conscientious objection in matters that are contrary to ones faith. The sanctions and penalties embodied in the proposed RH bill are one more reason for us to denounce it. Our Calls As religious leaders we have deeply and prayerfully reflected on this burning issue. We have unanimously made the moral judgment to reject the RH agenda and to choose life. 1. We call for a fundamental transformation of our attitudes and behavior towards all human life especially the most defenseless, namely, human life being formed or being conceived. The cheapness with which many seem to consider human life is a great bane to our religious-oriented nation. 2. We call upon our legislators to consider the RH bill in the light of the God-given dignity and worth of human life and, therefore, to shelve it completely as contrary to our ideals and aspirations as a people. We thank our legislators who have filed bills to defend human life from the moment of conception and call upon all other legislators to join their ranks. 3. We thank the great multitude of lay people all over the country, and particularly the dedicated groups who made their presence felt in the halls of Congress, to defend and promote our position. We call upon other lay people and adherents of other religions to join the advocacy to defend and promote our commonly shared ideals and aspirations. 4. We call on our government to address effectively the real causes of poverty such as corruption, lack of social and economic services, lack of access to education and the benefits of development, social inequities. 5. We call for the establishment of more hospitals and clinics in the rural areas, the deployment of more health personnel to provide more access to health services, the building of more schools, the provision of more aid to the poor for education, and the building of more and better infrastructures necessary for development. 6. We echo the challenge we prophetically uttered 25 years ago at EDSA I and call upon all people of good will who share our conviction: let us pray together, reason together, decide together, act together, always to the end that the truth prevail over the many threats to human life and to our shared human and cultural values. We commend our efforts against the RH bill (or the Responsible Parenthood bill its new name) to the blessing of our almighty and loving God, from whom all life comes and for whom it is destined. For the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines.
The Reproductive Health bills, popularly known as the RH bill, are Philippine bills aiming to guarantee universal access to methods and information on birth control and maternal care. The bills have become the center of a contentious national debate. There are presently two bills with the same goals: House Bill No. 4244 or An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development, and For Other Purposes introduced by Albay 1st district Representative Edcel Lagman, and Senate Bill No. 2378 or An Act Providing For a

National Policy on Reproductive Health and Population and Development introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago. While there is general agreement about its provisions on maternal and child health, there is great debate on its key proposal that the Filipino taxpayer and the private sector will fund and undertake widespread distribution of family planning devices such as birth control pills (BCPs) and IUDs, as the government continues to disseminate information on their use through all health care centers. Private companies and the public and private elementary and secondary school system will be required to participate in this information and product dissemination as a way of controlling the fast growing population of the Philippines.
[1]

The bill is highly divisive, with experts, academics, religious institutions, and major political figures both supporting and opposing it, often criticizing the government and each other in the process. The issue is so divisive that at one point, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines threatened to excommunicate the President, Benigno Aquino III if he supported the bill.

Osmea: No need to pass RH bill now

Cebu Daily News
7:47 am | Saturday, June 18th, 2011 9share32 23

THE lone Cebu congressmen who wasnt invited to lunch with Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma because of his known support for the Reproductive Health (RH) bill said he didnt mind the snub. It was expected that I wouldnt get an invitation. I would have felt awkward there anyway, he said. Osmea said he supports the RH bill, which mandates the government to stock up on contraceptives and make available the full range of choices for birth control to Filipino families, as well as require sex education for students from grade 5 to high school. But Osmea said he wont vote in favor of the bill when the House calls for legislators to declare their stand. He said he valued his friendship and alliance with former Rep. Raul del Mar, an anti-RH bill advocate and papal awardee, and gave in to Del Mars request not to vote. Osmea said there is no urgency to pass the RH bill now. There is a difference between desirability and urgency. There is no difference between passing the bill now or next year, he said. He said there was little time left for lengthy House discussions since Congress is on recess and would resume session next month. He said what is more urgent for now is for the government to make a stand against church intervention and to remind the Catholic Church of the separation of church and state. The government has to decide how much they will allow religion to dictate on government. Even the church does not want to dialogue on this. In the church, there is no democracy. What God says, thats it. Its very dogmatic, he said. Correspondent Edison delos Angeles
Senate Bill 2378 | An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health and Population Development This bill is awaiting completion of the report by the Senate Committee on Health and Demography; Committee on Youth, Women and Family Relations; and Committee on Finance. The report is expected to

