Ian Paolo M. Acosta
HB 5043, otherwise known as the Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008, is an endeavor seeking to empower the Filipino people in attaining a better quality of life in terms of providing access to information and services that equip and support the liberty as well as responsibility of the Filipino citizen, primarily women, on issues of reproductive health. Indeed, there is no question on the necessity of a legal empowerment of reproductive health being aware of the issues underlying it, that is, regarding its being culturally tabooed and yet statistically timely and relevant to public concern. Yet, while it is understood and accepted that the policy is of good intention, and in Kantian terms, of good will, it cuts across other issues of wide concern that are nevertheless relevant, for it is inevitably integrated and influenced by it. And the issue is this: development.
As we will notice, the new term added to this House Bill, as an ‘edition’ among many previous ones, is the concept of Population Development. In a country whose high population continues to be an issue of whether it will be perceived as an advantage in the general economic sense or an indication of lack of social responsibility, with sectors from all over Philippine society having different positions, it is remarkable that the policy making body of our country is taking the lead in making ends meet, in the sense that the house bill is providing a good compromise to contending values to the issue by this uniting guideline: informed choice. As defined in section 4, one of the measures aimed by population development refers to the provision to individuals the capability to achieve their desired family size. With this going alongside the concept of Reproductive Health Education, individuals, couples, married or not, are given legal support in making choices and information on the implications and probable consequences of available options that would suit basically their lifestyle preferences. Be it the preferences of the devout catholic, the liberal protestant, the non-religious and many other groups of people with particular convictions on the subject matter, the bill aims to empower the choice of this differing preferences. The reservations one may probably have on the house bill is that in its implementation it will definitely clash with the ideals of the Filipino society’s members who will construe that by giving power to individuals to choose, the government is tolerating acts which they consider to be ‘immoral’. The nature of the religious movements in the country is one that is dogmatic in that it tends to impose upon other individuals whether in affiliation with their respective groups or not the moral principles that they have. While the government is positively demonstrating a form of equitable tolerance in consideration of many sectors, the problem may arise in how the religious movements (and the people who are influenced by them) which compose a large bulk of Filipino population will comply. The house bill surfaces out the issues of reproductive health as a public concern and takes a position which arguably may not be popular, and so there will raise issues on the tolerance between citizens of different values. There will raise issues on whether the government is actually representing the cumulative interest and morals of the Filipino people.
To say again, while the intention of the House Bill is never in question in that it desires to bring out a kind of good out from the policies it proposes, it poses challenges on how it will be accepted by the people. If the government is to implement these standards effectively it will occur not only in the legal and technical sense of it’s enforcement, but more ideally should be accepted as a legitimate act of governance by government to the people. And in section 4, this is how development was defined: “It refers to a multi-dimensional process involving major changes in social structures, popular attitudes, and national institutions as well as the acceleration of economic growth, the reduction of inequality and the eradication of widespread poverty.” The ethical issue therefore is this. There is going to therefore be a great challenge, first, in establishing the legitimacy of the legal provisions of the bill as representative of the People, and second, in integrating the values of tolerance (that can be derived from the House Bill) to the culture of the People.
Reproductive Health Bill – Is It For Individual and National Economic Growth?
Diana S. Alegria
Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008 or Housebill No. 5043 is an act providing for a national policy on reproductive health, responsible parenthood and population development, and for other purposes. Its objectives is “to uphold and promote respect for life, informed choice, birth spacing and responsible parenthood in conformity with internationally recognized human rights and standards and to guarantee universal access to medically-safe, legal and quality reproductive health care services and relevant information even as it prioritizes the needs of women and children”.
Looking generally, (though not implied on the bill itself) the argument is somewhat related to Thomas Malthus’s essay which states that “population if unchecked will outstrip growth in food production unless slowed by positive or preventive checks”. Although the bill’s ultimate goal of alleviating poverty in the country through population control is implicit, it can be realized that this is the foremost intention as stated in section 3, letter e “limited resources of the country can not be suffered to, be spread too thinly to service rapidly increasing multitude that makes the allocations grossly inadequate and effectively meaningless”. The current population of the country is more or less 88 million which made the Philippines the 12th most crowded nation in the world at the moment. With four babies born every minute, the population is expected to balloon to an alarming figure in the years to come if not appropriately and humanely administered by the government. Such predicted ballooningwould significantly shape the economy of the country. The NSO survey on Family Income and Expenditures from 1985-2000 disclosed that 57.3% of families having many children are underprivileged but only 15.7% families having two children are poor. Realizing the trend, 97% of all Filipinos from the 2003 National Demographic and Health Pulse Asia Survey on February 2004 believe it is imperative to have the ability to control one’s fertility or to plan one’s family.
The survey exposed that population growth is one of the causes of economic stagnation. A simple illustration is that children that are not well-nourished during childhood due to poverty caused by large number of children tend to become sickly, cannot perform well and contribute to the family’s prosperity and to the country as a whole. He /she finally becomes dependent. Eventually, the government will have to invest more for charity works to cater to dependent population members’ basic needs instead of investing it for the progress of the economy to benefit the whole country. Taking this situation, resources are spread too thinly that it can’t be focused on the progress of the economy alone. According to the UN Population Fund 2002 Report, “lower birth rates and slower population growth over the last three decades have contributed faster economic progress in a number of developing countries.
Given this situation, there are questions that needs to be answered, “Will this bill answer the dilemma on poverty without sacrificing the rights and moral principles of all concerned? “Is the bill determined for human development that will lead to economic progress of the country?” Who will benefit from the bill?
On this proposed bill, relationships and private life of couples and other individuals concerned under the care ethics will now be brought to the public. This will form part of the couple’s decisions on the wise management of a family they chose to nurture without depriving their rights and freedom of choice which they think and believe is for their economic progress. Understanding and acceptance of every family member will likewise play a vital role to maintain a healthy relationship within the family while achieving economic progress through this bill. For the program to be widely accepted and effective, implementers need to ensure moral responsibility to the takers’ considering that there will be mental and emotional adjustments. Seeing the affirmative effects of the bill, takers of this challenge will act as additional advocates aside from the implementers, especially to those whom they had an association. Though this is not the main issue, the delivery of the program to all stakeholders, is one of the key factors on the acceptance and success of this bill.
Noting the concept, generally the bill can be asserted to be advantageous to the Philippine society particularly on the alleviation of poverty from the family level making up the nation and, the world. How will this happen? It can be evidently seen from the several communities and from the testimonies of individuals that families with limited number of children have the greater chance to prosper compared with large families. Small family size will cost parents controlled amount on their daily basic needs like health and education of their children while, large families will do the opposite. Moreover, the probability of a child becoming underweight and malnourished will be lessened since parents are financially capable of providing quality basic needs. Child labor shall likewise be prevented thus, children instead of being compelled to earn additional income for the family, will now have better participation in school decreasing the number of school drop-outs and OSYs. This is considering that parents will have more quality time to intimately monitor schooling of their children; thus, there is greater chance of having a better future.
Understanding the bill, the decision still lies with the persons/ couples/ women and men who are target recipients of the proposed medical service. Generally, however, the ultimate goal of the proposed bill is reasonable and will be very beneficial. This is specially so if takers are really encountering medical problems and financial constraints in nurturing their children due to large number of children. It can’t be hidden that there are a lot of people today who were not able to fulfill their visions in life and can not socially function due to poverty. It is not yet too late, supporting the bill is one of the urgent responce to alleviate poverty. A consistent and coherent national population policy along with sound monetary and economic policies and good governance could propel our people toward sustainable human development.
