And all along it has been said that linking the RH bill to abortion was just a bogey. It is not. There truly are pro-abortion groups rallying behind the bill. And the reason is already known to us from the examples seen in all countries that have legislated the use of artificial contraception: It opens the gate to legalized abortion. That is why groups like Likhaan and WGNRR are waiting very avidly at the doorstep, making sure that the RH bill is crafted in a way that it will later facilitate the legalization of abortion. If that was the pattern in other countries, tell me how it cannot be in the Philippines. We must be so stupid a people.
Now that RH proponents claim they have made the bill “more acceptable,” does that not contradict what they have been saying all along—that majority of Filipinos want the bill? If it had been watered down, will that not only make the bill less popular in the surveys? The argument that RH is “popular” has always been a fascinatingly non-sequitur. This is one of the densest arguments in the RH bill debate. Surveys do not dictate faith and morals. If 99.99 percent of Filipinos will one day say that murder is acceptable, will that decriminalize murder?
A Planned Parenthood propaganda video from 2005. Hilarious as it may seem to some, keep in mind a few facts:
1. Planned Parenthood has been funded by American taxpayers for the longest time.
2. They are the #1 abortion provider in the USA.
3. They help fund RH promoter groups like the Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP) and Likhaan, two organizations that are also involved in the promotion of legalized abortion and known supporters of illegal abortion activity.
Recently, there has been a huge campaign in the US to defund Planned Parenthood, and just a few days ago, the breast cancer organization Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure decided to cease funding for them. If you don’t know what Planned Parenthood is all about, start educating yourself. They have more influence on our Filipino RH bill than most people realize.
Pro-abortion groups have been showering “reproductive health” (RH) lobbyists with millions of dollars in funding for years to promote the Western agenda of contraception and population control, documents showed.
Funders include Planned Parenthood and its international arm, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Marie Stopes International, the Packard Foundation, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
In a statement, the group Filipinos for Life (F4L) said the paper trail of multimillion-dollar lobby funds reveal the hand of foreign interest groups out to dictate what policy the Philippine government should follow.
“Nearly a decade ago, lawmakers condemned the presence of the American lobby group AGILE in Congress. This time, however, the RH lobby is apparently succeeding, thanks to a formidable warchest from pro-abortion groups,” it said.
- $90,000 to the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network for promotion, from the UN Population Fund or UNFPA (2011);
- $6.6 million to Planned Parenthood arm Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP) from UNFPA (2009);
- $1.6 million to FPOP from IPPF for the years 2005, 2009, and 2010;
- $1.2 million to PSPI from Marie Stopes (2009);
- $39,000 to Likhaan from Planned Parenthood (2007);
- $88,000 to FPOP in 2009 from Marie Stopes for RH kits; and
- $75,000 to “Catholics” for Choice to promote RH, from the Wallace Global Fund (2009).
This was aside from $6.8 million from the Packard Foundation for the years 2006-2008; $18.4 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation from 1997 to 2008; $8.86 million from the US Agency for International Development in 2004 for a “social acceptance” project; and $239.5 million from the World Bank for 2010-2012.These amounts could have better been used for direct poverty alleviation programs, F4L said.
F4L said pro-RH lobbyists cannot deny the overt abortion agenda of most of their financial backers, notably Planned Parenthood, the world’s largest abortion provider, and UNFPA, which has been condemned for its coercive abortion programs.
“Abortion was not legalized in the US overnight. It started with the birth control movement founded by Margaret Sanger, which today is called Planned Parenthood,” F4L said.
F4L called on lawmakers to examine further the lobby groups behind the RH bill, saying interpellations should be exhausted to unmask the real intentions of those promoting it.
“Pro-RH groups and Malacañang spokesmen are being irresponsible by calling for a vote and an abrupt end to debates,” the group said.
