Feedback to "Overwhelming case for the RH Bill"

Dear Editor,

I must admit that I was "overwhelmed" when I read the article "Overwhelming case for the RH Bill" (PDI, 13 October 2012). It presented so many points aimed at either dismissing the claims of pro-life opposers of RH Bill or bolster the "purported" legitimacy and timeliness of the Bill.

But after several calm and peaceful re-reading of the article, my feeling of "shock and awe" fizzled-out. I came to see the article and RH Bill for what it really is.

Please allow me to convey my opinion.

Feedback to "Life worth fighting for"

I thank you for reading my feedback to your article "Senseless Maternal Deaths".  I am doubly thankful to you for writing a follow-up article "Life worth fighting for" (https://www.philstar.com/business/2012/06/25/821004/life-worth-fighting-for) which include my emailed letter.

I am saddened, though, by your confession that you are "a person not averse to accepting the use of contraceptive measures, more so if a mother’s health or her baby’s is at risk should there be the possibility of a pregnancy". Contrary to your opinion, I see contraceptive measures give-out multifaceted effects, some may appear beneficial, but its inherent outcome is anti-life. I analogically compare contraceptive measures to the conventional carpet bombs of the US Air force: it does not discriminate between combatant and civilian-non-combatant targets.

I agree with you that HB4244 includes provisions to improve hospital facilities and personnel to better deliver maternal health care. But I am very worried that these are bundled-up with contraceptive measures. I analogically liken HB4244 to a nutritious pot of soup with a thimble of human feces dropped to it. No one in his right mind will take that pot of soup! I am convinced that provision on contraceptive measures destroys the possible maternal health benefits of HB4244. 

If our political authorities are authentically sincere in lowering maternal mortality rate they should remove contraception in HB4244. Besides, contraception is just one of HB4244's objectives, as you mentioned.

Our Catholic bishops are not against provisions for improving maternal delivery care. They are against the contraceptive-measures component.

Feedback to "Senseless Maternal Deaths"

Dear Mr. Gamboa,

I chanced upon your article "Senseless Maternal Deaths"(http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=819584&publicationSubCategoryId=66) in Philippine Star. It appears to be pushing for the passing of HB 4244 (The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011) into law as soon as possible.

I have read HB 4244 several times. The primary solution it envisions to contribute toward lowering maternal mortality rate is by preventing pregnancies through contraception and a veiled provision for abortion in the term "emergency obstetric care services". But the State has no right to compel couples not to beget children. It is a human right of every couple to decide whether or not to form a family. The accusation alleging some couples are irresponsible in begetting children beyond their capability to support is not sufficient reason for the State to dictate to them to practice contraception.

If the State is truthfully serious in lowering maternal mortality rate, it should enact laws that target the real cause of maternal mortality: poor birthing facilities and lack of skilled staff. HB 4244 does not have provisions for improving birthing facilities. The bill does not envision to assist couples who wish to have children. It is skewed to favoring pregnancy-prevention which is one-sided and unfair.

I stumbled-upon a 2008 TIME magazine article on maternal mortality (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1842278,00.html). It identified some of the causes of maternal mortality, which are as follows:
1. Low access to well-equipped clinics or hospitals;
2. Lack of properly trained and adequately-paid medical professionals;
3. Low availability of necessary medicines;
4. Unsanitary traditional practices;
5. Well-entrenched traditions and fatalistic attitudes to maternal mortality;
6. Lack of government funds for maternity health care; and
7. Lack of political will of government decision makers.

With HB 4244, the State is proposing a wrong solution to the problem; it is "barking at a wrong tree". Our political authorities should, instead, work on solving why public funds are not effectively translated to better local government hospital facilities and skilled health staff: fight graft and corruption.

Thank you for writing "Senseless Maternal Deaths".

Feedback to "A war of religions" of Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.

Dear Editor,

I am very grateful for stumbling-upon the article of Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., "A war of religions" (posted May 2, 2011, URL: http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20110502-334122/A_war_of_religions) for two (2) reasons.