_________________________
Setting forth the Limits
Efrenlito B. Cabbigat
The Philippines has gained popularity for being the 12th most populous nation in the world today with its 88.7 million population from a 60.7 million population 17 years ago. Filipino women’s fertility which according to statistics has reached a rate of 3.5 would mean that there is four babies born every minute. With this fact, it is projected that in year 2038, we are going to reach an alarming 160 million population.
Having a limited geographical space and a fast rate at which the natural resources is degraded and exploited, thus leading to the environment’s inability to supply human necessities, the state legislators have been prompted to pursue enactment of house bill 5043 otherwise known as the reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008.
Having the bill’s title alone, one can determine its ultimate thrust which is to limit the Philippine’s burgeoning population to a more manageable and, accordingly, a more “development friendly” size. The question then that this paper tries to pursue is how many people is “more manageable” or say, at which population rate can we be confident to ensure development? This question similarly inquires, at which population rate will the Filipinos find their lives more happy and satisfying?
We therefore apt to compare the substantial difference of Less Developed Countries with whom our country falls into and the Development countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and Canada in terms of how they experience happiness and prosperity which is usually measured by economic indicator such as the GNP and the GDP.
Some people, however would most certainly cling to the advocacy of Henry Thoreu on simple living- arguing that people are rich in proportion not to what they have, but to what the can afford to do without. This reinforces the fact that people in the Less Developed Countries (LDC) often have cultural bonds and deep reserves of development according to different criteria that cannot easily be quantified.
Say for instance, despite the appalling Philippine economic situation to the extent that the country cannot afford to provide a promising pension and social security plans or other related services to the elderly, Filipino’s traditional practice of taking care for the adults could well compensate or even do comparably better to that of the western country’s system of adult care and management involving institutionalized care giving. This for sure is one among the numerous illustrations that can contest the arithmetic of economics when measuring domestic prosperity. I am therefore tempted to further ask whether or not population, in fact, have a significantly large stake to how people feel satisfied with their lives. After all, we would agree that happiness is a one sure status that is subjective and relative. One could be the richest man in the world and could be as happy as a contented peasant who has his family members intact and is assured that once he gets old, someone is going to take care of him/her and that he/she assumes a position in the community that elicits respect. At this point, we then have to ask again, should HB 5043 be necessary to optimize economic and social development or is it a policy that is actually being influenced by the hegemonic culture of the west?
I can well remember an experience by a friend of mine when he visited a particular community and asked one kid how he, being one among the many sibling and residing in a grass roofed nipa hut, feels about their living condition. He simply responded with an innocent smile seemingly manifesting absence of dissatisfaction and inadequacy. Three years later, after radio and television coverage penetrated the rural communities, the same kid was encountered and interviewed about his perception of their living condition. It was to no surprise that the kid felt he is less inadequate with the rest of the world as he had witnessed a lot of commercial products shown and advertised on television, items that are beyond his parent’s capacity to provide. Clearly, people tend to see their life differently as to how one perceives necessity.
In the advent of media, continuous and unstoppable influence of western thought and their culture of individualism, can we therefore claim that the means of promoting birth spacing and regulating the number of families are valuable? I believe that the answer to this is not a simple yes or no. Although I would most agree to the idea that allowing individuals to determine which is best for their welfare is primary to development. People are supposed to be given the freedom to access information and education that helps them pilot their welfare as they are experiencing the modern environment. Time is changing, therefore people then has to be provided with enough capacity to learn how to adapt with this vicissitudes. Means of life from the old times necessary have to change as demands of survival also changes.
HB 5043 will certainly not guarantee absolute development but then couples or parents are not deprived of information that can be handy when choosing which course to take in terms of determining the number of family size. As massive information is available and are significantly changing the lives of many, people have the rights to the availability of options. In this case, I am most likely to adhere to the proposition of the bill as it yearns to educate the Filipinos of some options that can they either consider or refuse.
__________________________________
HB 5043: For Better or For Worse?
Myra Christine D. Caragan-Caguioa
The debate on the HB 5043 or “The Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008” is becoming more intense between the Pro-Life advocates and the Roman Catholic Church on one side and the proponents and supporters of the RH bill on the other side. Although it has not been taken up in Congress these past days, both sides are militantly watching each other’s back and continuously scrutinizing each other’s stand. Besides, the battleground has not been exclusive within the walls of the House of Congress but also in pulpits, classrooms, print media, television and even hospital operating rooms.
The RH bill seeks to improve the quality of life of every Filipino particularly women. Women, as bearers and primary nurturers of life are given the freedom of informed choice, active participation and equal partnership. It is not only women who will be liberated in their role as bearers and nurturers but men as well for it also encourage their involvement and participation in all areas of reproductive health. The bill in this case promotes gender equity. Second, it promotes human-rights based approach to development as it focuses not only on married couples but the participation of all other stakeholders- families including children, single individuals, health practitioners, local government units, academic institutions, and the rest of the population. HB 5043 is not just about health but also rights.
The anti-HB5043 group thinks otherwise. First, according to former Senator Francisco Tatad, a staunch critic of the bill, man have activities which are not subject to state regulations such as the right to breathe, the right to think, the right to feel, the right to love, the right to hope, the right to believe. “The State has no business instructing the citizen, by law, how to breathe, how to think, how to feel, how to love, how to hope, how to believe…Therefore the State has no business instructing married couples that they should first contracept or get themselves sterilized before they could engage in sexual intercourse”. The critics also warned against the proliferation of abortion and extramarital affairs once the bill becomes a law. Their main contention is that the bill is totally unnecessary because there are existing programs that addresses pregnancy, contraception and sterilization. There is also a strong condemnation on the mandatory sex education for young children which, according to them, must not be legislated as it would encourage premarital sex. Their arguments are mainly influenced by religious convictions particularly coming from the Roman Catholic Church
Culturally, the Filipino people regard sexuality, reproduction and responsible parenthood as private matters. But because of the increasing statistical figures on maternal mortality, infant mortality, unwanted pregnancies, abandoned fetuses, reproductive health diseases and illnesses of both men and women, increasing birth rate and domestic violence, to mention a few, reproduction issues has been forwarded to the public arena. Therefore public policies are needed to cover matters pertaining to these issues.
An example of issue being addressed by the RH bill is infertility and sexual dysfunctions, the interventions of which are being strongly opposed by the critics. According to them, we must not “play God”. But for couples who wanted to have children of their own but cannot, the bill provides them with a choice and the right to have their own biological children through assisted reproductive technologies (ART). On the other hand the use of artificial contraceptive methods is a choice for couples who wanted to plan the number and spacing of their children. This is a pro-life position because essentially it is pro-quality-life. Definitely, the availability of choices and the opportunity of having a democratic choice will generate pleasure not just to the couples concerned but to other stakeholders like the children, the family and the community as a whole. The good consequence outweighs the “fear” and the “harm” generated by defying the teachings of the Church.
Overpopulation is another national crisis that needs to be addressed. Population is a major determinant of the effects of human beings to the environment and to the resources available. Thus it has to be curtailed and it needs the cooperation of all. In the Philippines, it has been argued that the richness of our natural resources can produce enough food for our current population. The dilemma lies in the unequal distribution of the scarce resources. The resources are owned and controlled by the few, leaving a small portion divided amongst the poor majority. Obviously, pleasure is only experienced by the few while for the rest, pleasure is a luxury. Because of the conditions of the poor majority, development programs are designed to improve national economy and then hoping that a trickle-down effect will benefit the poor. However, this never happened as the benefits remain within the hands of the privileged few. Where is then the principle of equality? In addition to this, the poor in our country are the least educated and uninformed about reproductive health care and as a consequence they are the ones who have the most number of children. The RH bill which promotes information and access to natural and artificial family planning methods will enable couples to adopt methods based on their needs and personal beliefs.