incorporate Senate Resolution 238, and Senate Bill 2768. Senate Resolution 238 | A Resolution Directing the Senate Committee on Health and Demography to Inquire, In Aid of Legislation, on the Status of the Philippines in Attaining the Millennium Development Goals Specifically on Reducing Child Mortality, Improving Maternal Health, and Eradicating HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Other Diseases This resolution is expected to be incorporated into the Senate Bill 2378 when this is reported out. Senate Bill 2768 | An Act Creating a Reproductive Health and Population Management Council for the Implementation of an Integrated Policy on Reproductive Health Relative to Sustainable Human Development and Population Management, and for Other PurposesThis bill was referred last week to the Senate committees handling the RH bills. It will be considered for incorporation into the committee report for SB 2378. House Bill 4244 | An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population Development, and for Other Purposes This bill is the consolidation of six bills. It is on second reading, is facing amendments, up for plenary debates possibly this May, and endorsed by the Chairman of the Committee on Population and Family Relations of the House of Representatives. Proposed Amendments to HB 4244 These are the amendments being proposed to HB 4244, which are expected to be incorporated into the bill once it is tackled at the plenary of the House.

MystandontheRHBill By: Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas S. J. Philippine Daily Inquirer

1:49 am | Monday, May 23rd, 2011 share

I HAVE been following the debates on the RH Bill not just in the recent House sessions but practically since its start. In the process, because of what I have said and written (where I have not joined the attack dogs against the RH Bill), I have been called a Judas by a high-ranking cleric, I am considered a heretic in a wealthy barangay where some members have urged that I should leave the Church (which is insane), and one of those who regularly hears my Mass in the Ateneo Chapel in Rockwell came to me disturbed by my position. I feel therefore that I owe some explanation to those who listen to me or read my writings. First, let me start by saying that I adhere to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception even if I am aware that the teaching on the subject is not considered infallible doctrine by those who know more theology than I do. Moreover, I am still considered a Catholic and Jesuit in good standing by my superiors, critics notwithstanding! Second (very important for me as a student of the Constitution and of church-state relations), I am very much aware of the fact that we live in a pluralist society where various religious groups have differing beliefs about the morality of artificial contraception. But freedom of religion means more than just the freedom to believe. It also means the freedom to act or not to act according to what one believes. Hence, the state should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their religious belief nor may churchmen compel President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief. As the Compendium on the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church says, Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups and Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority. Third, I am dismayed by preachers telling parishioners that support for the RH Bill ipso facto is a serious sin or merits excommunication! I find this to be irresponsible.

