c


 
c

    
The    , popularly known as the  , is a Philippine bill aiming to
guarantee universal access to methods and information on birth control and maternal care. The
bill has become the center of a contentious national debate. There are presently two bills with the
same goals: House Bill No. 96 or the    

   
 !"" introduced by Albay 1st district representative Edcel Lagman, and
Senate Bill No. 2378 or the    
 introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor
Santiago.

While there is general agreement about its provisions on maternal and child health, there is great
debate on its key proposal that the Filipino taxpayer and the private sector will fund and
undertake widespread distribution of family planning devices such as birth control pills (BCPs)
and IUDs, as the government continues to disseminate information on their use through all health
care centers. Private companies and the public and private elementary and secondary school
system will be required to participate in this information and product dissemination as a way of
controlling the population of the Philippines.

The bill is highly controversial, with experts, academics, religious institutions, and major
political figures both supporting and opposing it, often criticizing the government and each other
in the process. The issue is so divisive that at one point, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the
Philippines threatened to excommunicate the President, Benigno Aquino III if he supported the
bill.

_
  

—
 
    
  

   
 
 
 


        
  
 
      
    
 
  


    



Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J, one of the drafters of the Philippine Constitution and a prominent lawyer
and writer, explained that the concept of separation of church and state is directed towards the
state, rather than the church, as it is a political concept. Technically it means ³non-establishment
of religion´, as the Constitution stated that ³No law shall be passed respecting an establishment
of religion ...´ It means that the state should be guided by the principle that it should support no
specific religion. This means that government funding should not be allocated for building
churches or mosques, and not favor any particular religion. It does not prevent the church,
parents, supervisors, teachers and other moral educators from expressing their views and
educating their wards on the morality of their personal and social actions. Proponents, on the
other hand, state that the church should not meddle in matters of the state, and should focus on
religious matters, not political matters.

The national debate is seen as part of a wider culture war. Passage or non-passage of the bill
have negative implications depending on the views. Proponents state that the non-passage of the
bill will mean keeping the Philippines in a backward state and unable to achieve the Millennium
Development Goals, especially the points on poverty alleviation and maternal health. It will
mean reneging on international commitments and will slow down modernization. Also the poor
will not have free access to family planning support that many have expressed desires to have,
and thus will have more children than they can care for, and will not have the money to invest in
education to break the intergenerational poverty they are trapped in. Proponents also accuse the
Catholic Church of holding the Philippines "hostage" and violating the separation of church and
state. They argue that a decreased population growth will lead to improved quality of life and
economic development.

Opponents of the bill see the bill as allowing the Filipinos to be fooled by the deceptive
manipulations of American imperialism and eugenicist control, using United Nations Agencies
for its own national interests, and to use Philippines' own national funds to kill the youngest
Filipinos, harm its own mothers, and encourage immorality. They see the bill as an act of
disrespect and ingratitude to the Catholic Church that works for the poor and the sick, and for the
education and development of Filipinos. They accuse the Philippine Legislator's Committee on
Population and Development as "essentially a foreign body" that has drafted the bills, and that its
"2008 lobbying fund of two billion pesos comes from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation,
IPPF and UNFPA the latter two both well known for their global agenda to legalize abortion."
They say that a two-child policy will make the country fail to cash in on a possible demographic
dividend of rapid economic growth, and great reduction of poverty, a chance for complete
modernization without destruction of human life and promotion of immorality.

