The RH Bill: The Philippines Under Fire

By Steven W. Mosher / 2011 (v13)

Note: This is an article forwarded and shared by credible friends who have followed the issue. Steven Mosher wrote this article. This is good reading for all. So continue the discussion: What do you think? Give the feedback. Thanks.

As I write, there is a battle royal underway in the Philippine Congress. On the one side are the Planned Parenthood types, backed by well-funded international organizations, who are attempting to ram through legislation that would cripple the Filipino birth rate. On the other side stand those who believe that the most precious resource of the Philippines is its people, and who object to the use of what some call “human pesticides” to control the Filipino population.

As you might suspect, the U.S. foreign aid establishment, emboldened by the anti-people mentality of the Obama administration, is on the wrong side of this crucial battle for Life.

The legislation in question is called ”The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health And Population And Development Act Of 2011”—a title which manages the remarkable feat of encapsulating three lies of the abortion/population control movement in the short span of a dozen words.

“Responsible Parenthood’ is shorthand for the wrongheaded notion that couples are somehow doing the world a favor by having few or no children. In fact, the opposite is true: Children are the only future a nation has. Those who are willing to provide for the future in the most fundamental way—by providing the future generation—are a national treasure. They should be praised and encouraged, not condemned and sterilized.

“Reproductive Health,” another favorite of the anti-life movement, is equally misleading. Such programs are not intended to produce health at all, but sterility. Lest you think I exaggerate, consider how the “reproductive health” of a population is defined: It is the percentage of women of childbearing age who have been sterilized or who are using so-called “modern methods of contraception.” The higher this percentage (of women who have been chemically or surgically sterilized), the greater the supposed “reproductive health” of the population is said to be. This leads to the absolutely bizarre conclusion that a population enjoying perfect “reproductive health” would not be able to reproduce at all! Why? Because every last female reproductive system would have been disabled. We should not be surprised that the same people who define pregnancy as a disease, define “reproductive health” as sterility.

Finally, the implication of “Population and Development” is that population growth constitutes an intolerable burden on the economy. But while it is true that growing populations do produce temporary scarcities of goods and services, in a free market entrepreneurs respond by innovating; they devise more efficient means of production, for example, or they find substitutes for scarce materials. At the end of the day a larger population not only produces more goods and services, they do so at a lower price. Economists have a name for this: It’s called economies of scale.

The language of the Philippine Reproductive Health Bill, as it is called for short, is just as dangerous as its name suggests. Section 20, which fixes the “ideal” family size at two children, undermines the God-given right of couples to decide for themselves the number and spacing of their children. It will give further impetus to social engineering projects, already underway in the Philippine Department of Health and other government departments, to reduce family size. In our experience at PRI, any time a government sets population targets of any kind, it leads to human rights abuses.

But this is only the beginning of the mischief. Consider Section 13, which imposes on local government officials the obligation to enforce the provisions of the Act and “give priority to family planning work”. To this China hand, this sounds an awful lot like the PRC, where local officials are under constant pressure to reduce the birth rate, and do so by resorting to forced sterilizations, forced contraceptions and, all too often, forced abortions.

Another provision which could have been taken from Beijing’s playbook is Section 15, which sets up a so-called “Mobile Health Care Service,” and details how it will operate around the country. Apparently, as is the case in China, mobile sterilization teams will be brought in to do the dirty work of population control that local physicians, nearly all Catholic, find morally objectionable.

Incredibly, the proposed law even attempts to stifle dissent by Catholics and others by prohibiting the dissemination of “malicious disinformation about the intent and provisions of this Act.” The “malicious disinformation” that the framers of the bill had in mind would presumably include—aside from my criticisms above—pointing out the simple truth that life begins at conception.

Now I know that you may find this hard to believe, but the “reproductive health” enthusiasts who support the bill deny that a woman who has conceived a child is actually pregnant. It is not until five to seven days after conception, when the developing embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, that they are finally willing to admit its existence.

In claiming that human life does not begin at conception, but at implantation, they violate not only science but common sense. But it is important to understand that they are not fools. They do not engage in this obvious subterfuge lightly, but because they believe that the very success of their population control agenda demands it.

You see, if they admit that life truly does begin at conception, then they would also have to admit that every last one of their hormonal concoctions—from pills and hormonally laced IUDs to implants and injectables—cause early-term abortions. All hormonal contraception works, at least part of the time, by preventing an already conceived baby from implanting in the uterus.

The backers of the Reproductive Health Bill lie about this, too, of course, because they know that few women would take a supposed “contraceptive” knowing that it would actually cause them to abort.