Women, who were for so long have been subjugated and relegated in the Philippine society will benefit much from this bill. First, they will be informed about their bodies and its reproductive functions; second, they will be able to have an access to reproductive health care; and third, the bill covers the elimination of violence against women. The community-based health workers who are mostly women will also benefit a lot as they will receive appropriate training in the field of reproductive health care. With this, the women can get-out of the stigma of being “doormats” and “baby factories”. As a whole, women will be able to empower themselves and actively participate in the community as equal partners of men.
With all these considerations, the RH bill is for better and not for worse. The pleasurable outcomes outweigh the negative consequences. Whatever is for the ultimate good for our people will generate growth and development for our country. Hence it doesn’t mean that if many are against it, the bill is bad.
“What is right is not always popular. What is popular is not always right”.
-Unknown-
___________________________
Diana S. Alegria
Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008 or Housebill No. 5043 is an act providing for a national policy on reproductive health, responsible parenthood and population development, and for other purposes. Its objectives is “to uphold and promote respect for life, informed choice, birth spacing and responsible parenthood in conformity with internationally recognized human rights and standards and to guarantee universal access to medically-safe, legal and quality reproductive health care services and relevant information even as it prioritizes the needs of women and children”.
Looking generally, (though not implied on the bill itself) the argument is somewhat related to Thomas Malthus’s essay which states that “population if unchecked will outstrip growth in food production unless slowed by positive or preventive checks”. Although the bill’s ultimate goal of alleviating poverty in the country through population control is implicit, it can be realized that this is the foremost intention as stated in section 3, letter e “limited resources of the country can not be suffered to, be spread too thinly to service rapidly increasing multitude that makes the allocations grossly inadequate and effectively meaningless”. The current population of the country is more or less 88 million which made the Philippines the 12th most crowded nation in the world at the moment. With four babies born every minute, the population is expected to balloon to an alarming figure in the years to come if not appropriately and humanely administered by the government. Such predicted ballooningwould significantly shape the economy of the country. The NSO survey on Family Income and Expenditures from 1985-2000 disclosed that 57.3% of families having many children are underprivileged but only 15.7% families having two children are poor. Realizing the trend, 97% of all Filipinos from the 2003 National Demographic and Health Pulse Asia Survey on February 2004 believe it is imperative to have the ability to control one’s fertility or to plan one’s family.
The survey exposed that population growth is one of the causes of economic stagnation. A simple illustration is that children that are not well-nourished during childhood due to poverty caused by large number of children tend to become sickly, cannot perform well and contribute to the family’s prosperity and to the country as a whole. He /she finally becomes dependent. Eventually, the government will have to invest more for charity works to cater to dependent population members’ basic needs instead of investing it for the progress of the economy to benefit the whole country. Taking this situation, resources are spread too thinly that it can’t be focused on the progress of the economy alone. According to the UN Population Fund 2002 Report, “lower birth rates and slower population growth over the last three decades have contributed faster economic progress in a number of developing countries.
Given this situation, there are questions that needs to be answered, “Will this bill answer the dilemma on poverty without sacrificing the rights and moral principles of all concerned? “Is the bill determined for human development that will lead to economic progress of the country?” Who will benefit from the bill?
On this proposed bill, relationships and private life of couples and other individuals concerned under the care ethics will now be brought to the public. This will form part of the couple’s decisions on the wise management of a family they chose to nurture without depriving their rights and freedom of choice which they think and believe is for their economic progress. Understanding and acceptance of every family member will likewise play a vital role to maintain a healthy relationship within the family while achieving economic progress through this bill. For the program to be widely accepted and effective, implementers need to ensure moral responsibility to the takers’ considering that there will be mental and emotional adjustments. Seeing the affirmative effects of the bill, takers of this challenge will act as additional advocates aside from the implementers, especially to those whom they had an association. Though this is not the main issue, the delivery of the program to all stakeholders, is one of the key factors on the acceptance and success of this bill.
Noting the concept, generally the bill can be asserted to be advantageous to the Philippine society particularly on the alleviation of poverty from the family level making up the nation and, the world. How will this happen? It can be evidently seen from the several communities and from the testimonies of individuals that families with limited number of children have the greater chance to prosper compared with large families. Small family size will cost parents controlled amount on their daily basic needs like health and education of their children while, large families will do the opposite. Moreover, the probability of a child becoming underweight and malnourished will be lessened since parents are financially capable of providing quality basic needs. Child labor shall likewise be prevented thus, children instead of being compelled to earn additional income for the family, will now have better participation in school decreasing the number of school drop-outs and OSYs. This is considering that parents will have more quality time to intimately monitor schooling of their children; thus, there is greater chance of having a better future.
Understanding the bill, the decision still lies with the persons/ couples/ women and men who are target recipients of the proposed medical service. Generally, however, the ultimate goal of the proposed bill is reasonable and will be very beneficial. This is specially so if takers are really encountering medical problems and financial constraints in nurturing their children due to large number of children. It can’t be hidden that there are a lot of people today who were not able to fulfill their visions in life and can not socially function due to poverty. It is not yet too late, supporting the bill is one of the urgent responce to alleviate poverty. A consistent and coherent national population policy along with sound monetary and economic policies and good governance could propel our people toward sustainable human development.
_________________________
Setting forth the Limits
Efrenlito B. Cabbigat
The Philippines has gained popularity for being the 12th most populous nation in the world today with its 88.7 million population from a 60.7 million population 17 years ago. Filipino women’s fertility which according to statistics has reached a rate of 3.5 would mean that there is four babies born every minute. With this fact, it is projected that in year 2038, we are going to reach an alarming 160 million population.
Having a limited geographical space and a fast rate at which the natural resources is degraded and exploited, thus leading to the environment’s inability to supply human necessities, the state legislators have been prompted to pursue enactment of house bill 5043 otherwise known as the reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008.
Having the bill’s title alone, one can determine its ultimate thrust which is to limit the Philippine’s burgeoning population to a more manageable and, accordingly, a more “development friendly” size. The question then that this paper tries to pursue is how many people is “more manageable” or say, at which population rate can we be confident to ensure development? This question similarly inquires, at which population rate will the Filipinos find their lives more happy and satisfying?
We therefore apt to compare the substantial difference of Less Developed Countries with whom our country falls into and the Development countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and Canada in terms of how they experience happiness and prosperity which is usually measured by economic indicator such as the GNP and the GDP.
Some people, however would most certainly cling to the advocacy of Henry Thoreu on simple living- arguing that people are rich in proportion not to what they have, but to what the can afford to do without. This reinforces the fact that people in the Less Developed Countries (LDC) often have cultural bonds and deep reserves of development according to different criteria that cannot easily be quantified.
Say for instance, despite the appalling Philippine economic situation to the extent that the country cannot afford to provide a promising pension and social security plans or other related services to the elderly, Filipino’s traditional practice of taking care for the adults could well compensate or even do comparably better to that of the western country’s system of adult care and management involving institutionalized care giving. This for sure is one among the numerous illustrations that can contest the arithmetic of economics when measuring domestic prosperity. I am therefore tempted to further ask whether or not population, in fact, have a significantly large stake to how people feel satisfied with their lives. After all, we would agree that happiness is a one sure status that is subjective and relative. One could be the richest man in the world and could be as happy as a contented peasant who has his family members intact and is assured that once he gets old, someone is going to take care of him/her and that he/she assumes a position in the community that elicits respect. At this point, we then have to ask again, should HB 5043 be necessary to optimize economic and social development or is it a policy that is actually being influenced by the hegemonic culture of the west?