Proponents argue: (1) Economic studies, especially the experience in Asia, show that rapid
population growth and high fertility rates, especially among the poor, exacerbate poverty and
make it harder for the government to address it. (2) Empirical studies show that poverty
incidence is higher among big families. Smaller families and wider birth intervals could allow
families to invest more in each child¶s education, health, nutrition and eventually reduce poverty
and hunger at the household level. (3) Ten to eleven maternal deaths daily could be reduced if
they had access to basic healthcare and essential minerals like iron and calcium, according to the
DOH; similar to the U.S. experience, 1/3 of first time users of the pill find the side effects
intolerable (4) Studies show that 44% of the pregnancies in the poorest quintile are
unanticipated, and among the poorest women who would like to avoid pregnancy, at least 41%
do not use any contraceptive method because of lack of information or access. and "Among the
poorest families, 22% of married women of reproductive age express a desire to avoid
pregnancies but are still not using any family planning method," (5) use of contraception, which
the World Health Organization has listed as essential medicines, will lower the rate of abortions
as it has done in other parts of the world, according to the Guttmacher Institute. (6) An SWS
survey of 2008 showed that 71% of the respondents are in favor of the bill, (7) at the heart of the
bill is the free choice given to people on the use of reproductive health, enabling the people,
especially the poor to have the number the children they want and can care for.
President Aquino stated he was not an author of the bill. He also stated that he gives full support
to a firm population policy, educating parents to be responsible, providing contraceptives to
those who ask for them, but he refuses to promote contraceptive use. He said that his position "is
more aptly called responsible parenthood rather than reproductive health."

Opponents of the bill argue that: (1) The bill is based on faulty premises since a study of Nobel-
prize winner Simon Kuznets, found no correlation between population growth and poverty in
first world countries. This research was later replicated in developing countries (2) The bill takes
away limited government funds from treating many high priority medical and food needs and
transfers them to fund harmful and deadly devices. The latest studies in scientific journals and
organizations show that the ordinary birth control pill, and the IUD are abortifacient to fertilized
eggs: they kill young human embryos, who as such are human beings equally worthy of respect,
making the bill unconstitutional. (3) Leading secular social scientists like Nobel prize winner,
George Akerlof and US National Defense Consultant, Lionel Tiger, have found that
contraceptives have deleterious social effects (abortion, adultery, female impoverishment,
fatherless children, teenage pregnancies, and immorality). Others have reported that it spreads
AIDS. Combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (the most common type prescribed
globally) are carcinogenic, and confers other serious health risks. "It is never lawful, even for the
gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it." The increased usage of contraceptives,
which implies that some babies are unwanted, will eventually lead to more abortion. (4) People's
freedom to access contraceptives is not restricted by any opposing law, being available in family
planning NGOs, stores, etc. The country is not a welfare state: taxpayer's money should not be
used for personal practices that are harmful and immoral; it can be used to inform people of the
harm of BCPs. (5) It promotes sex education of the youth which promoters themselves have
considered as having brought about more teenage pregnancies and fatherless kids. (6) A 2009
survey showed that 92% rejected the bill when informed of its detailed provisions and penalties.
Tatad also claims that the 2007 general election, in which the Buhay party-list won the most
votes (7.30% of total votes), shows that Filipinos are pro-life. (7) The penal provisions constitute
a violation of free choice and conscience, and establishes religious persecution.[36]

_# $c
c

$_%
„ 
  


  

  !  "     
 
#    $ %        &    '

  $  
 

%()
 &   $  
         * 
    
 
 


   
 &  
  
$      
    
      &+  
   , 
 
 
$
 
        
&


_c

&'

_
The bill mandates the government to ³promote, without bias, all effective natural and modern
methods of family planning that are medically safe and legal.´ Although abortion is recognized
as illegal and punishable by law, the bill states that ³the government shall ensure that all women
needing care for post-abortion complications shall be treated and counseled in a humane, non-
judgmental and compassionate manner.´

The bill calls for a ³multi-dimensional approach´ integrates a component of family planning and
responsible parenthood into all government anti-poverty programs. Under the bill, age-
appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education is required from grade five to fourth year
high school using ³life-skills and other approaches.´

The bill also mandates the Department of Labor and Employment to guarantee the reproductive
health rights of its female employees. Companies with less than 200 workers are required to
enter into partnership with health care providers in their area for the delivery of reproductive
health services. Employers are obliged to monitor pregnant working employees among their
workforce and ensure they are provided paid half-day prenatal medical leaves for each month of
the pregnancy period that they are employed. The national government and local governments
will ensure the availability of reproductive health care services, including family planning and
prenatal care.

