• Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
• Independent, Albay
• 04 September2012
• 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137             

             There is no new RH bill being drafted in the House of Representatives but the leadership of the House and the authors of the bill are consolidating acceptable amendments to address the concerns, reservations and objections of critics like some bishops and their congressional allies.           

             The principal thrust of the latest round of amendments is to emphasize the pro-poor orientation and direction of the bill and that the promotion and distribution of RH information, services and supplies will be geared to the poorest and most marginalized households as surveyed and documented by the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTS-PR).           

              In order to obviate the unfounded criticism that the government will distribute contraceptives for free to everyone, the amendments will underscore that only the poorest of the poor will have free access to contraceptives if they are willing acceptors.           

               The catholic countries in Europe and Latin America have long deferred to the secular government on the adoption and implementation of RH and family planning policies for the poor and to improve maternal and infant health.

Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
Independent – Albay
21 August 2012

0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137

           Some oppositors to the RH bill are extremists so much so they block projected amendments that even directly and favorably address their concerns and objections.

            It appears that they would blindly reject the RH bill even if only a comma remains of the controversial measure.

         Had the extremist oppositors relented in their dilatory and obstructionist filibustering, the following amendments responding to their criticisms could have been effected:

         (1) Deletion of the provision on “Ideal Family Size” to assure critics that the bill does not impose a “two-child policy” like China’s “one-child policy”. The original version merely contemplates an ideal norm which is neither mandatory, compulsory nor punitive.

            (2) Deletion of the section on “Employer’s Responsibilities” to address concerns that a similar provision in Article 134 of the Labor Code is already adequate.

          (3) Deletion of the section on “Family Planning Supplies as Essential Medicines” to accommodate objections that such a prior classification cannot be made by law. In lieu of the protested provision, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is charged with the determination of the safety, efficacy and classification of modern family planning products and supplies pursuant to existing law.

          (4) Deletion of the prohibited act on malicious disinformation in order to fully guarantee the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.

           (5) Assurance of funding support to promote modern natural methods of family planning like the Billings, Sympto-Thermal and Standard Days methods.

(6) Hospitals owned and operated by a religious group are given the option not to provide “a full range of modern family planning methods” in order to further guarantee religious freedom.

           (7) Imposition of penalties to pharmaceutical companies, whether domestic or multi-national, which collude with government officials and employees in the purchase, procurement and distribution of modern family planning supplies, products and devices, and/or contribute to partisan political activities, in order to disabuse the minds of critics that there is a pharmaceutical lobby for the enactment of the RH bill.

          (8) Deletion of the provision making the congressional Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) as the mandatory source for the acquisition and operation of the Mobile Health Care Service vehicles to respect the differing views of Congresspersons.

            (9) Emphasis that the bill is not a population control measure.

           (10) Parents are given the option not to allow their minor children to attend reproductive health and sexuality education classes to accord respect to religious convictions and beliefs.

• Rep, Edcel C. Lagman
• Independent – Albay
• 28 August 2012
• 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137

• ENACT FIRST THE RH BILL,
• THEN CONTEST IT BEFORE SC

             There can be no judicial scrutiny by the Supreme Court of the constitutionality of the RH bill until it is enacted into law.

             If the bishops and their lay allies are determined to challenge the constitutionality of the controversial measure, then they should stop hindering the bill from becoming a statute.

             Once the RH bill becomes a law, the RH advocates welcome any question on its constitutionality because they are certain it would surmount the test of constitutionality for the following reasons:

             (1)     The constitutional provision for the State to protect “the life of the unborn from conception” is to prevent both the Congress and the Supreme Court from legalizing abortion. This objective was expressly admitted by Commissioner Bernardo Villegas, the proponent of the provision.

              (2)     The RH bill is against abortion as it provides that abortion is illegal and punishable, and is not an endorsed method of family planning.

               (3)     The function of contraceptives is to avoid pregnancy, either by preventing a woman from ovulating or the sperm from reaching the egg, which in either case there is no fertilization and no fetus to abort.

               (4)     It is for this reason that contraceptives like pill, condoms, injectables and the IUD are medically certified as non-abortive or not abortifacients and are approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

               (5)     Neither the Constitution nor any law prohibits the manufacture, distribution and use of contraceptives.

               (6)     The “unborn” is protected from “conception”, not from “fertilization”, which is a prior stage of the reproductive process, and the two stages are separate and are not synonymous.

                (7)     The proposal in the Constitutional Commission to include in the Bill of Rights a provision that “the right to life extends to the fertilized ovum” was not approved. This original proposal was not constitutionalized because it is clear that the fertilized ovum has no viable life until it is implanted in the woman’s uterus, which is the start of conception or pregnancy.

               (8)     Contraceptives prevent fertilization, while abortion pre-terminates an existing pregnancy or conception.

               (9)     Once pregnancy or conception sets in for any reason, like the failure of contraceptives, no human or medical intervention is allowed to abort the fetus under the RH bill.

             (10)   In fact, the RH bill is anti-abortion because the proper and regular use of medically safe, legal and effective contraceptives reduces the incidence of abortion by as much as 85% according to credible scientific and empirical studies because high-risk and unwanted pregnancies, which are the very candidates for abortion, are avoided.

             (11)   The family is a social institution which is not immune from legislation, particularly the State’s police power to enact laws for the general welfare.

             (12)   The RH bill respects the “rights of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood”, and it also discharges the constitutionally mandated obligation of the State to support the natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth by prescribing formal age-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education considering the default of many parents in imparting sex education to their children since conversation about sex is generally taboo in Filipino homes.