I can well remember an experience by a friend of mine when he visited a particular community and asked one kid how he, being one among the many sibling and residing in a grass roofed nipa hut, feels about their living condition. He simply responded with an innocent smile seemingly manifesting absence of dissatisfaction and inadequacy. Three years later, after radio and television coverage penetrated the rural communities, the same kid was encountered and interviewed about his perception of their living condition. It was to no surprise that the kid felt he is less inadequate with the rest of the world as he had witnessed a lot of commercial products shown and advertised on television, items that are beyond his parent’s capacity to provide. Clearly, people tend to see their life differently as to how one perceives necessity.
In the advent of media, continuous and unstoppable influence of western thought and their culture of individualism, can we therefore claim that the means of promoting birth spacing and regulating the number of families are valuable? I believe that the answer to this is not a simple yes or no. Although I would most agree to the idea that allowing individuals to determine which is best for their welfare is primary to development. People are supposed to be given the freedom to access information and education that helps them pilot their welfare as they are experiencing the modern environment. Time is changing, therefore people then has to be provided with enough capacity to learn how to adapt with this vicissitudes. Means of life from the old times necessary have to change as demands of survival also changes.
HB 5043 will certainly not guarantee absolute development but then couples or parents are not deprived of information that can be handy when choosing which course to take in terms of determining the number of family size. As massive information is available and are significantly changing the lives of many, people have the rights to the availability of options. In this case, I am most likely to adhere to the proposition of the bill as it yearns to educate the Filipinos of some options that can they either consider or refuse.
__________________________________
HB 5043: For Better or For Worse?
Myra Christine D. Caragan-Caguioa
The debate on the HB 5043 or “The Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008” is becoming more intense between the Pro-Life advocates and the Roman Catholic Church on one side and the proponents and supporters of the RH bill on the other side. Although it has not been taken up in Congress these past days, both sides are militantly watching each other’s back and continuously scrutinizing each other’s stand. Besides, the battleground has not been exclusive within the walls of the House of Congress but also in pulpits, classrooms, print media, television and even hospital operating rooms.
The RH bill seeks to improve the quality of life of every Filipino particularly women. Women, as bearers and primary nurturers of life are given the freedom of informed choice, active participation and equal partnership. It is not only women who will be liberated in their role as bearers and nurturers but men as well for it also encourage their involvement and participation in all areas of reproductive health. The bill in this case promotes gender equity. Second, it promotes human-rights based approach to development as it focuses not only on married couples but the participation of all other stakeholders- families including children, single individuals, health practitioners, local government units, academic institutions, and the rest of the population. HB 5043 is not just about health but also rights.
The anti-HB5043 group thinks otherwise. First, according to former Senator Francisco Tatad, a staunch critic of the bill, man have activities which are not subject to state regulations such as the right to breathe, the right to think, the right to feel, the right to love, the right to hope, the right to believe. “The State has no business instructing the citizen, by law, how to breathe, how to think, how to feel, how to love, how to hope, how to believe…Therefore the State has no business instructing married couples that they should first contracept or get themselves sterilized before they could engage in sexual intercourse”. The critics also warned against the proliferation of abortion and extramarital affairs once the bill becomes a law. Their main contention is that the bill is totally unnecessary because there are existing programs that addresses pregnancy, contraception and sterilization. There is also a strong condemnation on the mandatory sex education for young children which, according to them, must not be legislated as it would encourage premarital sex. Their arguments are mainly influenced by religious convictions particularly coming from the Roman Catholic Church
Culturally, the Filipino people regard sexuality, reproduction and responsible parenthood as private matters. But because of the increasing statistical figures on maternal mortality, infant mortality, unwanted pregnancies, abandoned fetuses, reproductive health diseases and illnesses of both men and women, increasing birth rate and domestic violence, to mention a few, reproduction issues has been forwarded to the public arena. Therefore public policies are needed to cover matters pertaining to these issues.
An example of issue being addressed by the RH bill is infertility and sexual dysfunctions, the interventions of which are being strongly opposed by the critics. According to them, we must not “play God”. But for couples who wanted to have children of their own but cannot, the bill provides them with a choice and the right to have their own biological children through assisted reproductive technologies (ART). On the other hand the use of artificial contraceptive methods is a choice for couples who wanted to plan the number and spacing of their children. This is a pro-life position because essentially it is pro-quality-life. Definitely, the availability of choices and the opportunity of having a democratic choice will generate pleasure not just to the couples concerned but to other stakeholders like the children, the family and the community as a whole. The good consequence outweighs the “fear” and the “harm” generated by defying the teachings of the Church.
Overpopulation is another national crisis that needs to be addressed. Population is a major determinant of the effects of human beings to the environment and to the resources available. Thus it has to be curtailed and it needs the cooperation of all. In the Philippines, it has been argued that the richness of our natural resources can produce enough food for our current population. The dilemma lies in the unequal distribution of the scarce resources. The resources are owned and controlled by the few, leaving a small portion divided amongst the poor majority. Obviously, pleasure is only experienced by the few while for the rest, pleasure is a luxury. Because of the conditions of the poor majority, development programs are designed to improve national economy and then hoping that a trickle-down effect will benefit the poor. However, this never happened as the benefits remain within the hands of the privileged few. Where is then the principle of equality? In addition to this, the poor in our country are the least educated and uninformed about reproductive health care and as a consequence they are the ones who have the most number of children. The RH bill which promotes information and access to natural and artificial family planning methods will enable couples to adopt methods based on their needs and personal beliefs.
Women, who were for so long have been subjugated and relegated in the Philippine society will benefit much from this bill. First, they will be informed about their bodies and its reproductive functions; second, they will be able to have an access to reproductive health care; and third, the bill covers the elimination of violence against women. The community-based health workers who are mostly women will also benefit a lot as they will receive appropriate training in the field of reproductive health care. With this, the women can get-out of the stigma of being “doormats” and “baby factories”. As a whole, women will be able to empower themselves and actively participate in the community as equal partners of men.
With all these considerations, the RH bill is for better and not for worse. The pleasurable outcomes outweigh the negative consequences. Whatever is for the ultimate good for our people will generate growth and development for our country. Hence it doesn’t mean that if many are against it, the bill is bad.
“What is right is not always popular. What is popular is not always right”.
-Unknown-
___________________________
An Evaluative Analysis on HB 5043 (The Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008) by Looking Through the Lens of Development
Leofina Jane G. Galleta
Leofina Jane G. Galleta
From its conception, House Bill 5043, or the Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008, has been viewed by the Filipino people (and the rest of the world) in numerous angles and perspectives. Perceived with different interpretations, reactions, and opinions, debates related to this proposed legislative agenda show differing opinions and concerns coming from different stakeholders – mostly from individual’s observations based on limited information and biased position and from the public at large. It is undeniable that such occurrences would indirectly; if not subtly give way to a certain degree of influence on the on-going deliberation presently done in the House of Representatives.
As stated in the “Fact Sheet and Explanatory Notes” (from the Committee on Health, on House Bill No. 5043, House of Representatives, Republic of the Philippines), the population of the Philippines is approximately 88.7 billion as of 2008, which clearly suggests that “four babies are being born in every minute, and that “the fertility rate of Filipino women is 3.05%, which belongs to the upper bracket of around 206 countries”. It is noted however in the above mentioned fact sheet that available data from previous studies states that “Filipinos are responsive to smaller-sized families through free choice of family planning method”.
Looking closer into the provisions of HB5043, which is commonly known as the “Reproductive Health (RH) Bill” it is apparent that the authors of the bill aimed for a national unification and participation in its implementation through a nationalistic approach, which coincides with the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Furthermore, the bill aims to pave the way towards sustainable human development, empowerment, and gender equality and equity as it appears that the bill could possibly bridge the gap of inequality especially in gender related societal issues in the Philippines. HB5043 appears to promote “quality life” through application of informed choice, and respect for life among Filipinos (Section 2). Moreover, the authors of the bill stressed in its Guiding Principles that the bill is “about health and rights” (Section 3.b), thus, promoting gender equality and women empowerment (section 3.c), responsible parenthood (section 3.d), freedom of informed choice (section 3.f), among others.
