Sen.

Miriam Defensor-Santiagos RH Bill Illogic

AUGUST 8, 2012
tags: AMERICA, CBCP, contraception, DEBATE, Franklin D. Roosevelt, individual rights, LOGIC, Miriam DefensorSantiago,reason, RELIGION, RH BILL, RIGHTS, socialism, Thomas Paine, UN declaration of Human Rights

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago might have done a very excellent job lecturing and humiliating President Noynoy Aquinos political assassins during the controversial impeachment trial of ousted chief justice Renato Corona. However when it comes to the equally contentious RH bill issue, the feisty senator is as shortsighted and pathetic as the leftist/statist supporters of the population control measure. In her official website Santiago explains the alleged logic behind the reproductive health bill. She started the blog with her explanation of the concept of reproductive health rights being a species or part of human rights. She wrote:

Our topic is the nature of reproductive rights as part of the greater sum of human rights. In legal terms, human rights form the totality of the freedoms, immunities, and benefits that, according to modern values specially at an international level all human beings should be able to claim as a matter of right in the society in which they live.

In international law, the basic document is the non-binding but authoritative Universal Declaration of Human Rights, accompanied by the binding documents known as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.
The problem with the Senators illogical, very crude understanding of human rights, which is a progressive/leftist term, is the implication that they require positive government intervention and funding. Historically and in reality there is a philosophical and ideological difference between the terms human rights and individual rights. Thomas Paine and the founding fathers of America believed that every man or individual has natural rights derived from the nature of man and the nature of existence itself. They understood the vital role of philosophy in conceptually identifying the necessary requisites or conditions for the establishment of a free society. They believed that the term individual rights or natural rights was not merely a mystical concept or pixie dust that governments could adopt to protect or guarantee peoples freedom and dignified existence. As Thomas Paine argued in his Rights of Man:

Natural rights are those which pertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind of all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others. Civil rights, according to Paine, are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.
That philosophical definition is so rich and full of wisdom in that it could take a number of political articles or treatises or an entire book to properly dissect its essence when applied in the field of politics. Its philosophical or political meaning may not be so visible to the naked eye of a non-perceptive reader or a statist-constitutionalist like Sen. Santiago. Thomas Paines definition of individual rights indicates the following corollaries that modern-day constitutionalists and political theorists should understand: Rights pertain to human action in a social context; Rights do not come from the government or divine revelation; Rights are a necessary condition for mans moral action in a social context; Rights do not or must not injure or put any form of obligation on the rights of others. Rights do not require state/government funding.

The above-mentioned statement of Sen. Santiago implies that a right is merely a political creature or a product of political consensus, whether local or international. It is true that rights, to be enforceable, require political implementation, however, one needs to understand their proper nature and concept. This actually sets the difference between Americas founding fathers and those who concocted the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Paine and the founding fathers didnt think that natural rights were simply a set of abstract theories. They thought that rights are a reasoned, provable, necessary structure or condition founded on the objective observation of natural man in a natural universe. This means that rights can be scientifically proven, and that they are objectively supported by axioms on observable nature and their requirements. Thus, the Declaration of Independence states that individual rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness are self-evident and that all men are created equal. To support her claim, Sen. Santiago argues that the 1987 Constitution provides: The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them. She concluded that this right to health is now viewed as including the right to reproductive health. Proponents and supporters of the bill and other welfare measures usually cite the same constitutional provision to defeat the arguments of those who oppose welfare programs. They believe that since it is written in the Constitution, it must be right, proper and moral. But what is the implication of that so crude, so immoral, so evil a mentality? It means that the state has an unlimited power to when it comes to welfare provision. It means that the government cannot merely provide peoples rights to health and reproductive health; it can also deliver their rights to food, shelter, clothing, housing, jobs, etc. In fact, former chief justice Reynato Puno strongly, albeit mindlessly, advocated the idea of making these alleged rights mandatory. If carefully studied or analyzed, these peoples welfare arguments are utterly detached from reality, as theyre not supported by logic and reason. That is, their pro-welfare argument is utterly fallacious and illogical, and the type of fallacy they committed or breached is the is-versus-ought fallacy. Yes, Filipino peoples alleged right to healthcare and reproductive health IS guarant eed under the 1987 charter, however the question is: Should the government finance them? Should the government spend taxpayers money to guarantee some peoples rights to RH care? What is the proper role of government? Is it the provider of peoples needs or the protector of their rights? Healthcare or reproductive health is NOT a right, Sen. Santiago. It is a commodity. The mere fact that your semi-socialist constitution states that the state has to promote the right to health of the people doesnt mean that health care is a right. Again, it is a commodity or a consumer product, like anything else that we buy or use to improve our well-being. Thomas Paine, John Locke and the founding fathers properly understood that things like education, healthcare, housing, or any kinds of government services are not a right. By definition, a right is a

necessary, indispensable, inalienable, non-intrusive, non-injurious human condition for mans moral action in a social context. That is, a right is simply a freedom to act morally, practically in a social context. In devising the greatest, most moral constitution in the history of mankind the American Constitution the founding fathers

Santiagos failed logic designed and implemented a political structure that guarantees mans rights: the Bill of Rights. This bill of rights is typically defined as a list of the most important rights of the citizens of a country. It was designed and enacted to protect peoples rights and freedom? But protect against whom? Against the state! That makes rights a negative concept. The founding fathers and many other intellectuals of the Age of Enlightenment clearly understood that a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force. To protect peoples rights and freedom, a government has the power or authority to promulgate laws. A law is a negative concept and it means force. The purpose of a law is to serve justice, and it cannot serve it by making the government intrusive or invasive of peoples rights. Frederic Bastiat, a French legal theorist and philosopher, explained the nature of law in his great work The Law:

Since the law organizes justice, the socialists ask why the law should not also organize labor, education, and religion. Why should not law be used for these purposes? Because it could not organize labor, education, and religion without destroying justice. We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.

When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.
Applying Bastiats theory to the present case, our government cannot use the law to organize healthcare or to provide reproductive healthcare in the guise of promoting rights or social justice. Observe that the bill of rights strictly focuses on the protection of peoples rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. Your right to life does not mean you can force your neighbor to feed you nor can you ask the state to provide you the food you need to survive. Your right to property does not entitle you to your neighbors property. Your right to liberty simply means that you cannot be forced to work as a slave without your consent or receiving just compensation. That you cannot be jailed by the state without due process. Also, your right to pursuit of happiness does not mean others are obliged to make you happy. The key word there is PURSUIT! It means you have a right TO PURSUE happiness. That particular phrase shows the intellectual precision of the founding fathers in drafting the American constitution. I dont think Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago and her colleagues understand this very simple, very elementary concept. Yes, Sen. Santiago, a right does not impose any form of obligation or burden on others. The only proper role of the state when it comes to the issue rights is to protect them. Again: against whom? Against the state, its agents, or any private gangs or criminals! A right does not require government funding. Our right to free speech does not necessitate the allocation of government budget to guarantee peoples freedom of expression and of the press. This is why that disgusting, mediocre Right of Reply Bill should be killed outright because it imposes obligation or burden on others (e.g., publishers, journalists, newspaper and media companies, bloggers, etc.) The religionists right to practice religion does not require government funding or special treatment. In fact, the freedom of religion is a limitation on state authority to prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion. Unfortunately, only a few people, particularly the atheists and theists, understand this. Also, the following statement of Sen. Santiago is really alarming and disturbing:

In brief, the RH bill merely wants to empower a woman from the poorest economic class to march to the nearest facility operated by the Department of Health or the local government unit, to demand information on a family planning product or supply of her choice. The bill, at the simplest level, wants to give an indigent married woman the freedom of informed choice concerning her reproductive rights. If the bill is highly controversial, it is not because it is dangerous to humans or to the planet. It is not subversive of the political order. It is not a fascist diktat of a totalitarian power structure. The

reason this bill is emotionally charged is because of the fervent opposition of the Catholic church in the Philippines and those who wish to be perceived as its champions.
Speaking like a clueless, mediocre statist! Speaking like a grade-conscious student who merely memorized her class lectures just to get high grades. Such a statement reeks of Marxist rhetoric, although Miriam might be unaware of it. Empowering a woman from the poorest economic class at what cost? At the cost of putting the entire medical industry under state control? At the cost of prohibiting anyone who failed to secure a so-called Certificate of Compliance from getting married? At the cost of justifying the imposition of higher tax rates and levying of more taxes in the near future? At the cost of enslaving employers and health care providers and stifling our out to free speech? At the cost of destroying freedom of religion and other inalienable rights? At the cost of giving more intrusive powers to our highly intrusive government? Giving an indigent married woman the freedom of informed choice concerning her reproductive rights? The Senator must have lost her mind. The problem with her alleged intelligence is that she knows too much that isnt so. Since when did the idea of informed choice become a government concern? Why should informed choice be funded by the state? Do freedoms and rights require state budget? Yet that is NOT just the bill is all about! Its all about government control and intrusion. Again, the RH bill cannot serve justice by destroying it. That is, it cannot serve the interests of indigent women and the poor by using states legalized force against other members of our society (e.g., doctors, teachers, taxpayers, employers, the entire medical industry, and innocent individuals). The bill, if enacted, would violate other peoples freedom of conscience, right to property in the case of employers, and freedom of religion. The problem with this already bankrupt country is that it started as a statist or semi-leftist society. If America was a product of philosophy the philosophy of Aristotle the Philippines is a product of mediocrity. The main reason why this country is poor is because of its welfare state conceptions that are bringing the entire Filipino society to economic and social collapse. The RH bill issue is at root a philosophical issue. What is at stake here is the proper concept of rights. Several decades ago, Americas first progressive/semi-fascist president Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to destroy Americas individualist, free market foundation by introducing his evil concept of Second Bill of Rights. Roosevelt in a historic speech said the following:

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for allregardless of station, race, or creed. Among these are: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education. All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being. Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.
Roosevelts so evil, so immoral a concept of economic rights undeniably inspired Miriam Defensor Santiagos UN Declaration of Independence, which is usually cited by leftists and welfare -statists whenever they try to defend alleged rights to education, healthcare, RH care, housing, etc. After FDRs death, his wife, Eleanor, led the drive to get the UN to implement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and later the economic rights were codified in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. By 2003, 142 nations, the Philippines included, had ratified this covenant, but not the United States. Again, NOT the US. Why should America subordinate its superior Constitution to the UNs progressive, semi-leftist Declaration? The UNDHR is totally incompatible with the American charter.