The first reason is that Fr. Bernas enumerated some of the changes RH Bill proponents have made to the draft bill to allegedly make it acceptable to those opposing it. The enumerated changes are as follows:
1) Local government units will "help implement this Act", instead of "give priority to family planning work". (in Section 13 of HB4244)
2) "Parents shall have the option of not allowing their minor children to attend classes pertaining to Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education." (in Section 16 of HB4244)
3) Deletion of the section on employers' responsibility on reproductive health. (Section 21 of HB4244)
4) Deletion of the specific enumeration of allowable contraceptive devices and methods. It will be replaced with the proposal for the allowance of contraceptive methods that are in general safe and legal.

These changes, I believe, are still to be declared and incorporated to the draft bill during the second-reading sessions at the House of Representatives.

I agree with Fr. Bernas that these changes are not enough to stop the opposition of the bishops of the Catholic Church to the bill. The bishops have been insisting from the very beginning that the bill is an attempt to legalize the use of artificial contraception. The bishops have been exhorting the faithful, and the nation at large, that artificial contraception is contrary to the moral law as declared by Pope Paul VI in 'Humanae Vitae'. The bishops have been reminding the nation that something immoral, or against the Ten-Commandments, cannot be legalized or be established in human laws. The bill despite the latest changes still contains provisions that promote artificial contraception and there is no way for the bishops to agree with it.

The second reason for being grateful to Fr. Bernas is his attempt to encourage both sides of the debate to view the issue in the light of religious freedom and respect for human dignity as enunciated in the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCPII), the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church and 'Dignitatis-Humanae'.

In my opinion, the only way for both sides to respect each other's freedom and dignity is for RH Bill not to be enacted into law at all, given that artificial contraception is immoral! It is timely to remind ourselves of the exhortation in 'Dignitatis Humanae' to political authorities that "government is also to help create conditions favorable to the fostering of religious life, in order that the people may be truly enabled to exercise their religious rights and to fulfill their religious duties, and also in order that society itself may profit by the moral qualities of justice and peace which have their origin in men's faithfulness to God and to His holy will." (Dignitatis Humanae, 6)

There are other options available for the government to reduce maternal mortality other than legalizing artificial contraception.

Though I am grateful to Fr. Bernas for his article, I am also disappointed by the vagueness of his position on the RH Bill. He could be of great service to the ordinary faithful if he will be more categorical and direct in his position.

During World War II when ordinary foot-soldiers were in the midst of a gun-battle and artillery barrage, these soldiers (who were mostly young, uneducated, rural boys) greatly appreciated and were extremely grateful for the concrete, simple, and direct tactical directions of their front-line commanding officers.

I believe, we are in a great spiritual battle in this RH bill debate. The more concrete, simple, and direct our declared position in this issue, the better we can serve the simple flock we are shepherding.

Thank you for this chance to write. Should you decide to publish this letter, please show only my email address. Thank you and more power to PDI!

Author's Note:
This letter was submitted by website feedback form on May 3, 2011 (Manila time).

Feedback to “Can Catholic support the RH bill? Yes!”

Dear Dr. Mary Racelis,

I am very glad to read your article, "Can Catholic support the RH bill? Yes!" (page A15, Monday, October 13, 2008, PDI, also published by ABS-CBN News) which highlights the goal or objective TO LOWER MATERNAL MORTALITY as a valid reason for Catholics to support the RH bill.

I became interested, lately, on maternal mortality, after I read a TIME magazine article on maternal mortality (an online version of it is available; the URL is http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1842278,00.html). The article identified some of the causes of maternal mortality, which were as follows:

1. Low access to well-equipped clinics or hospitals;
2. Lack of properly trained and adequately-paid medical professionals;
3. Low availability of necessary medicines;
4. Unsanitary traditional practices;
5. Well-entrenched traditions and fatalistic attitudes to maternal mortality;
6. Lack of government funds for maternity health care; and
7. Lack of political will of government decision makers.

I am with you, Dr. Mary Racelis, in pushing for lowering maternal mortality as a worthwhile government objective. Besides, it is one of the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGS) -- a series of targets in a program that channels aid to key issues, including education and clean water -- to be met by 2015. Maternal mortality is a valid health issue. Looking at the causes highlighted by the Time article, I believe a bill on maternal and infant health care could be formulated independent of the current RH bill. The Time article never mentions contraception as a solution nor a cause (due to the lack of it).

However, I am wondering: Will RH bill proponents agree to the removal of provisions on contraception and sex education?

This could be a possible compromise between the Catholic Church and RH bill proponents: Remove provisions on contraception and sex education; keep provisions on improving maternal health care! Eureka!

