On the RH Bill

The proposed law defines reproductive health as “the state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes”.

The proponents of the bill cite the following grounds for its enactment into law:

1. Protect the health & lives of mothers;
2. Save babies;
3. Respond to the majority who want smaller families;
4. Promote equity for poor families;
5. Prevent induced abortions;
6. Support and deploy more public midwives, nurses and doctors;
7. Guarantee funding for & equal access to health facilities;
8. Give accurate & positive sexuality education to young people;
9. Reduce cancer deaths, and
10. Save money that can be used for even more social spending.

Those who oppose the bill, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) in particular, argue that:

1. It does not protect the health of the sacred human life that is being formed or born. The very name “contraceptive” already reveals the anti-life nature of the means that the RH bill promotes;
2. Contraceptives are hazardous to a woman’s health;
3. Many scientific analysts themselves wonder why prevalent contraceptive use sometimes raises the abortion rate;
4. Contraceptives provide a false sense of security that takes away the inhibition to sexual activity;
5. Condoms provide a false security that strongly entices individuals towards increased sexual activity, increasing likewise the incidence of HIV/AIDS;
6. “Safe sex” to prevent HIV /AIDS is false propaganda;
7. Conscience must certainly be enlightened and guided by religious and moral teachings provided by various religious and cultural traditions regarding the fundamental dignity and worth of human life;
8. The causes of our poverty are: flawed philosophies of development, misguided economic policies, greed, corruption, social inequities, lack of access to education, poor economic and social services, poor infrastructures, etc.;
9. Use of public funds for contraceptives and sterilization is objectionable, and
10. Compulsory sex education that would effectively let parents abdicate their primary role of educating their own children, especially in an area of life – sexuality – which is a sacred gift of God is condemnable.

My personal stance regarding this issue is that the State has the responsibility to provide reproductive health services to the citizens, particularly the poor women. However, the State must not commit error by allowing its instrumentalities, particularly the government, to use products and techniques that will lead to a human act that endangers, per se, any human life. Abortifacients (substances that induce abortion) should not be allowed as a State policy.

Stakeholders must therefore come up with a consensus on the socially and morally acceptable birth control techniques and under what conditions should they be allowed. Those who advocate any type of contraceptives must do so within an atmosphere of free market of ideas. They may sell, give, or distribute any contraceptives, but they must ensure that the intended beneficiaries understand the nature and effects of such contraceptives.

On the issue of mandatory sex education, there must be an acceptable formula to make this possible. The State, through the government, should not dictate how this should be done at the classroom level. Parents, teachers, school administrators, and the children should have a say how to best handle this matter.

The health status of families, especially mothers and children, are horrible enough. We cannot solve these problems solely and primarily by birth control. We have to change the conditions that brought about the high maternal mortalities and infant deaths, among others. My humble suggestions on how these should be done include the following:

1. Establish institutions to take good care of unwanted children by providing reproductive services to women who have unwanted pregnancies;
2. Prescribe and maintain minimum standards for communities, especially residential areas, to discourage unplanned and informal settlements;
3. Provide effective information, education and communication programs to change the behaviors of the target audience (spacing birth, breast feeding, etc.);
4. Set up support mechanism for children who are neither sent to school nor treated well, and provide penalty regulatory approaches for irresponsible parents, and
5. Design and implement interventions that will enhance the standard of living of the poor families.

Sendong

The national and local governments should be accountable for what happened to the victims of Sendong. Dapat merong mananagot. That's one of the principles of good governance. And the barangay and city officials and P-Noy, being the chairman of the Climate Change Commission, are the primary duty bearers.


It is not enough to explain the disaster, like attribute it partly to the complacency of the ordinary citizens. It is not hard to see why complacency, poor city planning, proliferation of urban slums, destructive mining, and deforestation are factors that increase people's vulnerability to disasters. That is why in 2009, P-noy signed into law the Climate Change Act that mandates the national and local governments to formulate and implement Local Climate Change Action Plans. But where are the plans?


Governor Joey Salceda of Albay has shown the way to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. P-noy should start watching the performance of his former classmate rather than that of Valerie Conception (no pun intended).

On Hacienda Luisita

I must say that this statement of Conrado De Quiros (PDI, Nov. 28, 2011) is an ideal scenario:

"P-Noy’s family should never have waited for the Supreme Court to have decreed its unconditional redistribution in the name of the law. P-Noy’s family should never have waited for the Supreme Court to find a weapon to hurl at them in the name of conscience. They should have redistributed the land unconditionally long ago."

But the ideal scenario is to not wait for an agrarian unrest to happen before redistributing those lands. Those lands should have been redistributed to legitimate tillers upon securing ownership from the Spaniards.

I must also say, however, that both scenarios are tantamount to committing hindsight. Those scenarios are simply not possible given the temper of those times. What is possible today may not necessarily be possible yesterday.

Poverty

POVERTY is the opposite of human development, which the Human Development Report (HDR) 2011 defines as the “expansion of people’s freedoms and capabilities to lead lives that they value and have reason to value”. It limits human freedom, as Amartya Sen would say, and this can be attributed largely to “unequal access to capabilities”.

If one lives in a place where the natural capital is depleted (practically nearly the entire Philippines), then one suffers (both the rich and the poor) from an environment that is not conducive for human survival, unless one migrates to a greener pasture. If one is born out of a poor family, then one has to suffer the consequences of being born in that predicament, unless any of the following happens: a child has the capability to finish school and becomes highly competent or learn a skill; a parent sacrifices to ensure that a child finishes school or learns a skill, and a member of the family, clan, community, society or the government provides support to the child.

There is always a sufficient reason why a poor person is born and suffers the consequences of such fate. A material cause can be the parents. A formal cause can be high fertility. The efficient cause can be the decision of the poor parents to beget a child despite their poverty. The final cause can be the limited vision of the poor parents in producing a child they could not nurture and educate. The instrumental cause can be the failure of the members of the community or society to become each other’s keeper.