The idea that the government should provide, guarantee or promote peoples right to a good/accessible education, adequate medical care, RH services, housing, employment, etc. is so evil and immoral because 1) the government is not a productive agency and that it only relies on taxation to defray its expenses; 2) the government has to use state force against certain social sectors in order to help or provide the needs of some beneficiary sectors; 3) it destroys economic and individual freedom; and 4) it destroys the true concept of justice.
Rate this:

5 Votes Like this: Like Be the first to like this.

from Capitalism, Corruption, Current Events, Economics, Internet,Philosophy, RELIGION, RH Bill

Ondoy II in Pictures UP Economists RH Paper = Emotionalism Plus AntiIntellectualism

9 Comments leave one

1.

aifrances PERMALINK What is your concept of justice? What of all the babies born to poor families whose fates have been decided on even before they were born? Thats exactly why a government is formedto represent and uphold the rights to the greatest extent possible, of all its people. When you say the government has no responsibility to make sure education is accessible, that they get adequate health care, etc you are immediately discriminating against the poor. Many of these poor may remain to be poor because of their own lack of effort, because of their laziness, because of their ingrained mentality that they can do nothing to alter their fates, etcbut the great power vested in the government equally bears it responsibility to help them, redirect them, whatever. The government has the right to tax its people surely to act beyond being an unemotional custodian of a countrys resources and taxes. Thats what you happen to call normative economicsharnessing the economy not just for sake of the maximization of GNP, but also making sure the poor too share a more morally* fair share of this GNP.

*Im using the term moral because it might be argued that everyone deserves only a proportional return on their investment in the economy and that they should be their own champions, even when theyre living way below the poverty line. 0 2 Rate This
REPLY

o aifrances PERMALINK A poverty line figure that is ridiculous as it comes at only Php46 a day per person. As a student, I can tell that P46 doesnt even cover three full meals of only rice plus noodles (its Php2 short). Throw in the cost of education and reasonable health careand really what does Php46 mean at all? 0 2 Rate This
REPLY

Froi Vincenton PERMALINK arfrances,

You asked: What is your concept of justice? Read the blog again. My concept of justice is not just the result of my own concoction. It is based on the philosophies of Aristotle, Bastiat and the founding fathers, and it was proved to be true and necessary. Justice does not require sacrifices- or that the rights or freedoms of some men should be sacrificed or negated by the state to serve the welfare or interests of other social sectors/members. Justice simply demands that

the government protect the rights and freedoms of individuals against state agents or any private gangs or violators of rights. It does not require the use of force in order to serve the welfare of some community members. What you dont understand is that Miriams utterly flawed and mediocre concept of justice is nothing but that statist concept of social justice, which is in reality against justice. In fact, that was explained by Bastiat more than 200 years ago (see Bastiat quotation above). The guy who proposed the concept of social justice was John Rawls. What Rawls really meant was that the state should adopt redistributive policies in other to serve the welfare of the least disadvantage. I said previously:

And we have that BULLSHIT Social Justice in our constitution Social justice simply means the government may control the means of production and redistribute wealth. John Rawlss social justice, which infected many Filipino intellectuals, academics, and even the Philippine Supreme Court and the 1987 Constitution, justifies the alleged virtue or goodness of welfare state. Rawls is being admired by both the leftists and the rightists simply because his political philosophy or theory is full of basic contradictions and compromises. It is the anti-concept of social justice that legitimizes the Philippiness welfare state and socialistic policies like land reform, redistribution of wealth, excessive economic regulations, protectionism, welfare programs, among others. Also, it is this anticoncept of social justice, which is a new derivative of strict egalitarianism and part of the New Lefts intellectual and moral ammunition, that has been impoverishing this semi-socialist country. It must be exposed, rejected, and destroyed.
Also HERE:

In the past century political philosopher and Harvard academic John Rawls applied the same method by distorting or destroying the concept of justice. Rawls, one of the most admired thinkers by the leftists and modern-day liberals, introduced the anti-concept of social justice or redistributive justice. The main thesis or gist of his intellectual work postulates that justice is served only through the

use of state powers to guarantee and serve the well-being of the least advantaged. In reality, this is done by taxing or punishing the most productive and successful members of a society simply because of their productiveness and success. Does justice demand the sacrifice of some group of people in order to serve the welfare and well-being of the least advantaged? No explicit, direct answer was given.
You know one doesnt have to be a UP parasite or a moron to understand these very basic, elementary concepts. Unfortunately, these things are not being taught in any college or university in the country. You said: What of all the babies born to poor families whose fates have been decided on even before they were born? You should understand that you cannot simply pass laws to legislate poverty or dying women or babies. The issue of poverty is an ECONOMIC ISSUE. No amount of laws or welfare programs could even defeat poverty. The only solution to poverty and unemployment are sound economic policies. If you dont understand what causes poverty in this country, then, youd simply think that overpopulation is whats causing our economic collapse. Thats a fallacy. I honestly suggest that you read my previous blogs if youre interested to know where Im coming from. I said in a previous blog:

The Philippines is poor because of its protectionism, regulations and failed welfare and economic policies that discourage both local and foreign investors. It is poor because of our high level of corruption due to our highly intrusive political system. A number of Asian nations achieved economic growth, not by curbing their population, but by adopting sound free market economic policies. The only key to economic growth is economic freedom or liberalization, not population control policy. For instance, Japan, which has one of the highest populations in the world, is so much worried about its fast declining and ageing population that it adopted drastic, aggressive measures to increase population growth. Other economically progressive countries that try to boost their population growth are Russia and Portugal. These countries, which are faced with alarmingly low fertility rates, are economically rich and stable, unlike the Philippines, because of their relatively freer economies

and practical economic policies, and not because of their low population growth. Doing Business Index ranked Japan 20th, Portugal 30th, and Russia 120th in terms of ease of doing business. The Philippines was ranked 136th.
The former dean of UP school of economics and now PNoys economic czar claimed that about a third of economic growth in Asia is due to population management. THATS NOT TRUE. Thats a big, big fallacy, as it is NOT supported by facts, statistics, and empirical studies. That same assertion was parroted by many so-called economists from UP. Last time I checked, Singapore, Hong Kong and other Asian tigers achieved economic growth by adopting free market reforms. Perhaps Chinas one-child policy helped lighten the communist regimes welfare concerns, but it certainly improved its economy after it joined the WTO in 2001 (related studies here, here, here, here, here ) and compromised its Maoist principles by embracing free market reforms (see related studies here, here). Singapore did not become an economic tiger by curbing its population. To develop Singapore, its founding father Lee Kuan Yew did exactly the opposite of what Filipino intellectuals advocated and politicians did in the Philippines. Instead of embracing protectionism and limiting foreign ownership of land and businesses, Lee Kuan Yew adopted free market reforms like lower taxes (the country has no capital gains tax), less regulations, no import tariffs except for duties on alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, petroleum products, and a few other items, no export duties, among others. In Singapore it will only take three days to start a business compared to our 35 days. This made Singapore the freest economy in the world and the easiest place to start and do business, according to Doing Business Index. I must repeat: Singapore did not become an economic tiger in Asia by controlling its population. It became so by adopting free market reforms and sound economic policies. On the other hand, Chinas one-child policy might have helped lighten the communist regimes welfare concerns, but it certainly improved its economy after it joined the WTO in 2001 (related studies here, here, here, here, here ) and compromised its Maoist principles by embracing free market reforms (see related studies here, here). Remember, Mao Tse

Tungs brilliant economic plan Great Leap Forward killed mor e than 40 million in just four years (between 1958 and 1962), but that did not make China achieve higher economic growth. If youre so concerned with the countrys poverty, dying women and unemployment, the only solution is sound economic policy, NOT the RH bill. The RH bill has no capacity at all to alleviate poverty or to serve womens or poors peoples needs. How will the government finance that pipe dream? You should understand the countrys economic reality. We have a very high unemployment rate, HIGH BUDGET DEFICIT, high inflation rate, high public debt, and high corruption rate. You said: The government has the right to tax its people surely to act beyond being an unemotional custodian of a countrys resources and taxes. LOL! Is that what you learned in college? Sure the Constitution states that one of the powers of the state is taxation. But do you have any idea how destructive our tax system is? Whats your proposed tax increases? Should the government increase the rates of capital gains tax, income tax, corporate income tax, etc.? Thats actually the mentality of the MEDIOCRE UP professors. Their idea that the government should tax more to achieve economic development is NOT supported by real-world economics and empirical study. Just read THIS.http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/up-economists-rh-paperemotionalism-plus-anti-intellectualism/ Also, whats your ideal fertility rate or population for this country? Again, Singapore did not become an economic tiger by increasing its taxes. In fact, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia and even China lowered their taxes in order to encourage investment. Do you know the tax system in Singapore? It has no capital gains tax. It has no customs and duties, etc. If you want to help indigent women, you should understand that your stupid RH bill will NOT achieve a long term benefits for our country. 3 0 Rate This
REPLY

2.