Fourth, I have never held that the RH Bill is perfect. But if we have to have an RH law, I intend to contribute to its improvement as much as I can. Because of this, I and a number of my colleagues have offered ways of improving it and specifying areas that can be the subject of intelligent discussion. (Yes, there are intelligent people in our country.) For that purpose we jointly prepared and I published in my column what we called talking points on the bill. Fifth, specifically I advocate removal of the provision on mandatory sexual education in public schools without the consent of parents. (I assume that those who send their children to Catholic schools accept the program of Catholic schools on the subject.) My reason for requiring the consent of parents is, among others, the constitutional provision which recognizes the sanctity of the human family and the natural and primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character. (Article II, Section 12) Sixth, I am pleased that the bill reiterates the prohibition of abortion as an assault against the right to life. Abortifacient pills and devices, if there are any in the market, should be banned by the Food and Drug Administration. But whether or not there are such is a question of scientific fact of which I am no judge. Seventh, I hold that there already is abortion any time a fertilized ovum is expelled. The Constitution commands that the life of the unborn be protected from conception. For me this means that sacred life begins at fertilization and not at implantation. Eighth, it has already been pointed out that the obligation of employers with regard to the sexual and reproductive health of employees is already dealt with in the Labor Code. If the provision needs improvement or nuancing, let it be done through an examination of the Labor Code provision. Ninth, there are many valuable points in the bills Declaration of Policy and Guiding Principles which can serve the welfare of the nation and especially of poor women who cannot afford the cost of medical service. There are specific provisions which give substance to these good points. They should be saved. Tenth, I hold that public money may be spent for the promotion of reproductive health in ways that do not violate the Constitution. Public money is neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Muslim or what have you and may be appropriated by Congress for the public good without violating the Constitution. Eleventh, I leave the debate on population control to sociologists. Finally, I am happy that the CBCP has disowned the self-destructive views of some clerics. ANG SA AKIN LANG E WAG KAYONG MANINIRA NG RELIHIYON... nangingialam daw...ano kya ang tawag dun sa ginagawa ng ibang relihiyon? ha-ha-ha! mga plastik! Kanya-kanyang stand lang yan....magrespetuhan.....actually dhil sa ginagawa at pamamahiya nila sa mga prelates ng Catholic Church e unti-unti nrin kaming nag-iisip dumepensa para sa kanila..... Noong panahon ni Rizal ang mga pari hindi Pilipino.... at ayaw ng mga prayleng espanyol nun na maganak ng mag-anak ang mga Pilipino o "indiyo"....., ngayon sino ngayon ang sumusunod sa apak nila PARE DAMASO??? Sino ngayon ang me kalinya ng utak ng mga espanyol na prayleng yaon???? Sino ngayon si Damaso??? Report Reply +1

Katrina 1 week ago Tingnan mo ngayon ang nangyayari. Wala pa ngang nagagawa yng presidenteng ibinoto ntin e kabikabila ng mga problema ng bansa.....mas lalong naghirap, mas lalong me kaaway, mas lalong nagiging

kurap, harap-harapan....... Spratlys, bagyo, putok ng bulkan, kahihiyan ng kabobohan (Hongkong citizens na mga namatay).....naku nakakarma. Ang malungkot lang ang ultimong pobreng mamamayang pilipino ang naaapektuhan. Kung Anti-RH Bill man ang side na sinusuportahan ng Catholic Church at prelate....i-respeto nyo. Yun ang teachings nila..... Mga plastik!!!!! Tignan mo nga yang nagle-leader-leaderan sa pro-RH bill na yan??? Hindi yan mga Catholics. Ang iba sa pangalan lang...Pero ano ba ang naging contribution nila sa Simbahang Katoliko? WALA. At ngayon nangunguna ang ibang relihiyon sa pagpuna sa katoliko ksama ang mga plastic na yan..... Wag kayong magdunong-dunongan... Ngayon kung me magbabago man ng stand nila sa issue na yan, irespeto ntin....kung maging Pro or anti sila, irespeto ntin. Siguro napag-isip-isip nila kung ano ang tama..... Report Reply +1

Katrina 1 week ago Edukasyon para sa mga walang alam ng tamang numero ng bilang ng pamilya ang kailangan. Kung ang concern nyo ay ang sinasabi nyong mahihirap na malaking pamilya, aba e bakit wala kaming nakikitang mga kawani ng gobyerno para ipaalam sa mga pobreng pamilyang ito ang "isa" sa maraming dahilan ng kahirapan.....I-educate sabi nga.....hindi yung ipagduduldulan mo ang mga condom at kung ano-ano pa sa mga bahay-bahy, lansangan, paaralan, malls, at kung ano-ano pa...... Isa pa, HUWAG nyong i-si-single-out ang Catholic Church sa pagpapalakad ng gobyerno ng Pilipinas....E ano nga ba ang nangyayari sa gobyerno natin? E baka pag mag-check nga tayo ng lista e maraming matataas na pwesto e "Iglesia ni Cristo", United Pentecosta, Iglesia Independencia, etc...... ". Ano nga ba yang ginagawa ng mga leader ng relihiyon na ito, yung pag-suporta nila sa RH bill? Hindi nga ba't pangingialam din yan? Ano bang pagkakaiba ng supporters ng Anti-RH bill at pro-RH bill??? Pareho lang... yun lng yng isa suportado ng presidente, yng isang side HINDI......Mga plastik kayo!!!!! Report Reply +1

ilovepilipinas 1 week ago osmena is stupid and a hypocrite. hindi sya boboto sa RH bill because he values friendship and alliance with del Mar, an anti-RH. it shows the true color of many who claim they are for the interest of the country. friendship lang hindi kayang i-sakripisyo para sa bayan.