1972 – The Model City Population Planning Project (MCPPP) begins in Cagayan de Oro. Ford Foundation funds it for 2 years with one of the main goals to bring down the fertility rate through information on family planning, and to use its success as a model in beginning similar programs elsewhere in the country.51
1973 – Population Center Foundation (PCF) starts operations. Its first mandate is to serve as a resource institution for the Philippine Population Program whose major concern is “managing the growth of the country’s population through fertility reduction or family planning”.52 Presidential Decree No. 166 further strengthens the Family Planning Program, requiring the participation of private organizations and individuals in the formulation and implementation of population programs and policies.53 CBCP issues MORAL NORMS FOR CATHOLIC HOSPITALS AND CATHOLICS IN HEALTH SERVICES.54
1974 – National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200 – Kissinger Report is released in April in the US. The document explicitly lays out a detailed strategy by which the United States would aggressively promote population control to reduce the birth rate in 13 targeted countries, and in doing so regulate and have better access to these countries’ natural resources, thereby protecting supplies to and economic interests of the US. It recommends 1) a US global population strategy 2) actions to create conditions for fertility decline including assistance programs for the targeted countries and 3) working with international organizations like the UN and other multilateral population programs to achieve its goals. It commits to a) research to improve fertility control technology b) developing low-cost delivery systems and c) utilization of mass media to educate, inform and motivate people to accept family planning schemes.55 Key organizations involved in formulating the policies of NSSM-200 include the United Nations Population Fund (now UNFPA), the United States Aid Agency for International Development (USAID), the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the Club of Rome, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, Population Council, Pathfinder Fund and the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.56 Presidential Decree No. 1202 reduces the number of paid maternity leaves to four. Presidential Decree No. 442 requires private companies to provide their female employees with family planning services.57 In the Philippines, where abortion is both illegal and explicitly against official population policy, the IPPF provides 200 “menstrual regulation” kits for demonstration purposes. IPPF affiliate FPOP organizes a series of controversial meetings, funded by IPPF, titled “Symposia on Advances in Fertility.” The topics include medical and legal aspects of abortion, procedures and techniques of abortion, and the dangers and attendant health risks of abortion. The first meeting touches off a storm of protest from religious and civic leaders, and leads the government to reaffirm its official opposition to abortion. The FPOP continues its symposia, clearly aimed at legitimizing discussion of abortion in the Philippines. FPOP distributes “menstrual regulation” kits to local doctors. Although the government has laws specifically prohibiting the importation of abortive devices, these kits were brought into the country as “medical instruments” to obtain “sample tissue for examination.” While aware that the vacuum aspirators are imported and are being distributed to private doctors, the government’s official body in this field, the Commission on Population, chooses not to take action. These examples show the potential of the IPPF and its collaborating organizations for circumventing national laws and policies, and also suggest that officials responsible for enforcing those policies may themselves not be totally opposed to their violation.58 Birth attendants (‘hilot’) are recruited and trained by the Institute of Maternal and Child Health to promote IUD acceptance in barrios (“motivation work”), as they are perceived to be people of influence within their community.59 First Lady Imelda Marcos delivers keynote address titled “The Moral Dimensions of Family Planning” at the First Asian Regional Conference on Family Planning. She advocates for education through all avenues including government, the private sector, and religious organizations, citing that it is a moral consideration to pursue population control.60 Planned Parenthood Federation of America provides financial and material assistance through its Division of Family Planning to promote contraceptives in the Philippines and to combat Church opposition to it. FPIA’s stated purpose: “To provide assistance to church-related and other private service agencies in the developing countries to enable them to promote and expand family planning programs.” Iglesia ni Kristo sponsors a mobile clinic project funded by FPIA to recruit more than 70,000 family planning acceptors.61
1975 – Presidential Decree No. 34 exempts contraceptives and supplies necessary for the family planning program from payment of customs duties. The orientation of the Population Program shifts because of the operationalization of the total integrated development approach that is piloted in provinces. The Department of Justice removes the requirements for prescriptions for oral contraceptives, thereby permitting widespread distribution of pills through nonclinical channels by trained field workers. 62 The National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women (NCRFW) is established on January 6, 1975 through Presidential Decree No. 633, as an advisory body to the President and the Cabinet on policies and programs for the advancement of women. It is mandated “ to review, evaluate, and recommend measures, including priorities to ensure the full integration of women for economic, social and cultural development at national, regional and international levels, and to ensure further equality between women and men.” 63
1976 – Executive Order No. 123 attaches the Population Commission to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) as the population planning and coordinating agency.64 Presidential Decree No. 965 requires applicants for marriage licenses to receive instruction on family planning and responsible parenthood.65 The National Population and Family Planning Outreach Project is initiated.66 Letter of Instruction No. 433 authorizes provincial governors and city mayors to gradually assume the responsibility of funding the cost of all activities related to population and family planning and of projects agreed to by the POPCOM board and provincial officials for their respective jurisdictions.