Marcial Bonifacio PERMALINK Ang galing, Froi! This blog was well-researched, and I agree completely with your understanding of the founders and their concept of natural rights. Sa katotohanan, the historical context of the American founders lays the groundwork for amending the Constitution, abrogating the social justice and welfare clauses. Samakatuwid, until our kababayans come to the same understanding, they will continue feeling justified in pushing such progressive policies. 0 0 Rate This
REPLY

Froi Vincenton PERMALINK

Agree! That very simply point is something that is hardly understood by many Filipinos 0 0 Rate This

ated 08/16/2012 1:53 AM

37 Comments and 0 Reactions

419
Share

'QUESTIONABLE INSTITUTIONS.' This is how Senator Tito Sotto describes the international and local groups supporting the RH bill like the UN and USAID.

MANILA, Philippines It is unmanly to refuse battle with the devil. Senate Majority Leader Vicente Tito Sotto III quoted Mahatma Gandhi in the 2nd chapter of his speech against the Reproductive Health (RH) bill on Wednesday, August 15. While the first part of his speech last Monday focused on the alleged evils of contraceptives, this time, Sotto zeroed in on the big money and abortion advocacy supposedly fuelling the RH campaign. (Read the full speech here.) Sotto said that while RH bill sponsors Senators Pia Cayetano and Miriam Defensor Santiago mean well, international and local groups backing the measure have more sinister intentions. The senator, however, already raised the same arguments during the RH bill interpellations last year. Here are the RH bills 7 deadly sins, according to Sotto: 1. The RH bill is a foreign-dictated policy. In his one hour speech, Sotto said that the Philippines should not be pushed over by other states and international organizations. Sino sila para magdikta sa atin? Hindi tayo gaya nila na iba ang pagpapahalaga sa pagbubuklod-buklod sa pamilyang Pilipino at pagpapahalaga sa buhay ng tao. (Who are they to dictate on us? Were not like others who value family ties and human life differently.) Cayetano already responded to this argument in an interview last Monday. She said, They said the RH bill is not in line with our culture but the survey shows Filipinos want this. Maybe, it was not line with our culture in 1521 or 1898 but in 2012, based on Filipino practices and customs, they want it and they need it.

'NOTHING NEW.' Senator Pia Cayetano says the Senate has been through Sotto's arguments in the past but allows him to go on "out of courtesy." Photo by Ayee Macaraig

2. RH backers are of doubtful character. Sotto said the groups pushing for the RH bill have ulterior motives, particularly reducing the worlds population through abortion, especially in less developed countries like the Philippines. He identified the US Agency for International Development (USAID), United Nations agencies, and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) as the main global forces behind the measure. The senator said the IPPFs vision states, We believe that a woman has the right to choose and access safe abortion services and we advocate for changes in legislation to support this. This is the true meaning of Pro-Choice, Sotto said. 3. Eleven mothers DO NOT die of childbirth everyday. The Majority Leader said that the often cited statistic that 11 mothers die everyday in the Philippines is wrong. To debunk the argument, he even asked his staff to do their own survey. Sotto said a check on government hospitals in Nueva Vizcaya, Pangasinan, Batangas and Cavite in 2011 showed that the maternal deaths ranged from only zero to 7 for the entire year. Ironically, he even used statistics from the UN and the World Health Organization to prove his point. So there, for the sake of argument, pro-RH figures themselves result in 5.75 maternal deaths a day and not 11 deaths like what theyre insisting. Sotto said in Filipino. In an earlier blog post, Cayetano showed the computation of data coming from the UN, the National Statistics Office, and the National Statistical Coordination Board as illustrated here:

Table from the blog of Sen Pia Cayetano

4. The RH bill is a marketing tool for contraceptives. Sotto said RH supporters like the USAID fund the Dharmendra Kumar Tyagi (DKT), the largest manufacturer of contraceptives. He said the USAID also funds the NSO, which releases information needed for population control in the country. Aba ang galing ano? Gagawa ka ng demand for contraceptives, tapos ikaw ang magsu-supply ng solusyon. Magandang ideya sa marketing pero hindi sa paggawa ng batas. Sana wag nating gawing pain ang ating bansa sa ganitong pag-eeksperimento. (How amazing! Youll make a demand for contraceptives, then youll supply the solution. Thats a good marke ting idea but not to make laws. I hope we dont make our country the bait for this experiment.) Santiago has responded to this argument in past interviews. That is a cheap shot. Anything the government does will make profit somewhere in any capitalist society. Lets elevate political discourse to a higher level. The RH co-author explained, Kahit naman yung rhythm method na gusto nila, may kikita. Kikita ng pera yung mga gumagawa ng kalendaryo doon, di ba? (Even with the rhythm method, someone profits. Those selling calendars will make money, right?)

CONTRACEPTIVES VS CALENDARS. Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago said that whether it's the rhythm method or contraceptives, someone will make a profit out of laws passed in Congress. File photo by Ayee Macaraig

5. The RH bill may be promoting a super race. Sotto said that since IPPF founder Margaret Sanger believed in eugenics through birth control, pro-RH groups may also seek to create a super Aryan race like Hitler. This is what they call eugenics: If you are weak, useless, uneducated and poor, you have no right in this world. In other words, what eugenics wants to happen is to have birth control so that those left behind is only a superior, intellectual race. Maybe this is also what those pushing for the RH bill want to happen? Cayetano, though, previously told Rappler that contraceptives must not be viewed as if you were killing children by preventing them from being born. [Its] as if it was not a responsible thing to do to decide for yourself that with my income and my time, I will be a good parent to two children. How many people can be a good parent to 10 children?" 6. Passing the RH bill now will legalize abortion later. The RH critic said the strategy of the international groups is to use local organizations to first make artificial contraceptives acceptable to Filipinos so that later on, abortion will be legalized. This is the big picture, and the RH bill is an important detail to complete this picture, Sotto said. Dr Sylvia Estrada Claudio, director of the UP Center for Womens Studies, said the statement was a logical fallacy. Weve long been saying that, please, lets talk about abortion la ter, it has nothing to do with the RH bill. But if he insists, fine. If he wants a debate, fine. Lets do it in front of the media, in public where he cannot hide behind his [parliamentary immunity], his distortions, his unscientific ways, his insinuations and his conspiracy theory so the public can really see how to look at science and how to debate properly and in a democratic way, Claudio said. 7. Local NGOs get millions to push for RH. Sotto was passionate in his tirade against local NGOs, saying they receive big bucks from the international groups he named, and promote abortion as well.

He said the Family Planning Organization of the Philippines, the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network (RHAN), and Likhaan all receive funding from either the IPPF or UN agencies amounting to millions of dollars. With the budget of these organizations, its not at all surprising that their campaign for the RH bill is so strong in radio, television, newspapers, and especially the Internet. Elizabeth Angsioco of the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines, a member group of RHAN, told Rappler how the funding of local NGOs is spent. Thats used for the women, family planning that they want, contraception that they want, education on reproductive health that they want. Angsioco said that if Sotto is sincere about wanting to save women, he should push for government spending to help save womens lives. Mahiya nga tayo dahil ang ibang bansa tinutulungan ang ating mga kababaihan samantalang siya, ayaw niya magbigay ng pondo para mabuhay ang mga kababaihan natin. Mahiya siya. (We should be ashamed because other countries are helping our women while he does not want to give funds to save their lives. Shame on him.)

Reproductive Rights as Part of Human Rights Our topic is the nature of reproductive rights as part of the greater sum of human rights. In legal terms, human rights form the totality of the freedoms, immunities, and benefits that, according to modern values specially at an international level all human beings should be able to claim as a matter of right in the society in which they live. In international law, the basic document is the non-binding but authoritative Universal Declaration of Human Rights, accompanied by the binding documents known as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. In national or domestic law, the basic document is the Philippine Constitution, particularly Article 2 on Declaration of State Policies, and Article 3 on the Bill of Rights. Our Constitution, Art. 2 Sec. 15 specifically provides: The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them. This right to health is now viewed as including the right to reproductive health. Reproductive rights constitute the totality of a persons constitutionally protected rights relating to the control of his or her procreative activities. Specifically, reproductive rights refer to the cluster of civil liberties relating to pregnancy, abortion, and sterilization, specially the personal bodily rights of a woman in her decision whether to become pregnant or bear a child. The phrase reproductive rights includes the idea of being able to make reproductive decisions free from discrimination, coercion, or violence. Human-rights scholars increasingly consider many reproductive rights to be protected by international human rights law. When we speak of Philippine internal laws and politics, we are speaking of the so-called horizontal strand of the human rights movement. But as constitutionalism spreads among states, we now speak of the so-called vertical strand of the new international law, that is meant to bind states and that is implemented by the new international institutions. Filipino politicians seem to be aware only of the horizontal but not of the vertical dimension of the human rights movement.1 But the truly novel developments of the last half century have involved primarily the vertical dimension. Thus, contrary to the misimpression of many of our politicians, the national debate on reproductive health is not only limited to the Constitution, but necessarily include Philippine obligations under the legally binding obligations of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, as well as other treaties to which the Philippines is a state party. The urgency of enforcing reproductive rights in our country was raised at the 1993 Vienna World Conference, when the UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights2 drew attention to:

The shocking reality . . . that States and the international community as a whole continue to tolerate all too often breaches of economic social and cultural rights which . . . would provoke horror and outrage and would lead to concerted calls for immediate remedial action.

