(Opponents of the Reproductive Health Bill fought tooth and nail against its passing in 2008 causing President Arroyo to withdraw support. This article which came out on October 11 and 17, 2008 at the Business World, among others, admonished her not to pass the bill. Would President Noynoy whose presidency assumes moral ascendancy kowtow to the proponents of the bill? - The Bagman)
The "conscience" theme has never left local advertisements. The story line in many television ads about a woman talking to her inner voice or conscience in deciding what better soap or product to buy for her family never fails to amuse us for decades. The conscience advises the woman what product is good for her family and what will be beneficial to her in the long run. It teaches her to distinguish right from wrong. Her conscience guides her and warns her to act only in accordance with her own standards of right and wrong.
I guess the current debate on House Bill 5043, or the “Reproductive Health Bill,“ involves at the very least an exercise of conscience as well. I tried to read through its provisions, attempting somehow though probably failing at times to momentarily set aside tenets that have been taught to me as a Roman Catholic. Well my conscience did not stop pricking me as I look at its contents.
For a bill that unavoidably deals on moral issues, more specifically gender equality, responsible parenthood, family planning and abortion, it miserably failed to include in its declaration of policy and guiding principles any reference to our “Almighty God,” which point is clearly so emphasized in the preamble of our Constitution.
The bill is nothing but ambitious as it seeks to envelop at the same time in such a short single initiative a handful of differing and complicated subjects revolving around population, women’s rights, health promotion, gender equality and human rights. Empirically such a hodgepodge bill will undoubtedly lead to more explanations and oversight confusion in the future. “The simpler, the better” should be the rule.
The bill for all its good intentions made sweeping assumptions in an effort to push for what is referred to as “responsible parenthood.” Section 5 of the bill makes the Commission on Population (Popcom) the central planning and implementing body for the reproductive health policy. With Popcom at the helm, the bill apparently highlights the view that curbing the population is its main thrust. In its guiding principles (Section 3 (e)), the bill mentions “the limited resources of the country” affected by a “burgeoning multitude” that results in grossly inadequate and meaningless allocations. In effect, it perceives population in the country a “problem” that must be solved as it depletes its resources. But isn’t manpower the most important resource a country can ever have? Isn’t labor, more so an intelligent and productive one, the key to enhancing and maximizing resources, thus making resources bountiful and limitless rather than limited? Have our representatives failed to see the obvious by ignoring the continuing calls of developed countries for millions of migrants to work in their businesses and efforts to replace their graying population? The bill’s proponents if they truly believe in its importance, should work on other arguments and cease harping on the population growth. This type of reasoning has been shown to be false, misleading, obsolete, and very far from reality. Increasingly, Section 10 of the bill treats contraception as “essential medicines.” Categorizing contraceptives as such would imply that conception, which contraceptives seek to present, is a disease that requires medicines.
Under Section 12 of the bill mandatory reproductive health education shall begin from Grade 3 up fourth year high school or for six continuous years from the time child is 11 years old up to the time he or she reaches 17 years of age. What will that make of them? Sex specialists or adventurists perhaps?
Section 17 on the mandatory inclusions of free delivery by employers of a reasonable quantity of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all their workers under the collective bargaining agreement, is another awkward scheme to allow government to irregularly and unduly interfere in the relationship between employers and their employees and to violate the employer’s free exercise of religion. Freedom to exercise one’s religion is also infringed under Section 21 which considers as criminals the act of any health care service provider, whether public or private, to refuse to perform voluntary ligation and vasectomy and other legal and medically safe reproductive health care services.
In the end, notwithstanding the long arguments raised by the bill’s proponents, they all would have to contend with their own conscience and examine themselves if indeed, the bill’s provision to which they adhere do not get entangled with their moral judgment. I’m not even talking of religion here. For conscience, is in a way above reason and discussion. It operates without the influence of any teaching ideology, or tradition, and comes as an automatic command whether to the young or to the old, the educated or the uneducated. It warns and it judges.
Part II
Last Sunday was another day of sermon criticizing House Bill 5043 or the Reproductive Health Bill. The priest who was giving a discourse on the subject kept exhorting on how the bill would violate the laws of men and of God. The problem, though, is, like some who would condemn the bill outright, the clergyman did not point out the specific provisions of the bill that he found objectionable.
By coming up with sweeping statements and conclusions without laying the predicate, so to speak, he may have succeeded in convincing the devout churchgoers to disagree with the bill, but he definitely failed to make them informed and critical faithful followers who can ably defend their position when confronted by those who support the bill.
Through this and last week’s columns, we hope to assist those who wish to know more about the bill and some of its damaging provisions.
Stupid is as stupid does. That’s how Section 17 or the penal provision of the bill really is. It may be likened to the state-sponsored persecution by the Romans of the Christians for simply exercising their rights religious belief. It criminalizes acts that are morally right and fosters state initiatives that would infringe the Bill of Rights. Penalties imposed by the bill range from one month to six months imprisonment or a fine of P10,000.00 to P50,000.00. Violators are also civilly liable to the so-called “offended party” upon the discretion of the court. Under Section 17, regardless of their moral and ethical convictions, public and private health care service providers cannot knowingly withhold or impede the dissemination of information regarding programs and services on reproductive health., including the right to informed choice and access to a full range of medically-safe and effective family planning methods. They also can neither fail to provide reproductive health care services nor refuse to extend the same on account of the patient’s civil status, gender or sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work. Worse, they cannot refuse to provide such services to a DSWD-certified abused minor or abused pregnant minor on whose case no parental consent is necessary.
True, Section 17, also mentions “that all conscientious objections of health care service providers based on religious grounds shall be respected”. But then, why is the said proviso inserted only in one of Section 17’s subparagraph s and not crafted separately so as to apply to all paragraphs of the section? And yes, why is it that conscientious objections based on religious grounds are the only ones respected? What if the objections emanate from moral, logical or philosophical underpinnings? Will they be disregarded?
One thing that well need to be reminded about this bill is the inevitable fact that all money to be utilized to provide those reproductive health and family planning services (many of which we cannot stomach) as well as to “urgently” promote them (Section 19 so says) will come from our very own pockets. Taxpayers money, we call it. We, the taxpayers, will foot the “bill” even if we find the bill repulsive and even if we know that our money would be put to better use with the building of well equipped hospitals and health centers. If this is not dumb, I don’t know what is.
Our definite way of ending this long and costly argument on Bill 5043 is for President Arroyo to finally and resolutely make a pronouncement that she will not support it and will veto it if and when it reaches Malacañang. The President may have compromised her principles on many issues, but this is one situation I hope where she will neither back down nor surrender her values for the sake of her own redemption, political or otherwise. Remember, Madam President, we are not the only ones watching you. He too is---- always.
Atty. Augusto R. Bundang is a Partner and Head of the Litigation Departmen of SapaloVelez Bundang and Bulilan Law Offices. He is a holder of a Bachelor of Arts Degree, major in Economics and Bachelor of Laws Degree from the Ateneo de Manila University. He has been engaged in active general litigation, licensing, corporate and intellectual property practice for more than fifteen (15) years and a columnist of a leading national newspaper, Business World.
No comments:
Post a Comment