There are several provisions in the bill that infused heated debates from different sectors of the Philippine society, primarily from groups and individuals who openly expressed their oppositions, allegedly due to “moral and religious implications”. Other opinions against the bill include - that the bill is unconstitutional, anti-life, and the notion that there are contraceptives that act as “abortifacients”. Some even believe that promulgation of the bill is more of a means for the national government to qualify for more “AID/welfare” funds from international funding agencies than its expressed objectives.
Some specific provisions on the bill that cause strong reactions and oppositions include - Section 10 proposes that contraceptives be considered as an “essential medicine”; Section 12, in its Mandatory Clause wherein the Age-Appropriate Health education was tackled; and Section 14 with regards to “Certificate of Compliance”. On the other hand, proponents of HB 5043 strongly promotes the importance of the following provisions - Section 11 on Mobile Health Care Service; Section 4 i & g, on Reproductive Health Care and Male Involvement Participation; Section 6 on Midwives for Skilled Attendants, and Section 7 on Emergency and Obstetric Care; among others. Proponents of the bill believes that these provisions are essential means, especially for women and the marginalized sector, with regards to the couples’ as well as their children’s overall well-being as well as in promotion to the couples’ equity and equality in terms of responsibility and participation.
Development, on the other hand, as described in the provisions of RH 5043, states that it is “a multi-faceted process that calls for the coordination and integration of policies, plans, programs and projects, that seek to uplift the quality of life of the people, more particularly the poor, the needy, and the marginalized” (Section 3. j).
As stated in the “Fact Sheet and Explanatory Notes” (from the Committee on Health, on House Bill No. 5043, House of Representatives, Republic of the Philippines), the population of the Philippines is approximately 88.7 billion as of 2008, which clearly suggests that “four babies are being born in every minute, and that “the fertility rate of Filipino women is 3.05%, which belongs to the upper bracket of around 206 countries”. It is noted however in the above mentioned fact sheet that available data from previous studies states that “Filipinos are responsive to smaller-sized families through free choice of family planning method”.
Looking closer into the provisions of HB5043, which is commonly known as the “Reproductive Health (RH) Bill” it is apparent that the authors of the bill aimed for a national unification and participation in its implementation through a nationalistic approach, which coincides with the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Furthermore, the bill aims to pave the way towards sustainable human development, empowerment, and gender equality and equity as it appears that the bill could possibly bridge the gap of inequality especially in gender related societal issues in the Philippines. HB5043 appears to promote “quality life” through application of informed choice, and respect for life among Filipinos (Section 2). Moreover, the authors of the bill stressed in its Guiding Principles that the bill is “about health and rights” (Section 3.b), thus, promoting gender equality and women empowerment (section 3.c), responsible parenthood (section 3.d), freedom of informed choice (section 3.f), among others.
There are several provisions in the bill that infused heated debates from different sectors of the Philippine society, primarily from groups and individuals who openly expressed their oppositions, allegedly due to “moral and religious implications”. Other opinions against the bill include - that the bill is unconstitutional, anti-life, and the notion that there are contraceptives that act as “abortifacients”. Some even believe that promulgation of the bill is more of a means for the national government to qualify for more “AID/welfare” funds from international funding agencies than its expressed objectives.
Some specific provisions on the bill that cause strong reactions and oppositions include - Section 10 proposes that contraceptives be considered as an “essential medicine”; Section 12, in its Mandatory Clause wherein the Age-Appropriate Health education was tackled; and Section 14 with regards to “Certificate of Compliance”. On the other hand, proponents of HB 5043 strongly promotes the importance of the following provisions - Section 11 on Mobile Health Care Service; Section 4 i & g, on Reproductive Health Care and Male Involvement Participation; Section 6 on Midwives for Skilled Attendants, and Section 7 on Emergency and Obstetric Care; among others. Proponents of the bill believes that these provisions are essential means, especially for women and the marginalized sector, with regards to the couples’ as well as their children’s overall well-being as well as in promotion to the couples’ equity and equality in terms of responsibility and participation.
Development, on the other hand, as described in the provisions of RH 5043, states that it is “a multi-faceted process that calls for the coordination and integration of policies, plans, programs and projects, that seek to uplift the quality of life of the people, more particularly the poor, the needy, and the marginalized” (Section 3. j).
Based on data and statistics on the official website of the World Bank (WB), the Philippines is presently classified as one the developing countries in the cluster of East Asia and the Pacific Region. It is important to note however, that in the website of the World Trade Organization (WTO) there was no definition for the term “developing countries”. Instead, it was stated that “members announce for themselves whether they are “developed” or “developing” countries.”
As a developing country, it is imperative that the Philippines adapt laws and policies geared towards sustainable growth and a holistically empowered state, as such is presumably expected in agendas and objectives of developing countries. One of the possible options for the Philippines is to address the needs of the present without sacrificing the nation’s Constitution (which is especially designed with embedded sense of nationalism) and its people’s core and universal values. In lieu of such analytic developmental opinions, some might say that drastic measures are necessary to speed up growth and development for a developing country; others may opt to adapt a lower phasing and approach towards this goal due to equally essential considerations (cultural, ethical, etc.).
HB 5043 has been commonly treated in separate perspectives- either as; a.) The “reproductive health bill” or, b.) as a means of “population control”. Based on the documents that I have examined related to this bill, this matter is always tackled as “either or”, never as “both”- I wasn’t able to find any document that presented it as “both” reproductive health bill and as a means of population control (as one, that is).
As I see it, HB 5043 unifies the efforts of the Population Commission (POPCOM), the Department of Health (DepEd), and other government agencies in promoting universal health access towards development. (It is to be understood however, that even after the decentralization of the Philippine Government, the implementation of devolution along with deconcentration wasn’t fully implemented yet – specifically, Rural Health Officers are still operating under the umbrella of the Department of Health and NOT on the Local Government Units.) The passage of this bill might just be a bridge that would synchronize all departmental projects and programs of different governmental agencies that would possibly result to more caring, more effective, and more efficient health service from the government.
As stated in the “Laws or Principles of Social Development”, Social evolution is subconscious in the collective, and that all achievements in the society are collective, and “not individualistic.” As further stated, laws are essential in social development. However, although laws are of the essence, expressions (and thus interpretations) vary. Thus, differing opinions and perceptions about HB5043 will continue on as the legislative body will progress on its deliberation.
Thus, more than the value of individualistic perceptions about the bill’s transparency of purpose and implied hedonistic or even eugenistic agenda, allowing our individual judgment "using the veil of ignorance", in addition to our deliberate and rational examination of the bill’s underlying presuppositions might enable us to see the essence of the bill in the light of its own reality. In the light of this thought, it is but imperative that HB 5043 be seen through the “veil of ignorance” which was deliberately discussed in the writings of John Rawls about “justice as fairness”, specifically its notion of which was further elaborated in the following excerpts from “A Theory of Justice”;
“..it is clear then, that I want to say that one conception of justice is more reasonable than another, or justifiable with respect to it, it is rational persons in the initial situations would chose its principles over those of the other for the role of justice. Conceptions of justice are to be ranked by their acceptability to persons so circumstance...” – Rawls, 1971
What might be perceive at present as weaknesses or possible violations embedded in the bill with regards to ‘moral and/or religious” issues, etc., could, on the other hand, be possible means that entails different output- either that, or vice versa. Another vague area at present concerns the future implementing rules and regulations, if the bill will indeed become a law. That future phase would essentially be a definitive factor as to the success or failure of this initiative.