In the human rights movement, the mechanisms and processes for the delivery of health services are themselves morally compelling. Evaluation of health programs emphasizes distribution in outcomes, not only averages. We are concerned about the entire distribution, because reproductive rights theories take seriously the idea that every human being is worthy of respect. Advocates of human rights pay particular attention to disaggregated data among women and the poor, because they are particularly liable to practices and prejudices that weaken their agency and the social basis of their self-esteem. Finally, reproductive rights approaches accommodate adoptive preferences. Many poor women do not receive information on how to receive reproductive health care. In addition, our underprivileged women have to accept standards lower than what they need, want, or deserve. This is the reason why we hold forums like these to raise consciousness, provide political education, and take measures in civil society to expand the imagination and the demands of the excluded group of women who belong to the poorest of the poor.3 Why the RH Bill is Controversial The two most controversial provisions of the RH bill are: Sec. 7. Access to Family Planning. All accredited public and private health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family planning methods, except in specialty hospitals which may render such services on an optional basis. No person shall be denied information and access to family planning services. Sec. 8. Maternal Death Review. Sec. 9. Family Planning Supplies as Essential Medicines. The National Drug Formulary shall include hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal and effective family planning products and supplies in accordance (with FDA guidelines). These products and supplies shall also be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national and local hospitals, provincial, city, and municipal health offices, including rural health units.

Photo by archiegonzalez.lens.ph

In brief, the RH bill merely wants to empower a woman from the poorest economic class to march to the nearest facility operated by the Department of Health or the local government unit, to demand information on a family planning product or supply of her choice. The bill, at the simplest level, wants to give an indigent married woman the freedom of informed choice concerning her reproductive rights. If the bill is highly controversial, it is not because it is dangerous to humans or to the planet. It is not subversive of the political order. It is not a fascist diktat of a totalitarian power structure. The reason this bill is emotionally charged is because of the fervent opposition of the Catholic church in the Philippines and those who wish to be perceived as its champions. Every year that a new Congress is convened, an RH bill is filed, provokes heated debate, consumes tons of newsprint, and then it lapses into a coma. There it remains, until it is resurrected at the next Congress, only to go through the same rigmarole of passion, flailing arms, doomsday scenarios, threats of Armaggedon, and an implicit competition among its champions for canonization as defender of the faith. And yet the rest of the Catholic world is unimpressed by the implicit threat that if the Congress passes the RH bill, an asteroid will dive straight into planet earth and obliterate the entire human race, particularly those who are pro-RH. In fact, the very opposite has happened. The majority of Catholic countries have passed reproductive health laws, led by Italy, where the Vatican is located. The other Catholic but pro-RH countries are: Spain, Portugal, Paraguay, Mexico, Guatemala, Ecuador, Colombia and Argentina. Of 48 Catholic countries profiled by the UN Population Fund, only six countries did not have an RH law. The Philippines is among these six stragglers.

Apart from the Catholic church, all other major religions in our country support RH, namely: Iglesia ni Cristo, National Council of Churches in the Philippines, Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches, the Interfaith Partnership for the Promotion of Responsible Parenthood, and the Assembly of Darul-Ifta of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. It is inaccurate to employ the term Catholic church in describing the anti-RH group. The more accurate term is Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, because the CBCP is not the entirety of the Catholic church. Under the more enlightened philosophy of Vatican 2, the Church is not the pope or the bishops or the priests. These Church officials are not a privileged caste; they are not necessarily superior to the entire faith community. The Church is the whole people of God, and there are many Catholics who adhere to the teaching of liberation theology that the Catholic church should observe a preferential option for the poor. Before we seek salvation, we must seek liberation for the poor from poverty, disease, and untimely death. The Filipino people, regardless of religion, have already voted in favor of RH. According to the survey conducted just this June 2011 by Social Weather Stations, 73 percent want information on legal methods available from the government, while 82 percent say family planning method is a personal choice. This is the will of the Filipino people; it is the democratic expression of what the public wants from government. The anti-RH groups are mute on this ineluctable fact. The inflexibility of the traditional Catholics is anchored on the encyclical entitled Humanae Vitae issued in 1966 by Pope Paul 6. In paragraph 11, he wrote: The Church . . . teaches that each and every marriage must remain open to the transmission of life. In applying natural law, the encyclical relies on the rhythm method, or the restriction of marital relations to sterile periods of the month. Thus, the basis of the encyclical is merely biological. I have to emphasize that the encyclical is NOT a so-called non-infallible statement of the Church. This encyclical is fallible. Humanae Vitae caused a worldwide tempest. It created a backlash that eventually resulted in placing limits on Catholic teaching authority on moral issues. This backlash has taken the form of the doctrine of primacy of conscience. This doctrine is based on the document entitled Declaration on Religious Freedom issued by Vatican Council 2. In Note 3, it declares that we are bound to follow our conscience faithfully in all our activity, and that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to ones conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is one to be restrained from acting in accordance with ones conscience, especially in matters religious. Now let me surprise you, and shock the CBCP, by giving you the ultimate word. The present Pope Benedict 16 used to be known as Fr. Joseph Ratzinger. As a young man in 1968, he served as Chair of dogmatic theology at the University of Tubingen. In this capacity, he wrote a commentary on the encyclical Gaudium et Spes or the Church in the Modern World. He said: Above the pope . . . stands ones own conscience, which has to be obeyed first of all, if need be, against the demands of church authority. 4 Thus, in effect, the pope himself teaches that there is a basic right for RH advocates to observe the primacy of conscience.

Why the RH Bill is Urgently Necessary We should urge Congress that in both chambers, the debates should conclude and legislators should come to a vote, in order that this recurrent issue can stop hogging the national agenda every time a new Congress is convened. Let the Filipino people know the principled stand of every legislator, so that in the coming 2013 elections, the electorate, in whom reposes the sovereign might of the state, will know whom to reward and whom to punish. There is an urgent need for an RH law, because 11 mothers die everyday from childbirth- and pregnancy-related complications. According to the 2008 National Demographic and Health Survey by the National Statistics Office:
o o o o o o

11 MOTHERS DIE EVERYDAY! 3,000 to 5,000 mothers die every year 162 mothers out of 100,000 live births die 11% of all deaths among women of reproductive age in the Philippines are maternal deaths 23 million (from 15 to 49 years old) are of reproductive age 15 million are at risk of pregnancy Thus, ladies and gentlemen, the statistics in favor of an RH law are overwhelming, while the sophistic procrastination of politicians are underwhelming. Smokescreen: The Logical Fallacies in the RH Debate There is no idea as powerful as an idea whose time has come. Politicians seeking to earn the favor of the Catholic hierarchy pose and preen on the national stage. But for every single day that we consume in nitpicking debate resulting in logical fallacies, the clock ticks and every single day 11 women die from childbirth complications. Before this day is over, 11 Filipinas from the poorest section in society will breathe their last. But look at what the politicians are doing. Devoid of any substantial argument on the merits, they engage in what any college class on Logic would immediately recognize as a logical fallacy. Let me give you just a few examples. The Abortion Fallacy. Abortion is an artificially induced termination of pregnancy for the purpose of destroying an embryo or fetus. Contraception is the prevention of pregnancy from being a consequence of sexual intercourse. Therefore, if there is no pregnancy, there can be no abortion. But anti-RH groups keep chanting the mantra of abortion or abortifacient. This is the fallacy of the red herring, because it uses irrelevant material to prevent a conclusion being reached in its absence. The Fallacy of the Beginning of Life. Identification of the precise time when life begins is recklessly claimed by some people who can only be called delusional. The truth is that there is no accepted, authoritative finding accepted by the medical and scientific professions on when life begins, much less on when the soul begins.

