DAVAO CITY, Philippines (Mindanao Examiner / Sept. 23, 2008) – Women members of the Philippine Congress may soon play an active role on the issue of the Reproductive Health Bill.
Speaker Prospero Nograles said he will commission women members of the House of Representatives and the Congressional Spouses Foundation Inc. to conduct “all-women” district consultations on the Reproductive Health Bill.
The controversial bill has sparked debates from various groups and lawmakers in the largely Catholic country. Nograles said that women are the ones directly affected by the measure so “let's hear it from the women themselves.”
But Nograles was quick to say that as a devout Catholic, he will maintain “cold neutrality” in the Reproductive Health Bill and pointed out that he is neither for nor against the measure until he “listens to all sides.”
Nograles stressed, however, that he is also prepared to put the measure to a vote in the plenary “when the proper time comes.”
“The arguments of the proponents that overpopulations is the cause of poverty in the Philippines and those against it that human resource is our country’s best asset are both valid and correct,” Nograles said. "But as Speaker, I will not avoid the issue and I will call for a vote after all the plenary debates in the House.”
Nograles said he is prepared to set aside his own personal views on the issue in favor of the position of the majority members of the House of Representatives whom he has asked to consult with their constituents with regards to the raging debate on the Reproductive Health Bill, along with two other contentious issues which are the amendments to the Change and the extension of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
“Even if I’m the Speaker, I only have one vote. This is the reason why I have asked our peers to conduct massive consultations in their districts so that their positions on these controversial issues will be reflective of the sentiment of their constituents,” Nograles said, adding that even the members of Congress should set aside their personal views in favor of the sentiment of their constituents.
“And as a lawyer, I was trained to deal only with facts and not speculations. I will maintain cold neutrality on this issue but I will take my personal stand based on facts and not on speculations,” he said.
Nograles also appealed to the proponents and the oppositionists of the Reproductive Health Bill not to resort to “name-calling” and personal attacks and focus their arguments only on facts.
“We cannot avoid this issue forever. We have to confront it head on sooner or later so why not sooner than later? The House may or may not approve this measure but what is more important is that we are able to bring all arguments on the table and decide which is best for our country. No one has the monopoly of wisdom so the best thing to do is listen and learn from the proponents and those who are against it,” he said.
Nograles said the proponents and the oppositionists of the bill should find a middle ground and craft a measure that is acceptable to both sides. And since the arguments of both sides have their own merits, Nograles said it will be best if the proponents are willing to accept amendments based on the recommendations of those who are opposing the bill.
“This issue should not be treated as something that one is wrong and the other is right. This is not black or white. Both sides have their strong and weak points so why not bring the strong points together and remove or reword the provisions in a way that is acceptable to everyone?” he pointed out.
“We should find a win-win solution or a middle ground that is acceptable to both sides. There is no need to fight over something that we can still compromise on,” Nograles said.
Bishops and priests have branded the bill as “anti-life,” but there is nothing in the Reproductive Health Bill that promotes abortion, while those who are supporting it said women should be given a choice of their own and decide for their future.
Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman is the main proponent of House Bill 5043 or the Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood, Family Planning and Population Management Bill.
“We must not fear to legislate because it is courage which is the handmaiden of a good and vital law,” Lagman said. “This bill is not solely about pills, condoms and IUDs. Neither is it about sex, morality or religion no matter how desperately its oppositors claim it is.” (Romy Bwaga)
1 comment:
Here are some of the potential consequences of the passage into law of the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill (HB O5043) which have dawned upon me; to wit:
1.0 BIG BUSINESS, BIGGER MONEY. If RH Bill passes into law, condom suppliers may earn from the Philippine government (which will be mandated to distribute free condoms to 4.9 million youth aged 15-27), PhP 2.548 billion every year. (Or 4.9 million youth times 1 sex act per week times 52 weeks per year times condom usage of 1 piece per sex act times supplier’s price of P10 per piece of condom.) The assumption of a youth engaging in sex at the average of once a week, I am afraid, is in order and conservative. It will be unthinkable for a young student to obey the reminder of his RH teacher or older relatives that abstinence is the most effective birth control method when that young student is aware, the government is duty-bound to provide him or her with free condom for his or her sexual cravings anytime, anywhere. Condom supply is therefore a big business if RH Bill passes into law. Nevertheless, what is bigger money is when government canvassers, signatories of purchase orders, receivers of condom deliveries, as well as check payment signatories and releasers may connive with condom suppliers to price the condom at P 100 per piece instead of P 10. The over price of P 90 per piece of condom will be distributed among the involved government officials. Therefore, due to the passage of the RH Bill, there is an opportunity for a PhP 25.48 billion condom scam to happen.
2.0 BOARS AND GILTS. These 4.9 million youth who are recipients of the government’s free supply of condoms may naturally crave for sex like animals (considering the additional enticement from the immodest mass media and the internet pornography). The young male may act like boar while the young female behaves like gilt that is in heat. This promiscuity or multiple sexual relationships, is probably just a take off point. The Law of Diminishing Extra Satisfaction (as adopted from the psychological and economic law of diminishing marginal utility) that governs pure human and animal endeavors including sexual relations will be fully operational. In other words, if sex will be a preoccupation of the Filipino youth, then the satisfaction that a young male derives having sex with female partner/s, will decrease or wane eventually. He then ventures to partner sexually with his fellow male/s to seek new level of satisfaction. He may push further by engaging in bisexual activities. But most likely he will end up as a pure homosexual. A young female may also follow the same path as she craves for sex and sexual satisfactions. She may graduate as a pure lesbian. But this scenario will not be glaring overnight. It will take a generation – ten years span. This may then translate to the need of a new advocacy – to support the passing into law of the bill on same-sex marriages and divorce in the country.
3.0 POPULATION REDUCTION. The ultimate aim of RH Bill, I understand, is achieving economic prosperity (particularly for the poor) however through population reduction approach. In case the RH Bill is passed, its success will be measured therefore by, among others, whether its respective population reduction target (PRT) is attained. And the critical factor in attaining PRT is the effective distribution and use of condom of the 4.9 million Filipino youth in particular. Effective means here, making a condom available for free, on demand of the youth, either male or female, anywhere, anytime. As mentioned above, this will cost the Philippine government, PhP 2.548 billion every year. If the government will have limited or doesn’t have that amount of taxpayers’ money (for condom purchase and distribution) then the full attainment of the PRT will be jeopardized. Thus RH Law may prove to be ineffective to reduce population in the country. If this is the case, other population reduction measures or Bills will be therefore sought. So there will be a future need to support for the passage into law of Pro-abortion Bills as well as of Pro-euthanasia Bills.
So then, to all the RH Bill advocates, if your support for the passage into law of RH Bill (which may lead to additional opportunity for corruptions in the Philippine government, to transformation of the Filipino youth as homosexuals and lesbians, to eventual murder of unborn babies and to future mercy-killing of senior citizens, etc.) makes your Mama proud of you, then go full speed ahead of your RH Bill advocacy. Otherwise, please resign as a RH Bill supporter and lobby harder for our legislators to vote against RH Bill.
Post a Comment