Lastly, I as a Filipino citizen have seen some momentous events that transpired in our country – the People Power Revolution for one. That event served as a catalyst, the first of its kind, which I consider to be a sort of “definitive moment” in the Philippines as a nation. These kinds – these definitive moments”, are “turning points” that would illicit positive changes if we, as one nation would be brave enough to try. HB 5043 might just as well be one of these “definitive moments” that could serve as a gateway for more opportunities and chances towards development- that is if we, Filipinos would “take that one shot when the opportunity arises”. The passage of this bill might just be a vital step for the realization of what most of us Filipinos long to happen – to enjoy a better quality of life.
________________________________
Reproductive Meanings
Rajah Shanti Gamiao
Our nation, at this time is facing a crisis of meanings. We are on the verge of passing a landmark house bill which is currently facing stiff opposition from certain sectors in society. The legislation in question is the Reproductive Health and Population Development Bill. This set of meanings has greatly challenged the Church. They contend that the bill promotes abortion and is anti-life, contentions that are well beside the point. A close reading of the Reproductive Health Bill will reveal that it is constructed to further respect for life, responsible parenthood, informed choice, and birth-spacing. It also gives provision for the participation and empowerment of women in reproductive decisions. What then is all the fuss all about? Why is there such a massive outcry of rhetoric coming from the church?
The tangle of meaning threads has not really been properly focused on the actual proposals of the Reproductive Health and Population Development Bill. A close reading of the bill unfolds a sensitive and balanced proposal of solutions to real problems faced in our society. A large portion of our society does not have the access to information and actual tools for birth spacing. The rhetoric of the Church, that abstinence and “natural methods” are the only approved ways of family planning that are not against life, does not hold much weight when a couple is in the throes of ecstasy, and the ejaculation of fertility is nigh. How can we forget that we have bodies bubbling with hormones for procreation, an act which is the most natural thing in the World?
The Rhetorical gymnastics dodge the thorns of the dilemma. In this rapidly changing world of globalisation and development, the rule of survival has shifted to economic mastery. The times are changing away from the context that used to support institutions like the Church. This, I believe is the source of their rabid refusal to acknowledge the wisdom of installing a Reproductive Health Bill. Nowadays, having a large family means difficulty in supporting the children and providing them education. This is largely due to the economic pressures that seem to accompany globalisation and world integration. We now have a taste of what modernisation means. Urban primacy is at large and the shared meanings that used to surround us is rapidly being flooded by mass media. As Peter Berger has said, “A society cannot hold together without a comprehensive set of meanings. The respect for the conscience of others necessarily implies respect for their definitions of reality.” This is where the House Bill under debate proves its worth. It allows people the freedom to choose their own ways of managing their family. The bill promotes access and education of family planning methods; it does not put decisions in the minds of people. Our right to choose the consequences which we shall live by should be the focus of the argument.
The definition of reality comes from each of us. However, some of us have louder voices than the rest of us. The debate surrounding the issue of whether family planning and birth spacing is a good strategy in the present time and under the present conditions that we are having to submit to, is sometimes drowned out by the insecurity of meaning systems that are being threatened by irrelevance. A sentence from the book Pyramids of Sacrifice jumps out “modernization is a shift from givenness to choice on the level of meaning.” It is undeniable that we are all being swept by the tide of modernization, which by its very mention calls forth images of the lifestyles and consumables that we are asked to choose from. The given nature or set meanings which abounded during times when the conditions were stable were sufficient for those times.
However, we are faced with the demands of development now, and the quality of population is one of the keys to a nation’s well-being. It is not only the quantity of the population that matters. A population should be able to realise its potential and not suffer from poverty and hunger (which the majority population of our nation is experiencing). It is easy to speak from the pulpit about abortion. It is difficult for the mother aborting her child to undergo that operation because of the knowledge that she cannot support that child. How then are we to address the conditions which force suffering? Can we condemn the Reproductive Health Bill to be forgotten just because it offends the sensibilities of some? Who has the right to choose?
The Reproductive Health and Population Development Bill only seeks to equip our nation’s population with the knowledge of birth spacing options and healthy practices, in effect giving the people the power of informed choice. A couple should be allowed the freedom to determine how they are going to responsibly parent their young, which is of course determined by their ability to do so. Ability nowadays is more and more equated to buying power and economic integration. Procreation is basic to our nature, should we deny ourselves the tools to choose our future?
___________________________________
How much the RH Bill Serves and RH Bill Serving What Ends?
Joar Herrera
The Reproductive Health Bill (HB 5043) is a “proposed bill in the House of Representatives that gives the government the duty to promote responsible parenthood through giving enough information and education to the people and having full range of safe, legal, and effective modern natural and modern artificial family planning methods, from which they can choose the one most appropriate to their needs attuning to personal philosophy and value system, and religious convictions. The purposes of the RH Bill espouse a substantive importance on the protection of life and promotion of quality of life, by enabling couples, especially the poor, to bring into the world only the number of children they believe they can care for and nurture to become healthy and productive members of our society. In the advent of the challenging times, the bill also recognizes the urgent need of sustainable development vis-à-vis population growth, responsible parenthood, informed choice, and respect for life.
Sustainable development signifies the totality of the process of expending human choices by enabling people to enjoy quality of life, access of resources, and healthy environment. Studies show that rapid and indiscriminate population growth constitutes socioeconomic problems and eventually aggravates poverty. The UN Human Development reports show that countries with higher population perpetually score lower in human development. The Asia Development Bank in 2004 also listed a large population as one of the major causes of poverty in the country. In the Philippines, the family income and expenditures survey by the NSO from 1985-2000 disclose that 57.3% of families having many children are poor but only 15.7% of families having two children are poor. Additionally, countries that invest in health, especially in reproductive health and family planning, and in education and women’s empowerment and development slower population growth and faster economic growth.
Responsible parenthood goes beyond the provision of natural and modern family planning information and services, thus, it promotes values espoused by Philippine society in general, and Catholicism, in particular. Practicing responsible sexual relations and abstinence before marriage, not sexual promiscuity, will be encouraged. It also seeks to create opportunities for young people to air out their attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development, sexual behavior and sexual health. Respect for the sanctity of life will be stressed through information and education against abortion and lessons on the hazards of abortion. Through responsible parenthood, another key Filipino value will likewise be emphasized to promote reproductive health, achieve desired family size and prevent unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies. Family health goes beyond demographic target because it is primarily focused on health and human rights. Gender equality and women empowerment are central elements of family health and family development. Since human resource is the principal asset of every country, effective family heath care services are paramount to ensure the birth care and healthy children and to promote responsible and heroic parenting.
In the discussion of ethics, the question may be raised as to what positive value the stakeholders should be assigned to uphold the common good and the fundamental and primary rights of Filipino families and individual citizens. The exercise of power of the state is sometimes regarded as devious, distorting, or demeaning. Sometimes, the argument maybe made that the exercise of political power impedes individual’s rational pursuit of valued ends and could, often restricting freedom of speech by discouraging legitimate dispute and hinder other stakeholders to inculcate morality according to their faith. In this regard, most of the stakeholders appreciate the argument that some have made in favor in good conscience of political rationality as a valuable and even preferable neo modernism approach, not at all necessarily unethical in its moral implications.
Indeed poverty has been the most overused and recurring excuse for so many wrongs committed in the past and present societies. At this time, the RH bill proponents are using alleviation of poverty vis-à-vis overpopulation as one of reasons for passing the bill that purportedly promotes abortion. This argument is ambiguous because: (1) our population may admittedly be growing since we are inhabited by men and women of reproductive age. But it is not growing unabated since the population growth rate has slowed down and is steadily decelerating as statistics show; (2) poverty is not caused by the growing population but by a combination of institutional problems, corruption, bad governance, inequality, social conflict, and negative effects of globalization.