The Constitution Article 2 Sec. 12 provides that the state shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. Conception is the act of becoming pregnant or of creating a child in the womb. It could be defined as the process by which a set of human cells becomes human with characteristics defined as human life. Conception is not an exact scientific term. The issue is whether conception begins at fertilization or at implantation. Fertilization is the process of penetration of the egg cell by the sperm cell, and the combination of this genetic material to form the fertilized egg or zygote. Implantation is the attachment of a fertilized ovum on the wall of the uterus. According to the statement issued in August 2011 by the Universal Health Care Study Group, which is a part of the National Institutes of Health in UP Manila: No one equates conception with fertilization. Moreover: All contraceptives, including hormonal contraceptives and IUDs, have been demonstrated by laboratory and clinical studies, to act primarily prior to fertilization. To summarize, conception begins only after fertilization, but there is no precise scientific definition of the precise moment when the set of cells can be called human. Delimiting a specific time frame is simply not realistic at this time. This is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, meaning it affirms the consequent in order to prove the antecedent. It is also the fallacy of amphiboly, meaning the fallacy of ambiguous construction. The Fallacy of Population Imperialism. It is claimed that the US needs widespread access to the mineral resources of less developed countries like the Philippines. But population pressure and the anti-imperialist attitudes of the youth stand in the way of the American hegemony. Therefore, births in certain countries in the Philippines should be limited, and the RH bill is just a form of US imperialism. This scenario is highly likely, and I would not put it past the US to develop this strategy. However, family planning is not only an advocacy of the US, but also of the entire United Nations. In addition, the best economists of the country, who just happen to be UP professors, issued in 2008 a paper entitled Population, Poverty, Politics, and the RH bill. It supports an RH law as an integral part of the strategy for development and poverty reduction. The Economics 27 said categorically: A rapidly growing population has a negative impact on economic development. And they noted: Contraceptive use remains extremely low among poor couples, because they lack information about, and access, to them. To demonize lower population growth because the U.S. advocates family planning for developing countries is a logical fallacy. This is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, appealing to popular anti-American prejudice instead of presenting relevant material.

The Argument that Pro-RH Advocates are Sinful or Stupid. Anti-RH groups use various personal insults against us, as if name-calling will suffice to stop or even reduce maternal mortality. This is the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, or undermining an opponents argument by insults calculated to substitute personal traits for arguments on the merits. I will stop here, but I have just shown you that the RH debate in Congress is a long-winded theater art on how to trivialize an important national policy. I suspect that the debate will not end by the time budget season begins, and all pending bills will be shelved. If we allow the critics to have their way, RH will be a work in progress, until climate change brings about another global flood and obliterates all of human civilization, including those who think that a few mothers dying everyday from childbirth complications is a mere negligible factor in the grander scheme of things, like the coming 2013 elections. Enough! Send an email to every single senator and congressman, tell him you are watching, and that you will not vote for him forevermore if he is anti-RH. Not only that: campaign actively against antiRH creatures. Take our campaign to Facebook, Twitter, Google, blogs, and every form of social media. If any of the news media purposely fail to present a balanced presentation of the RH debate, email the editor and appeal to the ethics of the journalism profession. Today we mark the centennial of the great UP college of law. At one time, I earned a gold medal here as Best Debater. In commemoration, Sen. Pia Cayetano and I challenge any UP law graduate in the Senate to a debate on RH, in any neutral public forum to be shown on TV, before a university audience. Let the young people decide the social legislation of this country. There is a mother of seven in a hovel in a squatters area near you. She is old beyond her years, her eyes are dimmed by despair. She is undernourished, and so are her children. Her husband is an itinerant manual worker, and cannot always afford to put food on the table, never mind buying medicines or paying for school. The government health worker has warned the couple that another pregnancy might pose a risk to the life of mother and child. But the couple do not know how to prevent pregnancy. Will you leave mother and child to die, because of mere ignorance? I do not want this mother to die nine months from today. I refuse to allow it! I might never see her, but as a Filipina, I lift her hand, and pray with her: Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

It matters not how strait the gate

How charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul. -o0oENDNOTES 1. Henry Steiner, Philip Alston, Ryan Goodman, International Human Rights in Context 3d ed. (2008) at 59. 2. UN Doc. E/1993/22 Annex 3, para 5 and 7. 3. Varon Gauri, Social Rights and Economics: Claims to Health Care and Education in Developing Countries, in Philip Alston and Mary Robinson (eds.), Human Rights and Development Towards Mutual Reinforcement (2005) at 65. 4. Vorgrimler, Herbert, (ed.) Bums and Oates, Commentary on the Documents of Vatican 2 (1959) at 134. (Visited 20,680 times, 70 visits today)

COMMENTS13

Comments News,Speech

CATEGORIESLegislation, AUTHORAdmin

1.

Rikki Custodio15. Sep, 2011 at 8:59 AM #

Ignorance is a sin. Good thing there are still few remaining intellectual people in the Philippine government like Sen. Mirriam Santiago who will do everything to educate her followers as well as her opponents in order for us Filipinos to grow not just as responsible citizens but more importantly and primarily, as people with conscience.

2.

Toska15. Sep, 2011 at 11:11 AM #

What Sen. Miriam Santiago has been saying is definitely informative. I congratulate her for being one of the few politicians in the country who care nothing but the welfare of our people. Her insights on the RH bill have definitely empowered us to continue campaigning for the bill, especially among my peers here in college. They too have understood what she has been saying for the past speeches

on the RH bill, and they are also spreading the word that the it is an important policy that benefits everyone and harms no one. More power to you Senator!

3.

Patrick Sanchez15. Sep, 2011 at 2:22 PM #

I am honored that I had the chance to meet you in person Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago as well as having the honor to ask about the Reproductive Health Bill as a part of the Anti-RH groups and to be formally answered. I hope I will have the opportunity to do so again in the future because the forum in the Malcolm Theater was a great example of Democracy in my perspective because I had the opportunity to speak my views of the topic as a student and a citizen of the Philippines and most of all, to speak with the people greatly involved with the country.

4.

Ninotchka Rosca15. Sep, 2011 at 6:32 PM #

Well said, Miriam. May your (our) tribe increase.

5.

josefusjoselitus16. Sep, 2011 at 7:49 AM #

Being anti to rhb is not necessarily because of the CBCP but on the logic based on the moral foundation a person is having. One can be an encyclopedia of knowledge that may possibly say with authority about everything especially in the field of law. But how rich this knowledge be can never be enough to overwhelm the knowledge founded with both reason and divine revelation. Of the many things presented by the Honorable Senator in her intellectual discourse, the following had caught my attention most, wonder, and make reflections (so poor as this may): 1. Human rights/freedom, informed choice 2. The abortion Fallacy On informed choice in view of rights/freedom, I would say rhb is of no relevance.Teaching and informing people about the importance of both methods (natural method employing the virtue of self-control and the method using condoms, pills and other contraceptives) is an act of commitment on the part of the educators where rhb is not necessarily necessary.Committed people should commit themselves in informing people and letting them know and understand all the needed information about health and reproduction without the biased of psychological conditioning (prescribed in rhb), i.e conditioning man and woman that this one is the best in fact they are essential medicines. If they really wanted man and woman to be informed,know and understand before freely choosing what really is the best for them, the approach shall be telling them of all the goods and the evils of contraceptive medicines especially its bad side effects, and telling also them about the good and the evils of the natural method (if there is any) then let them decide/choose. Meaning, people must

choose based on what they know and understand. Isnt not this what we mean by informed choice? Because its no longer an informed choice-motivated when we say that contraceptive medicines are essential medicines and thus necessary but another way of mind conditioning (So strong for the law prescribed). This is one is a very good input for a pro-choice motivated: One ob-gyne expert said, There is less if not zero incidence of side effects on sex only during womans safe periods than those who do sex as they want using condoms, pills and other contraceptives. In other words to say informed choice, true information and education must be necessary, and said info and education must always include the moral aspect, otherwise its more of deception than information. On the abortion fallacy in view of informed choice, please consider this: The science of medicine backed-up by law defined conception as in a period where life is already developed described to be in the 4rth to the 8th week. This is observed already esp in the rh-using countries.This means outside of this period a woman can freely use anti-life development pills for there can be no abortion yet within this period. Were your conscience not crying that while science said its not life yet all the elements of life are all there already? Pardon me for the scarcity of terms, and please allow me to call those liquid-featured substances as life substances designed by God for man and woman.Sperm cell and egg cell are among Gods precious gift to man and woman that cannot be made by scientists not even the greatest ones. You may use all the dictionaries including legal to negate this but you cannot negate the fact that the liquid-featured substances I referred to are not lifeless organisms but living ones. So naive the Greek understanding may be about sperm as sperma_- seed must still make sense; that said substance(s) once released thru sexual intercourse by man and woman must supposed to be forming and developing life for said substances must be life-developing substances if not life themselves. And who are we to say (employing reason/science)theres not life yet outside the 3 or 4-week period? Can any one of you capable of creating this life-producing substance(s)? Making yourselves and the people in the DoH, and all other health care and reproduction services providers,with the INC, the CCP, the Catholics and all Christians more committed to address health care and reproduction concerns is far better than spending millions for the rhb to be passed and approved. Ang kagalingan ng ano mang batas o programa ay nasa tamang tao:pag-iisip, pagsasagawa, di sa dami nang salita, not even the Kayo ang boss ko

6.

froilan remo16. Sep, 2011 at 9:47 AM #

a real gem at the senate.great that we have a senator who champion the welfare of its people.if stupidity kills- i guess nine senators will die immediatelyand RH Bill will be passed unanimously. More Power mam and thanksfor charging the will of the young peoplewe will definitely act.NOW.

7.

evangeline era23. Sep, 2011 at 2:55 AM #

Ive never had the opportunity to meet you in person but i always admired you. youre the best.

8.

marylin bueno01. Oct, 2011 at 12:26 PM #

I am not in favor of RH bill. It promotes promiscuity and even makes doctors, nurses and health care workers and parents criminals. Cla na nagaral ng matagal at naggugol ng pera para makatapos ay gagawin lang na tulisan. Dear Madame, you need to be enlightened. I will pray for you.