This second lie is especially important to their efforts in the Philippines, where the Constitution, in Article II Section 12, provides that “the State shall equally protect the life of … the unborn from conception.” The Philippine Congress, wanting to leave no doubt about its intentions and no room for misinterpretation, defined the word conception in medical terms, as the fertilization of the ovum. Implantation goes unmentioned

This puts the Reproductive Health Bill, which indiscriminately promotes all types of abortifacient contraceptive devices and services, on a collision course with the Philippine Constitution.

The bill’s backers, supported by foreign “experts” and driven by their anti-people agenda, hotly deny that contraceptives are human pesticides, and that their massive distribution in the Philippines will exterminate large numbers of innocent Filipino babies. But there is little doubt that, if the bill passes, and “reproductive health” becomes the order of the day in the archipelago, that millions will die.

So far, the Philippines has resisted the population control juggernaut that has crushed the populations of other Asian countries like China and Indonesia. Zoe Vidal, a Philippine bioethicist, rightly observes that in this sense the Philippines is “the last country standing.”

Let us pray, for the sake of generations of Filipino babies as yet unborn, that they shall stand fast.

4 Comments

  1. hi. let me just say i’m proRH. while i concede that progesterone pills create a hostile environment in utero for implanting embryos, there are many other alternatives for preventing conception. estrogen pills prevent the maturation of the egg cell by tweaking the hormones responsible for doing so. if the egg doesn’t mature, it doesn’t come out of the ovary. hence, there will be no meeting between sperm cell and egg. this is not to say, however, that progesterone does exactly that: allow conception but prevent implantation. it’s mainly that minuscule risk that all drugs are careful to print out on the packet. nothing has 100% accuracy, not even the medication your lola takes to maintain her blood pressure level.

    you may argue that altering levels of estrogen poses a risk for cancer. the ob-gynecologist normally takes a heredo-familial health history of the patient, taking into account everything that might aggravate or increase the lady’s susceptibility to cancer. while we’re on this note, however, most anything we ingest nowadays have some form of carcinogen in it.

    that said, if anyone’s still not convinced, there’s the condom, tubal ligation, and vasectomy. condoms are straightforward enough to use, and the other two are semi-permanent ways to avoid a pregnancy. i say semi-permanent because yes, they CAN be reconnected.

    we cannot deny the fact that our population has reached catastrophic numbers. in fact, it’s equivalent to a third of america’s population, and there are 50 states! there’s simply not enough resources to go around. if we keep breeding indiscriminately to make sure that the future doesn’t run out of filipinos, we are actually letting the children that we do have now to suffer major consequences:

    1) can we feed them all?
    2) can we send them all to school?
    3) can we provide all their psychological, emotional, intellectual needs?
    4) can we do all of the above equally among 12 children?

    what about the mother’s physical, psychological and emotional welfare? giving birth and raising children are not her sole purpose in life. are we willing to forsake her rights as a human being with needs? facts first. dogma shouldn’t even play a role here. it is archaic and immaterial, and very detrimental to developing countries.

    the catholic church has conceded, in the second vatican council, that along with separation of church and state it would not seek laws that would limit people of other faiths in the practice of their own beliefs. the church is going against its own teaching with this one, as not everyone in the philippines is catholic. what about the rights of the iglesias, the el shaddais, the muslims, etc.?

    last but not least, isn’t it a bit right-wing(ish) to disrespect a person’s capacity to make good moral decisions and exercise conscience? i would have thought that God gave us intellect and intended for us to use it.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Yes, you’re correct and I greatly appreciate your reply. Although there are those who are not Catholic who are in the same stance as the bishops. The El Shadai by the way, you mentioned them, are Catholic. That is why we have to discern well what best to do, and not lord it over others. Thanks. Did you see the previous post? I have posted two articles so people can discuss it here. Thank you very much and I would like to hear from you more. God bless.

      Like

      Reply

  2. Finally, a clear statement against the RH bill from a Filipino JESUIT aside from the venerable Fr Reuters, with very convincing reasons and not just spiritual considerations. Many people have been misled by some Jesuits, especially Bernas and Carroll. The medical and economic (including legal) reasons against the bill are clear. But what confounds us more are priests like Bernas and Carroll who argue more using contested medical and socio-economic reasons, and siding on the favor of the bill. If they just act like priests to guide their flock according to the Church they serve, shall they not be faithful to the teachings of the Church on contraception? Is that not part of their vows or have they disavowed their sacred commitment?

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s