pag bayan na pinaguusapan, walang kaikaibigan. kaya walang pag-asa ang pilipinas. pinapatakbo itong bansa simply because magkakaibigan sila. mga hipokrito. Report Reply 0

guenyoung 1 week ago You are very wrong Mr Osmena, maybe you were raised from a well to do family that you say we don't need it now but for someone that came from a very poor family that has a lot of members, this is very urgent. Poor Filipino parents need to get access to these services asap. Wala nang mapapakain ang gobyerno. Kung mas pinahahalahan mo ang friendship nyo ng kapwa mo congresman over sa mass of people na naghihirap dahil walang maprovide ang government then it shows wala kang POLITICAL WILL. Report Reply -2 singit lang 1 week ago google these articles: breathtaking infatuation for rh bill + inquirer Science Facts on the RH Bill with solutions + scribd.com The china model a closer look at population control + crisismagazine.com Report Reply +3

Mang Teban 1 week ago Accommodation politics mentality is what ails our Legislature. Our congress people cater only to their own needs and to their friends. Read again the reason for Osmena not vote for the RH bill this time.. The news item said: "He said he valued his friendship and alliance with former Rep. Raul del Mar, an anti-RH bill advocate and papal awardee, and gave in to Del Mars request not to vote."

Regarding his other statement - "The government has to decide how much they will allow religion to dictate on government. Even the church does not want to dialogue on this. In the church, there is no democracy. What God says, thats it. Its very dogmatic, - there are two fallacies on Osmena's statement. One is that the Constitution has already provided these principles about freedom of choosing one's faith (religion) and the separation of Church and State. What has been messed up is the selective attacks on the Catholic Church by accusing bishops of intervention in government. By the nature of the work of bishops, they are spokesmen for the Filipinos who are members of the Catholic Church. Only with these bishops, the voice of the Filipino Catholics can be heard. Who is going to speak for the teachings of Christ on matters about justice, rights of the unborn, the poor and oppressed, and the underprivileged? The principle of separation between Church and State has very thin distinction between what is purely theological and what is purely human and social morality. Another is Osmena's mistaken notion that "what God says, that's it". This is the common wrong perception that man must follow God blindly. NO. If man follows God blindly, then that is not obedience but subservience. God gave us generously a FREE WILL so that man can choose freely if he will follow God's instructions or not. Jesus spoke clearly about our relationship with God - "I call you now as friends..for a slave does not know what his master is doing..but I gave you this (truth) so that your joy may be complete." Bishops are reminding Filipino Catholics about God's instructions. But, ultimately, it is up for those Catholics to choose using their free will. Bishops are not imposing upon government but forewarning it for the breakdown of morality in society should laws that run counter to proper social behavior will be passed. The indiscriminate propagation of alternative use of contraceptives and condoms will encourage promiscuity and loose morals. This is the point that the Church is objecting to some provisions of the RH bill. If the ordinary Filipino will be heard by our Congress, then the Church will be quiet. As it is now, our Congress people are playing deaf and blind by refusing hearing the side of the ordinary folks. Accommodation politics mentality proliferates in our government service today. that is why let us not hinder men and women who speak the truth without fear from getting their sides heard. Let us not invoke the doctrine of separation of Church from State indiscriminately to protect self-serving interests of lobby groups. Let the voice of the unheard be heard through their spokespersons. In the very end anyway, a congressman votes by his own conscience. That conscience needs to be reminded though that nothing escapes from God particularly accommodating a friend for a vote against your free will and for the common good. Report Reply

+1

ponjap 1 week ago RH bill..kailangan natin ngayon na...sobra na ang papulasyon ng bayan natin...maawa kayo...saan kukuha ng pagkain at tirahan ang mamamayan sa mga darating na panahon...kawawang pinoy tsk tsk tsk. Report Reply