9.

joey hulleza01. Jan, 2012 at 6:38 PM #

For those who are not favor to rh bill, i must say that this bill is for general approach to the public.be aware, look around you, people are sleeping in the streets begging for bucks, hundred of thousands unemployed and still counting, poor classrooms, children dont go to school due to lack of finances,etc., follow the link what was the root? 1 of the roots is over population, in which this bill is acting for. RH bill is not all about life of the fetus in the womb, its all about the people living in the country as of the moment, it is about productivity for each family, for every person here in our country. Do you think the family that has dozen of siblings could send their children to school, to college?may be those who have stable jobs. but how about those who have none or non stable job? thus rh bill wanted to educate people. rh bill doesnt wanted abortion, just education : ) Rh bill should be passed for us to have guidelines.For us to remember that we should control in making newborn according to our CAPACITY OF LIVING/RESPONSIBILITY.

This is the co-sponsorship speech of Sen. Miriam Defensor- Santiago on the start of debates regarding Reproductive Health Bill in the Senate on Monday. The speech is entitled THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT, Part 1: Primacy of Conscience in Catholic Theology. As principal author, I am now tasked to co-sponsor Senate Bill No. 2865, officially titled An act providing for a national policy on reproductive health and population and development, also known as the Senate version of the RH bill. It is the companion bill to House Bill No. 4244, which is undergoing plenary debate in the House of Representatives. Reproductive health bills have been passed by the majority of Catholic countries, particularly by Catholic developing countries such as Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, and Mexico. Other countries include Italy, Poland, Paraguay, Portugal, and Spain. When the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), now known as the UN Population Fund, profiled 48 Catholic countries, only six countries did not have a reproductive health law. The Philippines is one of them. In our country, the Catholic church is the only major religion that opposes the RH bill. Other major Christian churches have officially endorsed the RH bill, and in fact have published learned treatises explaining their position. They are: Interfaith Partnership for the Promotion of Responsible Parenthood, 2007 National Council of Churches in the Philippines, 2009 Iglesia ni Cristo, 2010 Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches, 2011 The position of these Christian churches is supported by the most authoritative body of Islamic clerics in the Philippines, the Assembly of Darul-Iftah of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. These Islamic clerics constitute the top-ranking ulama who are deemed to have the authority to issue opinions on matters facing Islam and Muslims. In 2003, they issued a fatwah or religious ruling called Call to Greatness. It gives Muslim couples a free choice on whether to practice family planning, particularly child spacing. Further, the RH bill is supported by a big majority of Filipinos in the country, as shown by certain nationwide surveys. In October 2008, Social Weather Stations reported that 71 percent were in favor of the RH bill. In October 2010, Pulse Asia reported that 69 percent were in favor of the RH bill. Vatican Council 2 and the Revolution in Moral Theology Despite these surveys, certain Catholics, notably certain bishops, seem poised to fight to the death against the RH bill. To understand why Catholics are so divided on this issue, and why there is such fierce antipathy, we must go back to the Second Vatican Council, the greatest of the councils held by the Catholic Church. A Vatican council is an ecumenical council, meaning that it includes the whole Christian world, or the universal Church. The decisions of an ecumenical council are considered authoritative. Vatican 2 was held in 1962 to 1965, and immediately unleashed a tidal wave of change. It is now viewed as the most tumultuous decade in the whole modern history of the Church. In the words of an eminent Catholic historian:[1] So many spiritual and religious landmarks were suddenly swept away that the average Catholic was left in a state of complete bewilderment. The central issue of Vatican 2 was authority. Before Vatican 2, the typical Catholic accepted the authoritarian structure of the Church as a dictate of divine revelation.[2] My generation were still

children at that time. We were taught that the Pope was a kind of superhuman potentate, whose every word was a command coming from a supernatural authority. I recall that the autocratic procedures of the Church were positively medieval. But with Vatican 2, the seeds of a democratic revolution were sown. It emphasized that the Church is primarily the whole people of God. It called for dialogue between all members of the Church. It asserted that the Pope and bishops are collegial. And it called for the establishment of senates among the priests and of pastoral councils that include the laity. With authority as the central issue, the Church reached a state of extreme tension when Pope Paul 6 issued his encyclical Humanae Vitae. An encyclical is a papal letter sent to all bishops of the Catholic Church. Humanae Vitaecondemned the use of artificial methods of contraception, including the pill. Notably, the Pope did not act collegially with the bishops in issuing his encyclical. The current problem of authority in the Church is rooted in a conflict between two theologies:[3] Traditional theology still sees the Church as a superstate governed by an absolute monarch, whose aim is to impose the maximum amount of conformity. Progressive theology sees the Church as above all a fellowship of spiritual communities held together in essentials by their recognition of papal primacy. In the pre-Vatican 2 Church, the independence of the individual conscience was kept to a minimum. In the past, the task of the layman was simply to obey the directives of bishops and priests. But in the post-Vatican 2 Church, there is now a mood of questioning. Many Catholics, as Philippine surveys show, are no longer willing to obey the Church blindly. In a few years the climate in the Church changed so drastically that few bishops dared to express a hard line on Pope Pauls birth control encyclical. Most of them followed a generally permissive policy.[4] The divide between pre-Vatican 2 theology and post-Vatican 2 theology is mirrored in the RH debate among Catholic Filipinos. Theology means the branch of knowledge that deals with Christian theistic religion. It also means the organized body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God; in other words, divinity. After Vatican 2, the Catholic church has been divided into two schools of thought, in theology and in ecclesiology. The two camps in theology are: The classicist or traditional Catholics on the one hand; and The historically conditioned or progressive Catholics on the other hand. The two schools of thoughts on ecclesiology, meaning the branch of knowledge that deals with the Christian Church, are: 1. Pre-Vatican 2 ecclesiology, which stresses the constitutional and hierarchical aspects of the Church; 2. Post-Vatican 2 progressive ecclesiology, which understands the Church as the whole People of God, always in need of renewal and reform. This division into two schools of thought in theology and in ecclesiology represents a crisis of authority within the Catholic Church. This crisis is represented as a transition, and thus has a certain implication. In the words of a Catholic historian:[5]

One way of looking at the current crisis of authority is to see it as the travails of a Church still trying to make thetransition from the classicist to a historically conscious worldview. The classicist mentality viewed the Church as moving through history, but more or less unaffected by history. The historically conscious point of view, however, acknowledged how much institutions, governing precepts, and basic ideas about religion and morality are shaped by history, and therefore how relative they are. The post-Vatican 2 period has seen a revolution in moral theology in the Catholic church, because of the following factors: The acceptance of the historical dimension. The profound shift of emphasis on the Church not only as a hierarchical institution, but also as a sacrament, as people of God, and as servants. The adoption by Vatican 2 of an ecumenical point of view, which now considers the experience, reflection, and wisdom of the other Christian churches. Vatican 2 emphasizes the nature of the Church, as an eschatological, very imperfect, and unfinished reality. Eschatology is the branch of theology that deals with the four last things death, judgment, heaven and hell and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind. In the past, Catholics viewed certain moral doctrines as immutable. But today, many Catholics now accept that so-called immutable moral doctrines should be legitimately re-examined. One relevant shift in moral theology concerns the principle of proportionalism, which is a new way of looking at actions that cause a double effect, one good and one bad. According to the theory of proportionalism, a person does not sin in causing the bad effect, if there was a proportionate reason. The basis for this theory is that there is no sin, if the persons intention was aimed at a good effect and not at the bad effect. Thus, very few actions could be labeled as intrinsically evil. Certainly RH is not an intrinsic evil. Another shift involves the identity of the priest, including the bishop. Today, being a priest really means: The person of the priest is no longer sacred. There is no longer a strict division between the sacred and the profane. The treatment of priests and bishops as a special caste in society is no longer observed. The Church does not consist of the priests and bishops alone. The Church consists of the whole faith community. Catholicism is no longer an affair of the person who happened to be born a Catholic, but an affair of the human being who is personally committed. The priest is not a special person, just because he performs strictly cultic tasks, such as presiding at the Eucharist and administering the sacraments. With these recent developments in the identity of the priest, one historian was moved to comment:[6] It is no wonder then that many priests suffer from a sense of confusion about their role. The Encyclical Humanae Vitae The Catholic opposition to the RH bill is based on the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae issued by Pope Paul 6. The Latin title literally means Of Human Life, but it is more popularly translated as On the Regulation of Birth. This encyclical is the result of a Special Papal Commission established by Pope John 23 and concluded during the term of Pope Paul 6. The commission submitted two reports: the majority report, and the minority report. The majority report proposed that contraception should no longer be condemned. The minority report urged the Pope to continue to condemn contraception.