1977 – The National Population and Family Planning Outreach Project begins implementation. Between 1977 and 1979, 30,000 volunteers are recruited to provide contraceptive supplies and referrals.67 Presidential Decree No. 1204 amends certain sections of PD 79, further strengthening the powers of the Commission on Population to carry out the purposes and objectives of the national family planning, health and welfare program.68
1978 – Letter of Instruction No. 661 creates the Special Committee to Review the Philippine Population Program in the context of the overall development goals of the country and to recommend policy and program directions for the future.69 Modern CPR is at 17%, up from 2.9% in 1968.70
1979 – CBCP releases the pastoral letter “Thou Shalt Not Kill”.71
1980 – Women’s Health Care Foundation (WHCF) is established. Through the years, it receives funding from organizations like USAID and the Packard Foundation to further RH goals in the Philippines.72
1981 – Philippines ratifies CEDAW.73
1983 – Abortion report shows that 76% of abortees were using contraception at time of abortion and that MR centers were available in which to procure those abortions, despite the fact that abortions are illegal.74
1986 – Marcos flees the country after massive people power protests and military defections. Corazon Aquino becomes president. She issues Executive Order No. 123, attaching POPCOM to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) as the planning and coordinating agency for a 5-year plan to improve health, nutrition and family planning, with particular focus on maternal and child health, not on fertility reduction.75 During Aquino’s administration, the Philippines fertility rate continues to decline.76
51 Vigo, E. B. “Cagayan De Oro Taps Own Resources to Cope with Population Problem.” Initiatives in Population 4.2 (1978): 19-23. Web.
53 “P.D. No. 166.” Philippine Laws and Jurisprudence Databank – The Lawphil Project. Web. 22 Aug. 2011. <http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1973/pd_166_1973.html>.
55 Kissinger, H. “National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 200) Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Securirty and Overseas Interests.” National Security Council, 1974 <http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf>
56 Connelly 237-275
57 Robinson 280
58 Warwick, D. P. “Foreign Aid for Abortion.” The Hastings Center Report 10.2 (1980): 30-37. Print.
59 “Hilots Make the Family Planning Scene.” Philippine Population Newsletter 4th ser. 2.10 (1974). Web.
60 “The Moral Dimensions of Family Planning | The ProPinoy Project.” The Pro Pinoy Project. 30 Sept. 2010. Web. 23 Aug. 2011. <http://propinoy.net/2010/09/30/the-moral-dimensions-of-family-planning/>.
61 “Family Planning International Assistance Program: Progress Report 1973/1974 and Work Plans 1974/1975.” Planned Parenthood Federation of America Division of Family Planning International Assistance, New York. Web.
62 Robinson 280
63 “National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women.” Philippine Laws and Jurisprudence Databank – The Lawphil Project. Web. 23 Aug. 2011.
64 “POPCOM :: About Us :: Agency Mandate.” POPCOM :: Welcome. Web. 23 Aug. 2011.
65 “P.D. No. 965.” Philippine Laws and Jurisprudence Databank – The Lawphil Project. Web. 23 Aug. 2011.
66 Bernales, E. H. “Integrating Family Planning with Other Social Services.” Population Forum 8.3 (1982): 11-15.
67 Robinson 280
68 “P.D. No. 1204 : PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : CHAN ROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY.” THE LAW FIRM OF CHAN ROBLES and ASSOCIATES. Web. 23 Aug. 2011.
69 “L.O.I. No. 661: PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES AND CODES – CHAN ROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY.” THE LAW FIRM OF CHAN ROBLES and ASSOCIATES. Web. 23 Aug. 2011.
70 Costello, Marilou P., and John B. Casterline. “FERTILITY DECLINE IN THE PHILIPPINES: CURRENT STATUS, FUTURE PROSPECTS.” United Nations Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. Web. 31 July 2011.
73 CEDAW 2011 – Ratification Score Card. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Web. 15 July 2011.
74 Maranon, Amelia L. “Pattern of Abortion and Characteristics of Abortees from 1978 to 1980 in the Philippines.” DOST Sci-Net Phil. Web. 23 Aug. 2011.
75 “Philippines Population Control and Management Policies.” Protection of Conscience Project. Web. 23 Aug. 2011.
76 Costello, Marilou P., and John B. Casterline. “FERTILITY DECLINE IN THE PHILIPPINES: CURRENT STATUS, FUTURE PROSPECTS.” United Nations Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. Web. 31 July 2011.