As I would recall, Thomas Hobbes’ perspective is in the best interests of rational humans to agree on some basic moral values and laws they will follow this state of nature, for it will be in their best interest to do so. His analysis states that there are moral laws that are enforceable, and for which there are sanctions and punishments for violation. Hobbes justifies the existence of governments, as they would exist to help ensure that humans abide by the rules and laws of the society. The ethical justification for the RH Bill is to make some stakeholders serve some general will or public interest. However, some sectors may be disadvantaged or exploited through the political processes. Thus, the most crucial question that the stakeholders are asking in these trying times is not whether RH Bill should approve and/or exist, but how much the RH Bill, and RH Bill serving what ends? The ethical issue is practically and ultimately not the substance and/or scope of RH Bill but to what kind of liberty and equal opportunity shall be put to the Filipino people and the society as a whole.
The interventions of numerous institutions in the realm of academe, government, church, NGO’s, civil society, business group, and LGU are becoming passionate, meaningful and fecund discourse on how to uplift the condition of the poor for which the Catholic Church has a preferential option, without being incompatible with the traditions of faith and morals. A legitimate consideration is whether there should be more interventions or not from church. Clearly, there is no question from the guidance of the church in the social and political options. At the same time, however, a delineation line, not always clear, separates the functions of government and church; thereby potentially splitting government from a source of social and moral values cherished to many believing citizens. This considers religion and/or church as possessing an important role in government. In the Preamble to the Constitution, most of the time, institutions implore the aid of God. At the same time, however, people do not wish government to meddle with religion nor religion to rule government. Nevertheless, maintaining the equilibrium between religious liberty and church-state separation is a continuing challenge. The issue is how the stakeholders identify the common good in the pursuit of natural law and the state of nature.
In view of the above arguments, we should not allow our nation to be divided by ethical issue. There should be a venue for religious autonomy as well as candidness not only to direct the complicated dividing line between religion and government but also to explore areas where the two institutions, church and government, and the various religions can work together and respect each other. In good conscience and the pursuit of common good, the time is ripe to let RH Bill pass in Congress. As the cliché goes” the only permanent thing in this world is change”, hold true to the various aspects of people’s lives, there will always be the constant struggle between reality and the ideals. Regardless of the aims of the protest among stakeholders and religious groups in the fights of social and cultural changes, the world ought to be ready to replace the old paradigm to new set of culture, new set of systems and laws, and new breed of leaders.
____________________________________
House Bill No. 5043 – An Ethical Analysis
Diosdado D Pambid
House Bill No. 5043 or “an act providing for a national policy on reproductive health, responsible parenthood and population development, and for other purposes” offers the following objectives: (1) to uphold and promote respect for life, informed choice, birth spacing and responsible parenthood in conformity with internationally recognized human rights standards, and (2) to guarantee universal access to medically-safe, legal and quality reproductive health care services and relevant information even as it prioritizes the needs of women and children. Based on these two primary objectives, we could identify three central themes of the bill that caters to its different stakeholders, namely choice, access, and equality. It is from these three themes that the discussions on this paper will be revolving.
One key provision of the bill is the guarantee of sufficient information and education to its different stakeholders, specifically the women, the children and the men, in the promotion of their well-being by providing them sufficient learning in the aspect of reproductive health and its benefits for the family, the society in general and for the economic welfare of our country as a whole. As we can see in several provisions of the bill, the right to informed choice will become mandatory to see to it that these specific stakeholders will be equipped with adequate knowledge for them to make decisions as far as their health and their family’s well-being is concerned. A wide array of reproductive health methods, including both natural methods and artificial reproductive technologies, will be offered to the general populace but will not be compelled to follow any specific method as what is desired by the State.
The provision of age-appropriate health education will also see to it that children, or more specifically teenagers, will be well-informed on the intricacies of reproductive health at appropriate stages thus making them more prepared to meet the challenges of adulthood. This will prevent them from engaging in self-discovery out of curiosity but rather allows them to see beforehand the implications of their actions. Here, we can clearly see that their right for self-determination is provided as they are afforded with sufficient information to make the right decisions.
It is also clearly stated in the bill that measures to be instituted in the implementation of the bill will be in accordance with law and medically-safe methods and technologies ensuring, once again, the well-being of the individual. With these provisions, it offers the individual (women, children and men) the right to self-determination or their autonomy given the different opportunities being presented without prejudice to one’s stature, condition or even their economic and social status.
In terms of equality or fairness with regards to the individual, the family, and the society, it is clear in the bill that no person will be discriminated as to their opportunity to access the different reproductive health methods. Through the bill, family-planning methods requiring hospital services and reproductive health products and supplies will become readily available to those who wish to avail of it. It even allows those who have been, due to their specific circumstances, the right to be taken cared of for post-abortion complications thereby making certain of equal opportunities by ensuring their welfare.
The bill also provides the responsibility of the different hospitals, both public and private, the different agencies of government, the roles of the different local government units, and even the legislators in the provision of adequate reproductive health implements and appropriate funding to ensure their availability. However, one thing noticeably absent in the bill is a provision on free access or cheap reproductive health products and supplies.
The question on the desire of the individual, especially for married couples, to avail of these modern reproductive health methods can no longer be debated as evidenced by some studies[1] made regarding this matter. On the other hand, the question on its accessibility most especially to the poorest of the poor is placed into doubt. There is no clear provision which states that the State shall see to it that those belonging to the lower poverty line will be subsidized to allow them access to these modern methods. Thus, the question of who really benefits from the bill is again put into suspect.
If we will look into some statistical data[2], population growth and socio-economic status are inversely proportional to each other. Thereby, those who cannot afford to gain access to these modern reproductive health methods are those who have no capacity to secure it for themselves. This, therefore, limits their opportunity which again results to limited choice. One might say that those who belong to the lower socio-economic classes are those who would rather see to it that they have adequate basic necessities rather than avail of such modern technologies with the presence of a cheaper alternative, natural reproductive health methods.
Thus, once again, we go back to the question, who really benefits from the bill? Is it the poor sector of our society or those who are manufacturers of these modern reproductive health technologies? Even if it is clear that information and adequate education will be afforded to the general populace as it is to be provided by law, access to these other methods are limiting. Thus, it shall bring us to the next question; will the passage of the bill really contribute to the growth and development of our society? Or will it further exacerbate our current “population crisis”? As long as access to these modern technologies is clearly appropriated to the whole of society, with consideration to the capability of the individual families, then this bill is insufficient in its form and its over-all substance. Knowing the underlying precepts, most especially the hidden intentions of those who are proponents of the bill is significant to our analysis. Unless it becomes clear that provisions with regards to access to these new methodologies will be provided, then the question to its ethical viability will remain in doubt.
_________________________________
More than the Debate on Exclusivity: Welfare and Justice
Marian C. Sanchez
Traditional perspectives claim that there exists a boundary between public and private spheres as well as government and religious concerns. Taking as an example, most conventional thinkers view the family and its affairs as a separate realm that needs to be protected from state intrusion. The same exclusivity is claimed applicable in relation to the dealings of states and churches which are seen separate institutional domains.
Bringing the divergence discourse in relation to HB 5043 or the Philippine Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008, the advocates of the bill assert the proposed law as a big step forward to the state’s development efforts. It is on the other hand seen by its adversaries as an overtly intrusive bill to individuals, partners and/or couple’s reproductive health decisions.
