An Academic Forum on the RH Bill
3 March 2011, 1 – 5 pm
U.P. Faculty Center, Claro M. Recto Hall
Atty. Jose ‘Ipaglaban Mo’ Sison
Prof. Pamela ‘Mimi’ Fabe
Prof Mimi Fabe emphasized the following important points:
The major reasons that she is against the RH Bill are:
1. Human Resources (Human Capital) drawn from more Filipino people.
Economic Role of Filipino babies/children:
- reliable Consumers (mktg budget, revenues, vitamins, pre-school, gifts/ toys/accessories)
- future industry Workers
- business & scientific innovators
- saviors of Marriages
4. Any decline in HR is decline in taxes
5. Any decline in human resources represents a decline in social security and health benefits
6. Abstinence Education (studies)
Fallacies: RH Bill was never about:
- family income & standard of living
- pre-natal & post-natal maternal care
If RH Bill were around in the 1930s, we wouldn’t have had:
- Pres.Cory Aquino
- Cardinal Sin
- Manny Pacquiao!
- Ka Popoy Lagman
- Beginning of life;
- Phil. constitution is pro-life; RH Bill is anti-birthday…
- Poverty is not a permanent state!
Liza Manalo, M.D.
Dr. Manalo exposed very clearly many medical myths contained in H.B. 4244, chiefly that the bill DOES NOT propose anything that would curb the problem of maternal deaths:
–> Hindi ang pagbubuntis mismo ang sanhi ng kamatayan ng mga ina,
but rather the: lack of competent medical professionals (doctors, nurses) to assist her, etc.
Look at the following slides!
Sections of RH Bill that she was very much against:
What really are essential (for mothers)?!?
Atty. Rolando Reyes
- quoted from a column in Phil. Star of Atty Jose Sison
- law that violates Constitution can be protested against
- violates principle of subsidiarity
- right of equal protection is violated by bill promoting abortifacients under the guise of modern family planning methods
- RHBill violates right of family & couples in intimate matters: sex ed, morals, size of family
- bill intrudes marriage as inviolable institution
- recall: Bill of Rights Sec 5: religious freedom – RHBill violates this
- RHBill penalizes our medical professionals
- RHbill violates freedom of speech/expression
- RHbill claims it’s anti-abortion; but provisions call for: contraception, IUDs w/c we know to be abortifacients
- RHbill violates Family Code: RHB will impact on this negatively!
- Unconstitutional! Anti-Penal Code.
Q&A: Why do you say that this is a foreigner law! A: you know it from the language: this is being imposed from outside!**
Atty José Sison:
- what is impt is: which position is the TRUTH ? Admittedly, each of us has his or her own understanding of what is TRUE ! e.g., various media channels would report on a single event quite differently!
- JP2, in Veritatis Splendor, said ‘truth refers to objective reality’. Mass Media – role is to make truth known/spread.
- insertion of “Responsible Parenthood’ is deceptive because the bill adds “willingness to provide Reproductive Health services” & we know the UN’s definition of “reproductive rights”!
- Argument: law has, as a basic purpose, to promote Common Good.
- the promotion of contraceptives does NOT promote pursuit of Common Good!
- I have already spoken openly about the uselessness & wastefulness of this RHBill…
- malicious anti-life propaganda from abroad is disguised as “reproductive health care services”…
- the Bill is indeed FOREIGN propaganda, being shoved down our throats.
- (Atty Sison spoke briefly about
National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200) ):**
A panel of 3 reactors spoke afterward.
One of them was Michael O’Malley, a pro-lifer from Canada, who wrote the book
“Prolifers: A Novel”
Download the book, here:
The RH Bill goes against the Principle of Subsidiarity in many ways.
It denies married people the right to welcome life and to guarantee the
life of their unborn children – since the Bill would allow spouses to
undergo sterilization without the their spouse’s consent.
It denies parents authority over children who are not yet of legal age, in
that the Bill would allow the children to obtain and use contraceptives
and abortifacient devices without their parents’ consent.
It especially takes away parents’ authority over a daughter, still a
minor, who is raped and found pregnant.
It denies parents the right to teach children about sex, in a way
appropriate to their age and capacity, in the intimacy of the family, and
to shield them from sexually graphic descriptions and images – since the
Bill would require teachers to teach and tutor students about sex.
It senselessly compels employers under pain of imprisonment to provide
contraceptives and abortifacient devices to their employees. The Bill
raises the provision of such items to the level of a duty for an employer,
when such a matter should be left to the free decision of the company
It goes against the freedom of health care providers to decide what
information and services they would offer their patients as regards
fertility and pregnancy.
It goes against the freedom of speech of anyone who may express any
opinion contrary to the RH Bill.
It classifies contraceptives and abortifacient devices as essential
medicines and obliges the government to set aside a huge budget for the
purchase of such products. It presumes that healthcare researchers and
providers and government health agencies are incapable of deciding on
their own what illnesses the country should prioritize.
** The Philippines Preface of O’Malley’s book proves the imposition from outside (from foreign countries) of this whole ‘reproductive health’ propaganda!