1968 – The government starts to participate in population and family planning efforts by creating the Project Office for Maternal and Child Health in the Department of Health to coordinate family planning activities.32 Population biologist Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb is published, wherein he predicts a widespread catastrophe of resource depletion, mass starvation and environmental collapse due to overpopulation.33 Reproductive rights, including the right to abortion, begins to develop as a subset of human rights at the United Nation’s 1968 International Conference on Human Rights.34
1969 – Philippine Population Program is officially launched through Executive Order No. 233, creating a study group known as the Population Commission (POPCOM). POPCOM is mandated to undertake population studies and to serve as central coordinating and policy-making body, make program recommendations on population as they relate to economic and social development. Its goal: to lower family size and fertility rates. The secretary of justice liberalizes the interpretation of an existing ruling to permit the importation of contraceptives. USAID starts funding 80% of contraceptives in the Philippines, amounting to US$ 3M/year (through 2003).35 President Marcos pushes for a systematic distribution of contraceptives all over the country that often took on a coercive nature.36 The Family Planning Association of the Philippines and the Planned Parenthood Movement in the Philippines are merged to form the Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP).37 In November FPOP becomes a full-fledged member of International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).38 Congress approves a resolution to establish basic policies aimed at achieving economic development and social justice. The Catholic bishops issue a statement disagreeing with the government’s intervention in couples’ fertility decisions and objecting to the promotion of family limitation as a measure to reduce population growth.39
1970 – First Earth Day. Peaceful demonstrations reflect environmental concerns, promotion of the idea that “population pollutes.”40
Early 1970’s – Planned Parenthood International comes to the Philippines, working with local partner organizations to increase the provision of comprehensive reproductive health care services, including the provision (through illegal smuggling) of menstrual regulation kits used for abortion.41, 42
1971 – Republic Act 6365 aka Population Act of the Philippines is enacted into law by Congress. It establishes the national population policy and creates the national agency in charge of population, the Commission on Population (POPCOM). President Marcos instructs the Department of Health to add family planning services to all of its 1400 rural health units. By 1973, 1070 rural health units are offering family planning services.43
1972 – President Ferdinand Marcos declares martial law. The Population Center Foundation is set up to forge a stronger partnership between the government and the private sector. Presidential Decree No. 79 revises Republic Act 6365, authorizing nurses and midwives, in addition to physicians, to provide, dispense, and administer all acceptable methods of contraception to those who desire to avail themselves of such services as long as these health workers have been trained and properly authorized by the POPCOM board.44 It directs the National Family Planning Program to respect the religious beliefs and values of individuals.45 The Population Education Program is established within the Department of Education Culture to provide instruction in population education for elementary and high school children by training teachers to develop curriculum materials. General Order No. 18 enjoins all sectors to promote the concept of family planning and responsible parenthood. Letter of Instruction No. 74 A directs the secretary of the Department of Public Information and the postmaster general to help implement the POPCOM board programs by disseminating information on family planning.46
1973 – Philippine Constitution expresses government commitment to deal with the “problem” of rapid population growth. It provides: “It should be the responsibility of the state to achieve and maintain population levels most conducive to the national welfare.”47 Presidential Decree No. 69 amends the National Internal Revenue Code to reduce the number of children for which additional tax exemptions can be claimed from an unlimited number of children to four. Decentralization of the Population Program starts with the establishment of 11 POPCOM regional offices. Presidential Decree No. 166 appoints two members from the private sector to the POPCOM board for three-year terms. A Department of Justice ruling permits sterilization. The Catholic hierarchy issues a pastoral letter on the population problem and family life. The letter objects to the use of artificial contraceptives to solve the population problem and notes that the government reneged on its earlier pledge not to encourage sterilization.48 Population Center Foundation (PCF, now PCPD) is established and starts operations to serve as a resource institution for the population program in the Philippines as its purpose, by “managing the growth of the country’s population through fertility reduction or family planning.”49 In the US, Supreme Court Decision Roe v. Wade strikes down many state laws restricting abortion.50
32 Robinson 279.
33 Shrivastava, Aseem. “Overpopulation: The Great Red Herring.” Economic and Political Weekly 27.38 (1992): 2032-038. Print.
34 Momtaz, Djamchid. Proclamation of Teheran. Summary of Proc. of International Conference on Human Rights, Teheran. 1968. United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law. Web. 31 May 2011.
35 Promoting Reproductive Health: A Unified Strategy to Achieve the MDGs. Senate of the Philippines Economic Planning Office. July 2009. PB-09-03.
36 Antonio de los Reyes (2002). “Coercive Population Ploys in the Philippines”. Population Research Institute.
37 Robinson 279.
39 Robinson 279.
40 “Sustainable Development » Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute.” Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. Web. 01 June 2011. <http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.174/default.asp>.
41 “Philippines Country Program – Planned Parenthood.” Sexual & Reproductive Health – Sex Education – Planned Parenthood. Web. 01 June 2011. <http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/international-program/philippines-country-program-19029.htm>.
42 Warwick, Donald P. “Foreign Aid for Abortion.” The Hastings Center 10.2 (1980): 30-37. Print.
46 Robinson 279-280.
48 Robinson 280.
50 “Roe v. Wade.” LII | Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. 13 Dec. 1971. Web. 01 June 2011. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html>.