While the bill is positively presented by the pro-camp as a legislation which promises to enhance the over-all well being of the Filipino people, the anti-side of the coil sees the bill pro-abortion and anti-life- thus ethically unacceptable.
Opposing contentions on life and liberty primarily serve as major points of debate with regard the bill.
The defenders of the bill claim the proposal’s potential to make known and available safe and reliable birth control methods, responsible parenthood promotion and means, sexuality education and practice assistance, reproductive health needs governance and provision, and on a wider goal, the comprehensive management of human and population development. Moreover, as freedom of choice is argued by the bill proponents to be of no barrier with regard citizens’ reproductive health practice and method preferences, individuals are claimed to be affirmed liberty in decision making.
The bill however is confronted with claims of its possibility of promoting abortifacients, early and/or pre- marital sexual involvement, and homosexual activities. Moreover, claims of state intervention and imposition to personal and family affairs, such as in the choice of number of children and birth spacing, are present.
Contending ideas on technology application are also visible. While the catholic church- which serves as the main opposition to the bill- maintains its advocacy for natural/traditional birth control methods, the bill as explained by its advocates leaves the option to individuals and/or couples to choose between or a mixture of traditional and modern birth control methods and/or technologies.
This paper is not to give a straightforward verdict of whose contention is right or wrong. While Colin Hay has stated that voices are conceived and formulated to reflect a particular vantage point or subject position[3], there must be in the first place admittance of both the pro and anti HB 5043 camps’ partial and partisan claims. The Catholic Church’s biases for dogmatic Christian doctrines must be recognized, so is to be done for the bill proponents’ leaning for western population and development paradigms.
Transcending the exclusive arguments of both the pro and anti HB 5043, the more pressing questions to be asked and answered are: Whose welfare shall the bill promote? Can the bill provide justice to its stakeholders?
If one is to look at ethics from the idea that some things are wrong and must not be done, would there be any basis to say that the bill should not be signed into a legal deed?
Feminists assert that, the personal is political. Personal dealings of individuals and/or families are not essentially detached from wider social and state affairs.[4] Individual decisions on reproductive health at great length affect individuals as well as their partners and children’s well being. Thus, under the state’s duty to promote its citizens’ general welfare, reproductive health matters are as well state responsibilities. Given these considerations, the state cannot choose not to intervene in individual’s reproductive health concerns as these greatly affect the country’s present condition and future development.
Population policies and measures are vital moves in the promotion of people’s physical, social, and moral growth. In the country’s milieu where poverty is pervasive and family size is greater among the poorest, parents’ capacity to provide their children’s basic nutrition, health, and educational needs is greatly affected. Thus, as these needs are most unmet by the economically marginalized population, opportunities for their self development is also hampered.[5] If these problems shall not be provided feasible solutions, a vicious cycle of poverty and its accompanying upshots must be expected.
This paper is therefore taking the position that the drafting of HB 5043 as governed by the state’s responsibilities to its people, along with the current condition of the country, is timely. That is, the bill is essential taking objectively the needs to strengthen the country’s development efforts and poverty reduction strategies. Second, this appear argues that, the need for scrutinizing the proposal rests not on its dividing features rather its implications to different stakeholders involved.
Based on utilitarian principles, actions are judged good or bad depending on the consequences they have on their doers and other people. Moreover, a person’s good is that which is needed for the successful execution of a rational long term plan of life given reasonably favorable circumstances. The promotion of liberty, opportunity, income, wealth, and self-respect without causing damage to any party is the given a person who aims for happiness must consider.
The promotion of liberty is secured by the provisions of the bill as the bill never in itself prescribes but suggests and provides different choices individuals and couples can make with regard their reproductive health. Different researches have testified for the country’s need for an improved RH management program. Given that a better reproductive health provision can give women, men, children, and every member of the society greater opportunity to improve their well-being- to emancipate them from many health implications of unmet reproductive needs- the bill can be a tool to improve and secure not only selected members of the society’s quality of life but the whole society at large.
Amartya Sen, using development ethics perspective, posits the idea that, development should be understood beyond positivist measures and modernization.[6] Accordingly, development should be rather aimed through the expansion of human capabilities and functionings.
If promoting people’s comprehensive reproductive health rights can secure citizens longer and nourished living, make people avoid preventable causes of morbidity, and give everyone a greater chance of pursuing a better quality of living, what would make such effort unconscientious and/or unjust?
Care ethics says that many human relationships involve persons who are vulnerable, dependent, ill, and frail, and the desirable moral response is attached attentiveness to needs, not detached respect for rights.[7] Care is thus to be provided to those most in need. While another contention to the bill is its being too pro-women’s health, the history of marginalization and subordination of women’s health concerns cannot be denied. Women are most in need of reproductive health provision. Following care ethics, women’s reproductive health is needed to be given guaranty as well as priority.
“The better that women are, the better that everyone else will be” a saying goes. The logic of the saying therefore suggests that the simple provision of women’s rights to decide for their bodies and health is a leap forward for the betterment of everyone.
Statistics have shown the increasing number of maternal morbidity, pre-and post natal complications, abortion cases, and other health consequences of the country’s lack of sound reproductive health programs. Caring for and finding ways to provide and sustain Filipino citizen’s reproductive health and self-development rights are noble acts of care in state management.
According to Gilman, only when women are men’s social, political, and economic equals will women and men be both able to develop truly human moral virtues- the perfect blend of pride and humility: namely; self respect.[8] The emphasis of HB 5043 for informed, responsible, and joint decision making, not only of couples, but of the individuals, the professionals, the civic society, and the state, is very promising towards the attainment of an egalitarian and flourishing state.
The bills effort to promote joint and participative provision of reproductive health services anchored on every individual’s domestic and international law-granted rights for physical, social, and moral development can secure people not only of their privileges as human beings but at a greater opportunity to be part of other people and the nation’s flourishing. Healthy bodies and minds are essential for the development of the whole society. And if this is so, will the bill not be an instrument for everyone’s attainment of self-respect? Will it not be a written tool for the provision of feeling of fulfillment through caring for one’s as well as other people’s well-being for human and the nation’s development?
This of course is not to claim HB 5043 as a document of no single flaw. For one, the provisions of the bill lack punitive measures for its stated/identified possible violations in RH rights and RH service delivery. Furthermore, the bill lacks recognition if not sensitivity to the country’s indigenous reproductive health knowledge and well-being practices as it only highlights alternative western developed RH methods.
As to the biggest debate on the risk of forgoing the rights of unborn babies, the bill speaks clearly that abortion remains illegal and immoral.
While the bill concerns very delicate and indispensable issues related to life and rights, it should remain under everyone’s keen scrutiny. In addition, the provisions and claimed promises of the bill must not blind the hopeful that managing the population is the panacea of the country’s intertwined maladies-the bill is just one of the brightest light but not the sole answer.
The debate therefore is beyond the exclusive claims of different parties, but more of common welfare and social justice. As liberty and rights are both bestowed upon every individual, only when, every citizen intelligently and morally claims and uses these capacities can the country be expected to experience development through the flourishing of caring citizens.
[1] Based on the powerpoint presentation made by the Asia 21/Philippines 21 Class 2008 RH Advocacy Plan
[2] Both from the presentation and the “Biology of Poverty” by Mepham (2008)
[3] See Hay, C. 2002. Political Analysis. Great Britain: Palgrave.
[4] Feminist Perspective on Reproductive Health. Online Source: http://www.plato.stanford.edu.com/
[5] Pernia et. al., UP Forum Vol.9 No.5, Sept-Oct 2008
[6] Feminist Ethics, Online Source: http://www.plato.stanford.edu/.
[7] Ibid
[8]Feminist Perspective on Reproductive Health, http://www.plato.stanford.edu/