Paradoxically, Pope Paul 6 decided in favor of the minority view. His unusual decision shook the Catholic world, and that is the reason why the Catholics in this country are so intensely divided over the RH bill. After Pope Paul 6 rejected the majority report, many Catholics were no longer ready to give blind obedience to his decree. It is fair to say that no moral issue in the 20th century impacted so profoundly on the discipline of moral theology. As a result of the contretemps and the succeeding controversy, Catholics now raise such questions on how conscience is to be sought, the response due to the ordinary magisterium or teaching function of the Pope and bishops, and the meaning of the guidelines of the Holy Spirit. Catholic theologians and even some Episcopal conferences voiced opposition to the Humanae Vitae encyclical, or at least took positions that were less than enthusiastic in their support. Surveys in the United States, for example, have indicated that the overwhelming majority (more than 80%) of Catholics of childbearing age do not, in fact, observe the encyclicals teachings. On the one hand, the controversial encyclical adopted the minority reportwhich condemns artificial contraception, based on the following arguments: The constant and perennial teaching of the Church. The natural law that certain acts and the generative processes are in some way especially inviolable, precisely because they are generative. Contraception is evil, because it changes an act which is naturally oriented to procreation, into an act which is oriented to the mutual benefit of the spouses. On the other hand, the encyclical rejected the majority report which supports artificial contraception, based on the following arguments: Traditional teaching fails to recognize the evolutionary character of that teaching. For example, the official Church has changed its teaching in such matters as religious liberty and usury.[7] A change in that traditional teaching would not necessarily undermine the moral teaching authority of the Church. Such a change is to be seen rather as a step toward a more mature comprehension of the whole doctrine of the Church. The natural-law theory of those who support the traditional teaching has been proved to be erroneous. Because of this mentality, many advances in medical science were prohibited for a time, and the same was true of other areas of scientific experimentation. The conjugal act must be viewed not as an isolated reality but in a larger context of human love, family life, education, etc. This is called the principle of totality. Sexuality is not ordered only to procreation. Sacred Scripture says not only: be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28), but also: they become one flesh (2:24), portraying the partner as another self (2:18). Allow me to emphasize the most categorical support for artificial contraception in the majority opinion: In some cases intercourse can be required as a manifestation of self-giving love, directed to the good of the other person or of the community, while at the same time a new life cannot be received. This is neither egocentricity nor hedonism, but a legitimate communication of persons through gestures proper to beings composed of body and soul with sexual powers.

The whole controversy over the encyclical is painful and disturbing to a Catholic. But it has also aroused the ordinary Catholic to be much more aware of her own personal responsibility. It has made the Catholic realize that the Church hierarchy does not have all the answers. It has forced her to think about the role of individual conscience. The teaching of the Catholic Church on contraception is one of the important reasons why the absolute authority of the Church has grown weaker over the years. The RH Act is a result of the deepened sense of history among Catholics. Many of us Catholics are now more aware that our Church authorities made wrong decisions in the past. To our mind, those errors show that certain teachings should only be relative to their own times, and not permanent for all times. I very humbly appeal to Church authorities to emphasize strong leadership on moral issues such as war and peace, poverty, and corruption in government, instead of a non-issue like the RH Act. Humanae Vitae defends the rhythm method. Thus, it rests its argument on the physiological structure of the act. However, certain contemporary theologians insist that the basic criterion for the meaning of human actions is the total person, and not some isolated aspect of the person. I very humbly submit that the reason for an exclusive rhythm method given inHumanae Vitae is too strongly biological. I very humbly submit that Humanae Vitae has opened a disconnect with Vatican 2 which allowed for a wider basis for evaluating the morality of such a human act, namely, the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.[8] Reformulation of Catholic Doctrine After Vatican Council 2, Catholic doctrines began to be reformulated under the recent historical theology. According to a Church historian, the guiding principles of this new historical theology are:[9] The inadequacy of every era to define truth for future eras. The traditional view of revelation as the transmission of definite fixed concepts, was replaced by the idea of revelation as a personal self-disclosure by which God encounters the total person and communicates with him in a historical dialogue. Therefore, no formula of faith can exhaust the truth. It can be exchanged for another formula more meaningful to the contemporary mind. Every formulation of a divine mystery is only the beginning, never the terminus. A theory of the development of dogma which emphasizes the social, historical, and non-conceptual forces impinging on this process. On the basis of these principles, Catholic doctrines have been reformulated. Allow me to take an overview of this process. One of the first to reformulate Catholic doctrine was a famous book entitled A New Catechism, and subtitled Catholic Faith for Adults. It was originally published in 1966, but later revised in 1970, under the general responsibility of the Dutch hierarchy. It became an international bestseller.

This so-called Dutch Catechism contained a section on Family Planning. It noted that there was a clear development in the late 1960s, both within and outside the Church, toward the use of several methods in regulating births. The Dutch Catechism said:[10] There is now a growing sense of the independent human value of sexuality. Sexuality and fertility are seen more clearly as values which are combined in the one totality of life, rather than as factors simply arranged in the relationship of means to an end. . . . Are all methods of regulation of births of equal value to the Christian conscience? The council gave no answer to this question. It does, however, call on married people to ask themselves conscientiously whether the practices in question do, or fail to do, full justice to the great personal values which should be expressed in sexual intercourse and in the whole of modern life. . . . The last word lies with the conscience, not with the doctor or with the confessor. But reverence for life undoubtedly demands that no practices be chosen which could be harmful to health for the affective life. Nearly two decades later, in 1986, an Oxford University chaplain took note of the then raging debate on family planning after Vatican Council 2. He wrote:[11] The resolution of this dilemma between the care for the family and responsible parenthood, on the one hand, and the sustaining love, on the other, seems to be found in contraception. But as everyone knows, the teaching of the Catholic church forbids the use of artificial contraceptives . . . There seems to be an impasse at this point . . . . It may be, therefore, that a positive attitude, marked by purity of heart, could help most to resolve the impasse. By 1994, a widely-hailed masterpiece, the book entitled Catholicism, stated:[12] The birth control question, once a sharply divisive issue in the Catholic church, is no longer a matter of intense discussion among the theologians. But it retains its importance as a paradigm of the 20th century debates concerning the nature of Catholic morality and the limits of Catholic teaching authority. What is really the issue here, therefore, is not birth control in this generic sense but contraception, i.e., the intentional placing of a material obstacle to the conception of a child: e.g., a contraceptive pill, an intrauterine device, contraceptive foam, a condom. One side argues that contraception by such artificial means is always wrong. (That remains the official teaching of the Church today). The other side argues that contraception may be not only legitimate under certain circumstances but even mandatory. This side speaks in terms of responsible parenthood. . . . Liberation Theology Liberation theology is a theory, originating among Latin American theologians, which interprets liberation from social, political, and economic oppression as an anticipation of eschatological salvation. Liberation theology is a species of progressive theology, which is based on the following principles: The Church, not just the hierarchy, is a mystery, or a sacrament. The Church, not just the hierarchy, is the whole People of God. The whole People of God participates in the mission of Christ, and not just in the mission of the

hierarchy. The mission of the Church includes service to those in need, and not just the preaching of the Gospel or the celebration of the sacraments. Liberation theology is a part of post-Vatican 2 ecclesiology, which emphasizes the nature of the Church as an earthly community of human beings who have a mission in and for the world that includes the struggle on behalf of justice, peace, and human rights. The appearance of liberation theology has been called one of the most significant developments of the last several decades.[13] It is called a new way of doing theology. Classical theology aimed at a deeper understanding of faith. Liberation theology aims to transform the world, following the famous dictum of Karl Marx that the task of philosophy is not to understand the world, but to change the world. Classical theology seemed removed from day-to-day experience. Liberation theology has grown out of the experience of certain Catholics with the harsh reality of the miserable poor. Classical theology interpreted Jesus message of the kingdom as a guide to personal morality. Liberation theology sees Jesus message as above all a call to struggle against the social forces of oppression. Liberation theology believes that the kingdom of God is partially realized, when social justice and love are advanced in society. When we take a step toward social justice and love, we take one further step toward the final consummation of the kingdom of God. I humbly submit that the struggle for an RH bill to protect the health and quality of life of the mother and child in the context of unspeakable poverty is part of liberation theology. It emphasizes that the Churchs existence is not for itself, but for others. Accordingly, to liberation theology, the Church must listen to the world, and be evangelized by it. According to the principal theologian of liberation theology, Gustavo Gutierrez, the Church should be a place of liberation where there is a break from an unjust social order.[14] I respectfully submit that in the Philippines, the Church must take a clear stand against social injustice. In all humility, I dare to echo the call of liberation theology: the first step in abolishing injustice is to recognize how much the Church itself is tied to the unjust system that oppresses the very poor. RH is available to the rich; why should it not be made available to the very poor? Catholic support for RH is a call to the major themes of liberation theology in a developing country like the Philippines, namely: The injustices visited on the Filipino people by neocolonialism and imperialism. Reinterpretation of salvation to include every form of servitude; and The kingdom of God as beginning in this world, in this country, the Philippines, in this time, now. In the light of the Filipino experience of the poor, we should take a profoundly historical approach to God. The self-revelation of God and the Filipinos human response is an ongoing historical process. The God revealed in Jesus Christ is not an unmoved mover but a God whose very essence consists of love. The RH bill is an enterprise in social justice and in love for the poor. In 1986, the Vatican made a positive critique of liberation theology by issuing the document entitled Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation. According to the Instruction, the supreme principle of the Churchs social doctrine is Jesus great commandment of love. Christian love when applied may take various forms, in accord with the changing circumstances of history.

