Despite these benefits, the Reproductive Health Bill is not without opposition.

In fact, the Bill is

faced with strong resistance from the Catholic Church and other conservative sectors of society.
The said groups have used negative epithets to describe the Bill, such as pro-abortion, antilife, and immoral. (Pernia et. al. 2) These names, however, are deliberate misinformation and
distortion campaigns, which shroud the true purpose of the Bill to promote reproductive and
sexual healthcare and education to the public. Besides bestowing misnomers to the Bill, several
provisions have also been fallaciously attributed to the Bill. Believing in the value of the Bill in
the growth and development of this nation, these accusations should be rightfully dispelled.
Firstly, the Reproductive Health Bill (HB 4244 or SB 2865) does not actively seek to curb
population growth (Lagman 2012). The Catholic Church hierarchy and other pro-life groups
have insisted that overpopulation is a myth; meaning, the country is not in dire need of a measure
for population reduction. However, according to Rep. Edcel Lagman, the decline in population
growth is only a consequence of the information and education drives that the Bill mandates. The
RH Bill does not expressly state that it aims to solve overpopulation the word population
itself is not even found in the 12 Elements of Reproductive Health listed by the Philippine
Legislators Committee on Population and Development Foundation, Inc. (PLCPD).
Another contention with regards to population and the RH Bill is the ideal family size stated by
the Bill. In Section 20 of HB 4244, it is stated that The State shall assist parents, couples and
individuals and encourage them to have two children as the ideal family size. The same
Section also declares that attaining the ideal family size is neither compulsory nor mandatory.
This means that the having and raising two children is merely a suggestion of the State. It is not a
coercive measure to violate the right of a couple to have as many children as they wish. Two
children is considered ideal, mostly because lesser children would mean greater investments for
their education and their health (Pernia et. al. 3). In the 2006 Family Income and Expenditure
Survey (FIES) Final Report conducted by the National Statistics Coordinating Board (NSCB), a
direct relationship between poverty incidence and family size was seen, as the less than 4.3%
poverty incidence in families with one child rises to 52.3% in families with 9 or more children
(FIES 2006). Here, it can be gleaned that the Bill promotes two children as ideal because of the
greater chances of a comfortable life.

Secondly, HB 4244 does not promote abortion. In truth, the provisions of the RH Bill seek to
prevent abortion. Also, the Bill does not legalize abortion in Section 3 of the Bill, it is
expressly stated that this Act recognizes that abortion is legal and punishable by law. The
thrust of the Bill for family planning, both natural and modern methods, can also be considered
an anti-abortion provision. It has been shown that induced abortions can be attributed to the
difficulty in obtaining modern contraceptives as a result of social and political constraints.
(Juarez et. al. 2008) The Bills main objective is to make all forms of family planning,
contraceptives included, more accessible to the general public; therefore, helping deter induced
abortions.
While the Bill recognizes that extra judicial nature of abortions, it does not
discriminate against women who have undergone abortion procedures.
Section 3 of the Bill asserts that women in need of post-abortion care must
be treated without discrimination of judgment. This provision strengthens the
Prevention and Management of Abortion Complications (PMAC) Program
signed on May 2, 2000. The PMAC Program aims to strengthen the capability
of the countrys health care system or prevention and management of
abortion and to improve the accountability of the quality of post-abortion
services. (Viado 30) As their Constitutional right to life, women who suffer
from post-abortion complications must be given the best possible care and
counsel to rebuild their lives, as abortion is known to be traumatic.
Discrimination against women with post-abortion complications are
prevalent, though never revealed in public, and range from denial of medical
services to outright physical violence by medical personnel, such as the
deliberate sticking of suture needles in different parts of their body. (Viado
31) The RH Bill addresses these issues, and asserts in legislation the right of
women with post-abortion complication the Bill does not promote abortion,
yet it advocates the humane treatment of women who have undergone the
procedure, regardless of their reason for doing so.

Thirdly, the RH Bill is not a waste of government money, as what is claimed

by anti-RH proponents. In reference to what is currently being spent for
unwanted pregnancies and treating their complications, the country can save
at least 2 billion Php.

Lastly, the Bill does not violate the Constitution in anyway. Family planning,
the main concept being promoted by the Bill, does not encroach on the
provisions of Article II, Sec, 12 of the 1987 Constitution, which states that:
The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and
strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. A technical
definition of family planning must be assumed, so that it can be referenced
against the Constitution, and its constitutionality be proven. Thus, family
planning is defined as the fundamental right of couples and individuals to
choose the number and spacing of their children, taking into account their
responsibilities to their communities and the country. (Aguiling-Pangalangan
124) Given this definition, we can see that family planning is indeed, in line
with not only Article II, Sec. 12 of the Constitution, but also with Article II,
Sec. 11, 14, 15 and 21; Article III, Sec. 1; Article XII, Sec. 1; Article XIII, Sec.
1, 2 and 14; Article XIV, Sec. 11 and 12; and Article XV, Sec. 3. (AguilingPangalangan 79-81)

The debate on whether the Reproductive Health Bill violates the part of
Article II, Sec. 12 that mentions It (the State) shall equally protect the life of
the mother and the life of the unborn from conception could go either way.
This is due to the conflicting definitions of the term conception. Even
physicians are divided on what conception means, or where it begins, and
adapting all definitions would result to the radical broadening of the term,
which will result to perpetual non-violation of this provision in the
Constitution. (Aguilling-Pangalangan 164) However, since contraceptives,

which are recommended by the RH Bill, prevent conception itself, there is no

life to be protected. This argument, therefore, proves the constitutionality of
the RH Bill. It may also be added that this is the reason why contraceptives
are not prohibited in the 1987 Constitution.

Sources:
Econ White Paper
Edcel Lagman Sponsorship speech
Aguiling-Pangalangan, Elizabeth (2003). Reproductive Health, Rights and
Their Progeny: Norms in Case and Statute Law. Quezon City: ReproCen.
National Statistics Coordination Board. 2006. Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES)
2003: Final Report.
Viado, Lalaine P. (2005). Reproductive Health Politics, Health Sector Reforms, and Religious
Conservatism in the Philippines 1964-2004. Quezon City: DAWN.
1987 Constitution