Any person or public official who prohibits or restricts the delivery of legal and medically safe
reproductive health care services will be meted penalty by imprisonment or a fine.

$ 

$'_
‘  — (-./  — %.0
    1  
   
 1
2

3  
 ‘   

   

  
   
    
   

   
         
   


 
 4         


  
 
  
    
 
   
 
  
      
      4
       ,   
           
 

‘  — 5)  
1 


  
11 6    
 1
   
 
 ‘  — )( 1
1    
 
‘  — ..0   1
  1
 
   
111 

 1
    
 

Yeproductive Yights are defined by House Bills 101, 513, 1160, 3387, and Senate Bill 2378 as
follows:

 
 
  
 
          
  7
   
 
 
  7     
 

  
 
 


  

  
7   
      7  
 
    
   

c
  
 c

 
4 
  3  
 ‘  —    558   -  
 3‘— 
      9:‘  ; <  !
< 
+ ‘—5)79%:
  3 =  >‘—(9.:+3    ?— @A  — 7‘—-.9B:
; 3    3 
—* ‘—)(9-:  3    + /6
‘—-%(
9):> 3 <*   /  / ; 8
 / 
   
  
 3‘ 
   
 
'
     

 „=.%( ‘  
3       #     
3     
   ‘    
  
  An Act Providing for a
Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population Development and
for Other Purposes

According to the Senate Policy Brief titled Ê



   , the history of
reproductive health in the Philippines dates back to 1967 when leaders of 12 countries including
the Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos signed the Declaration on Population. The Philippines agreed
that the population problem be considered as the principal element for long-term economic
development. Thus, the Population Commission (Popcom) was created to push for a lower
family size norm and provide information and services to lower fertility rates.

Starting 1967, the USAID started shouldering 80% of the total family planning commodities
(contraceptives) of the country, which amounted to US$ 3 Million annually.

à/"  /
;  2   


     
  
  
à"à/+8

In 1975, the United States adopted as its policy the National Security Study Memorandum 200:
Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests
(NSSM200). The policy gives "paramount importance" to population control measures and the
promotion of contraception among 13 populous countries, including the Philippines to control
rapid population growth which they deem to be inimical to the socio-political and economic
growth of these countries and to the national interests of the United States, since the "U.S.
economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad", and these
countries can produce destabilizing opposition forces against the United States. It recommends
the US leadership to "influence national leaders" and that "improved world-wide support for
population-related efforts should be sought through increased emphasis on mass media and other
population education and motivation programs by the U.N., USIA, and USAID."

Different presidents had different points of emphasis. President Marcos pushed for a systematic
distribution of contraceptives all over the country, a policy that was called "coercive," by its
leading administrator. The Cory Aquino administration focused on giving couples the right to
have the number of children they prefer, while the Yamos presidency shifted from population
control to population management. Estrada used mixed methods of reducing fertility rates, while
Arroyo focused on mainstreaming natural family planning, while stating that contraceptives are
openly sold in the country.

In 1989, the Philippine Legislators¶ Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD) was
established, "dedicated to the formulation of viable public policies requiring legislation on
population management and socio-economic development."

In 2000, the Philippines signed the Millennium Declaration and committed to attain the MDG
goals by 2015, including promoting gender equality and health. In 2003, USAID started its phase
out of a 33 year old program by which free contraceptives where given to the country. Aid
recipients such as the Philippines faced the challenge to fund its own contraception program. In
2004, the Department of Health introduced the Philippines Contraceptive Self-Yeliance Strategy,
arranging for the replacement of these donations with domestically provided contraception.

In August 2010, the government announced a collaborative work with the USAID in
implementing a comprehensive marketing and communications strategy in favor of family
planning called "May Plano Ako" (I Have a Plan).

c
c
&$
'(
)
'
 
4  6 
   
 

   4  

 
  


     


   9  
       C


 
:     
  
    
> C 
 
    
     

   

> C
 
       
    4 3‘