The abortion statistics you mentioned is open to many interpretations. To me, it is an indication of the following:

1. Many people are already practicing contraception as a result of sex education in the 60s and 70s;
2. Most of their contraceptive means failed. Since they cannot accept failure, they resort to abortion as back-up contraception.

Contraception as a means to plan the size of the family is not healthy psychologically and biologically. It fosters irresponsible use of the sexual faculty. Some contraceptive means, the Pill particularly, causes cancer (in the breast, cervix, uterus, etc.)

It is with divine wisdom that the Catholic Church is exhorting the faithful (take note, she is not forcing the faithful) to practice Natural Family Planning (NFP). Please take note, further, that NFP is not contraception. NFP does not intervene in the natural procreative process: no artificial hormones taken in, no devices installed, etc. NFP does not need HB 5043 for it to be promoted. The practice of NFP "respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil." (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2370)

I believe, contraception will not contribute to maternal health. Maternal mortality is not caused by pregnancy. Pregnancy is not a disease. Pregnancy is the best thing that could ever happen to a woman; she becomes a mother, regardless of the circumstances (married mother, unwed mother, rape-victim mother, etc.). The child that comes out from pregnancy should be viewed as a gift from God, not a property.

Contraception and abortion is essentially connected. In the late Pope John Paul II's 1995 encyclical "Evangelium Vitae," the "Gospel of Life," he says that "despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree." The late pope points out that in many cases, both practices are "rooted in a hedonistic mentality" that tries to separate sexual pleasure from procreation. He believes that this type of thinking strengthens the temptation to accept abortion as the only solution to failed contraception, because "the life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs." (Evangelium Vitae, 13).

Thank you, once again, for writing the article. It gave me the occasion to gather my thoughts and write you this letter. Pardon me for the errors in grammar, spelling and syntax I failed to correct.

"Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts." (Cf. Psalm 95:7-8)

Feedback to "Managing population growth” (page 2, October 5, 2008, Manila Bulletin)

Dear Editor,

I am very happy to read a short info-mercial, entitled, "Managing population growth" (Page 2, Sunday, October 5, 2008, Manila Bulletin), that mentions the Commission on Population (POPCOM), "… in coordination with other agencies, leads the task of promoting natural family planning…"

At the same time, I am also very worried that the same write-up contains potentially misleading statements. These are the following:

1. The quotation attributed to POPCOM Executive Director Tomas M. Osias which states that "the larger the population, the greater is the demand for natural resources and manufactured goods and services, giving lesser time for our natural resources to regenerate and lesser time for production lines and service sectors to supply our basic needs."

It shows a very narrow-minded and partial correlation between population and use of natural resources and manufactured goods and services. Aside from population growth, there are other factors that must be considered such as unregulated economic activity, graft and corruption, poorly formulated and implemented public policies, etc. Blaming everything to a large population is dangerously misleading. Moreover, the statement is a hypothesis that is not supported by empirical data. A national agency that is expected to be manned by professionals should be careful in making assertions well supported by scientific evidence.

2. The statement " The decline in population growth will ease the demand for resources…"

This statement somehow tries to emphasize that declining population growth is desirable or a good thing for our country. This reflects the underlying assumption that people are just burdens; mouth that must be fed; not brains and pairs of hands that could be innovators, inventors, creators of new ideas and solutions. It shows an anti-life philosophy.

Instead of controlling population growth, I would suggest that POPCOM focuses their work on POPULATION REDISTRIBUTION. They should formulate and propose demographic policies, among other things, that would encourage the formation or establishment of secondary urban centers in order to decongest the major cities like Metro Manila and Metro Cebu. These policies should also include recommendations to improve public transportation like the railways and roll-on-roll-off (RORO) ports.

I wish also to suggest that POPCOM revises the underlying philosophy of their work. They should consider the idea that people are potential resources, not problems. They are potential dollar-earners. They are potential inventors, creators of new wealth, and discoverers of new resources or discoverers of new uses of existing or known resources. In this perspective, population growth is a welcome phenomenon. What will be required from POPCOM and other government agencies are ideas and proposals to develop and harness these potential human resources.

"The state has a responsibility for its citizens' well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children. In this area, it is not authorized to employ means contrary to the moral law." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 2372)

"Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts." (Cf. Psalm 95:7-8)