We now understand that as compassionate disciples of the Lord, the Church exercises a special option for the poor and shows them a loving preference. The compassion and love of the Church must extend toward the poor of whatever kind to the infant in danger of being aborted, and particularly to the poverty-stricken Filipino mother denied the basic information about her own reproductive health. The Primacy of Individual Conscience In 1965, Pope Paul 6 issued an encyclical letter entitled Dignitatis Humanae, also known as Declaration on Religious Freedom. In Section 3, para. 4, he wrote:[15] Man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity, a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. (Emphasis added.) In 1967, the same Pope Paul 6 issued another encyclical entitled Populorum Progressio, also known as On the Development of Peoples. In Section 37, he wrote:[16] It is for the parents to decide, with full knowledge of the matter, on the number of their children, taking into account their responsibilities towards God, themselves, the children they have already brought into the world, and the community to which they belong. In all this they must follow the demands of their own conscienceenlightened by Gods law authentically interpreted, and sustained by confidence in Him. (Emphasis added.) In 1993, Pope John Paul 2 issued his encyclical entitled, Veritatis Splendor, also known as The Splendor of Truth. In Section 64, he wrote:[17] The authority of the Church, when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of conscience of Christians. This is so not only because freedom of conscience is never freedom from the truth, but always and only freedom in the truth, but also because the Magisterium does not bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to it; rather, it brings to light the truths which it ought already to possess, developing them from the starting point of the primordial act of faith. The Church puts herself always and only at the service of conscience, helping it to avoid being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. Eph. 4:14), and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of man, but rather, especially in some difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it. (Emphasis added.) Against these encyclicals on freedom of conscience, the 1968 encyclicalHumanae Vitae by Pope Paul 6, based on a minority report of the papal commission, strikes a discordant note. It declared as erroneous the principle of totality, under which contraception could be considered morally legitimate, in the context of the totality of a fruitful married life. Instead, the encyclical declares:[18] The Church calling human beings back to the observance of the norm of the natural law, as interpreted by constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life. Humanae Vitae by itself has drawn a great divide between Catholics. It has stirred up a storm, thus:[19]

The negative reaction of many theologians, moralists, and non-moralists alike, was vigorous and widespread. Bishops conferences around the world accepted the encyclical as authoritative teaching. However, some of these conferences drew attention, for example, to the primacy of conscience, the need to be understanding and forgiving, and the judgment that Catholics who sincerely cannot follow the encyclicals teaching are not thereby separated from the love of God. Such themes were sounded by the bishops of Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, France, Canada, and the Scandinavian countries. (Emphasis added.) My own favorite excerpt from the bishops who supported the primacy of individual conscience comes from the Scandinavian bishops: No one, including the Church can absolve anyone from the obligation to follow his (or her) conscience. . . . If someone for weighty and well considered reasons cannot become convinced of the argumentation of the encyclical, it has always been conceded that he (or she) is allowed to have a different view from that presented in a non-infallible statement of the Church. No one should be considered a bad Catholic because he (or she) is of such a dissenting opinion. Allow me to emphasize this 1971 statement by the U.S. Sacred Congregation for the Clergy over the signature of its cardinal, as follows:[20] Conscience is inviolable and no person is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his (or her) conscience, as the moral tradition of the Church attests. Thus, in pastoral practice priests must not be too quick to assume either complete innocence or moral guilt in the persons they counsel. One must recognize persons who are honestly trying to lead a good Christian life. There must be confidence in the mercy of God and the forgiving power of Christ. (Emphasis added.) In 1994, a volume called The New Dictionary of Catholic Social Thought took note of the progress of liberal progressive Catholic thinking by analyzing the major modern encyclicals and reaching the following conclusion:[21] The Catholic church, in its official pronouncements at least, continues today to affirm that natural family planning and sexual abstinence are the only morally acceptable means of controlling births. What has become the key issue for Catholic thought in the matter of birth control, therefore, is not the intended ends sought by proponents of artificial birth control, but the morally legitimate means to the admittedly good ends that birth control advocates claim to seek and the human values that will be lost or distorted in using morally illegitimate means. There seems to be several major concerns behind the continued opposition of Catholic social teaching to the practice of artificial means of birth control, be those means mechanical (condoms, IUDs, diaphragms, cervical caps), chemical (spermicidal agents, the pill), or surgical (sterilization, abortion). Those concerns focus on the dignity of man and woman, the well-being of children and families, and Gods role in the creation of new life. More cynical or suspi cious views of Catholic social teaching would also see a fear and contempt for sex on the part of celibate clerics and a desire by those same celibates to maintain their power in the church and their control over the laity. Whatever merit such suspicious views may have, they are not necessary to account for the continued opposition of the official teachers of the Roman Catholic church to artificial contraception.

The book, Christ Among Us, which has been described as Americas most popular guide to modern Catholicism, describes the ongoing process of reformulating Catholic doctrine:[22] In this matter, as in anything, the Church has not spoken the final word, and a development of its teaching is quite possible in the future. The large majority of theologians agree thatno question of infallibility is involved. . . . Soon after the encyclical, 500 American theologians in concert with many throughout the world asserted that for grave reasons Catholics may follow their conscience on this matter even though the Pope has spoken. . . . The large majority of Catholic couples have been unable to square this teaching with their consciences. Priest-sociologist Andrew Greeley estimates that nine out of 10 Catholic couples practice contraception at some time during their childbearing years. These couples may be respectful of the Churchs duty to teach in moral matters, or trying to live good Christian married lives, and are willing to practice self-denial. They have tried to inform their consciences as best they can, and feel that for serious physical, financial, or psychological reasons they cannot use periodic abstinence. Their consciences tell them that another child at this time would cause great damage to their married life, and perhaps to the children they already had and, for some, contraception presents itself as the only alternative to a possible abortion, obviously a far greater evil. As we have seen, it is a clear teaching that, while erroneous decisions might be made in following ones conscience, one who has tried to inform ones conscience as best one can must then follow it. (Emphasis added.) If a Catholic disagrees with a moral teaching of the Church, according to an eminent theologian, we must take into account the following principles:[23] If, after proper study, reflection, and prayer, a person is convinced that his or her conscience is correct, in spite of a conflict with the moral teachings of the Church, the person not only may but must follow the dictates of conscience, rather than the teachings of the Church. The Church has never explicitly claimed to speak infallibly on a moral question. No teaching of the Church can hope to account for every moral situation and circumstance. The teachings themselves are historically conditioned. What may have been perceived as morally wrong in one set of circumstances would be regarded as morally justifiable in another situation. No individual or groups of individuals can hope to identify and grasp moral truth by relying entirely on our own resources. We are all finite and sinful. Let me end this overview on the primacy of conscience doctrine with an excerpt from a 2010 book,[24] which lists four grounds for artificial contraception: 1. Population explosion is a major issue. It is irresponsible to encourage large families especially in the developing world (a term often used for the worlds poorest countries, which masks the fact that some nations are growing poorer). Responsible stewardship requires adults to plan their families according to their means, their preferences, and their health. 3. Sexual intimacy within marriage is good in itself; the fact that it need no longer be linked with the possibility of conception is to be welcomed with thanksgiving.

HIV/AIDS is an immense problem. Its spread is more likely to be stemmed by widespread use of condoms than by unrealistic calls for sexual abstinence. I most humbly join the observation that today, 2011, even within the Catholic church, private judgment is widespread on the use of artificial contraception. It is said that Italy has a very low birth rate, even though some 80% of the population claim to be Catholic. The Italian example is one illustration that one strand of Christian ethics acknowledges the supremacy of the individual Christian conscience, even over official Church teaching. The Lesson From the Catholic Past Today, the scientific community and society in general consider that science and religion are fully independent of each other. I am one of the optimistic Catholics who do not subscribe to the so-called conflict thesis. I do not believe that there in an intrinsic intellectual conflict between the Church and science. But I am acutely aware that history gives us many examples of the conflict thesis and how wrong the Church was. One example was the case of Copernicus, who was denounced by the Church in the sixteenth century for publishing a new cosmology. Copernicus announced that the sun occupied the central place in the universe, and that the earth moves around the sun. He was made to suffer for his conviction. Another example was the case of Galileo, who was similarly denounced by the Church in the seventeenth century. Galileo supported the heliocentric view of the universe. Galileo was tried by the Inquisition, found guilty of heresy, forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. However, after a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture, in 1992 Pope John Paul 2 acknowledged that the Church had been wrong. Still another example was the case of the theory of evolution, which had to struggle against misguided opposition. Like the theories of Copernicus and Galileo, the theory of evolution is now accepted by the Catholic Church. The official position now is that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict. To conclude this part of my speech on the RH Act, allow me to use the language of liberation theology. The Word of God is mediated through the cries of the poor and the oppressed Filipinos. Faith is the historical praxis of liberation. Faith must always be directed toward the changing of the existing social order. We have to participate in the struggle of the poor and the oppressed Filipino mother and child. Let us adopt the project of theological feminism, by searching the tradition for what has contributed to female subjugation. Uncontrolled pregnancies is certainly one of them. Jesus himself was radically open to woman. Jesus was a revolutionary who accepted women as equal, and rejected any use of God to perpetuate patriarchal or hierarchical relationships. As legislators and law-abiding citizens of our republic, we are prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause from enforcing anti-female prejudice. The RH Act seeks to correct the fallacy of intrinsic female inferiority. Fathers of the Church like St. Augustine saw woman as dominated by the body, in comparison with man, who stood for the predominance of the spirit. We have since discarded that archaic view. Upon his resurrection, Jesus appeared first to women, thus sending a message. It was, and still is, the message of responsible love.

-o0o-