RH Bill - Philippines: full text of reproductive health and related measures
RH Bill - Philippines: full text of reproductive health bills filed at the Philippine Senate and House of Representatives, from the current (15th Congress) to as far back as 1999 (11th Congress). The final (2011), full text of the consolidated RH bill from the House of Representatives can be browsed here.
- Get the latest posts on the RH bill here: www.likhaan.org/category/tags/rh-bill
- For a short explanation on the importance of the RH bill, read the "Ten Good Reasons to Pass the RH Bill Now" (Filipino version: 10 Magandandang Dahilan na Ipasa na ang RH Bill)
- Visit the current website of RHAN (Reproductive Health Advocacy Network)
- Poor people have stories to tell about reproductive health; read them here (in Filipino)
- Visit the RH Bill Portal: www.rhbill.org
Would you change any provision(s) in the current RH bills (15th Congress)? Why? Post your comments below.
Before posting, say this first: "I can express these words and ideas to a roomful of people." If you think you can, then go ahead and post. If not, maybe you need to calm down first and edit your post.
Bago mag-post, sabihin mo muna ito: "Kaya kong sabihin ang mga salita at ideyang ito sa isang kuwartong puno ng tao." Kung tingin mo kaya mo, sige at i-post. Kung hindi, baka kailangan mong kumalma muna at baguhin ang gusto mong isulat.
- Printer-friendly version
- Add new comment
- 202757 reads
Comments
Do we Have a choice
Do we have a choice?
We have a choice. RH bill is not the solution to curb poverty. This RH bill is business driven, if the government really care women's health then consider this. The 3-5 billion a year to buy contraceptives to the western multinational corporation is a waste of money. This will not benefit us but to them.
How can we truly invest to the people? 3-5 billion pesos a year means a lot:
1. Building more hospital and buy laboratory equipment for diagnosis purposes.
2. Pass a bill that will give free hospital accomodation and free laboratory (to all public hospital) to all pregnant woman including senior citizen. e.g. ultrasound etc.
Why only accomodation and laboratory fees is included because it is economically viable to sustain for the govt. It will also save the govt from health insurance.
Who benefited from this investment: pregnant woman, senior citizen,
more jobs offer-nurse, doctor, lab technician, etc. It also saved govt money in long term..
Pass this to all your friends!
dapat talagang magkaroon ng
dapat talagang magkaroon ng RH BILL sa ating bansa para mabasan man lang ang dame ng tao dito !!!!! we are over populated !!!!
overpopulated
when we say over populated. it means there is no vacant space.. but we still have lots of places that are not occupied.. so we are not Over populated.. promoting RH bill will lead us to poverty instead.. and saying to young people.. go.! have sex.. you're safe..do you like it when you have children. then at early age. they're already engage in pre-marital sex. ridiculous.
excuse me,. when we say over
excuse me,. when we say over populated it does not only mean there is no vacant space. it includes the resources that we have. so kung patuloy pa tayong dadami,magkakaroon ng scarce and tendency na mawala ung mga natural resources. Aantayin pa ba natin na mangyari ito sa ating bansa?relate it to the qoutation "prevention is better than cure",at sa bawat lugar dito sa ating bansa, meron lang SPECIFIC no. of people na pedeng tumira dun..at kung nag exceed man, dun na pumapasok ang Over population!ngaun pa nga lang na hindi pa napapatupad yang RH bill my poverty na.so pano mo nasabing it will lead us to poverty?..be educated,thats it!!!!
waste of money? have you read
waste of money? have you read the whole article about RH Bill? the health care benefits? the bad cause of having 22 children in the sense of health and economic?
we still have the long line of unemployed nurses even the RH Bill wont past. having a Family Planning might help the social and economic burdens of Phils.
I can express these words and
I can express these words and ideas to a roomful of people. I am against abortion so to anyone who gets pregnant, then be ready to be a responsible mother.
sec 3 (c)
15th Congress - Senate Bill 2865 (consolidated bill, SB 2865)
SEC. 3. Guiding Principles for Implementation
(c) Effective and quality reproductive health care services must be given primacy to ensure maternal and child health, and birth of healthy children, in line with the State's duty to promote the right to health, responsible parenthood, social justice and full human development.
Does this mean that provisions must be given even to those who chose to be pregnant or to have children? All I see are medicines and methods to prevent pregnancy... how about vitamins and food supplements for the pregnants to ensure that their babies will be healthy?
CHANGE!!!!!
research about our country..
masayahin ( 9 / 10 ) reason : We are always happy even when we are in hard times
masipag ( 9 / 10 ) reason : We are recommended by other countries because of our hard-working.
matiyaga ( 9 / 10 ) reason : We are recommended by other countries because we are persevering.
unity ( 5 / 10 ) reason : We are rarely united. ( only when there are tradegies )
government ( 3 / 10 ) reason : Most(not all) of our leaders are corrupt. suggestion : Choose a wise leader, God-fearing, patient, "makabayan" , and most of all a leader that is concerned about everyone not only to some people but to ALL.
REMINDER:
Filipinos please love, respect, and be wise citizen of our country.
Instead of buying things from other countries try and look at our(Filipinos for Philippines) products first.
Vote wisely.( eventhough a person is very smart if he/she is corrupt what is the point of choosing him/her then?)
Love your country.
... guys do not complain about our leaders instead just pray for them....do not revolt against them because you were the one who voted him/her(just in case the person one by cheating report them and please do not accept bribes....dont only think of yourself think of what will happen to YOU who is it who gain you or him money is just money can it buy others lives no...
THE CHANGE STARTS ON YOU!
from a 13 yr. old teenager :)
From a young mind..
I don't have anything against the RH bill antagonists. They have their rights. I'm a Roman Catholic as well. I haven't read the whole bill nor all of the articles and comments here. I just want to point out that the government tried most of the means to educate people, to control the population growth and resolve poverty but none of them was efficient nor effective. Maybe, RH Bill isn't the perfect solution (depending on the revisions that the Legislative body would do on it) but it's a must that the government has to do something to control the population, relieve poverty, reduce if not eliminate corruption hence maintaining or even enhancing economic stability of the country while observing morals.
so are you saying that youre
so are you saying that youre willing to support the rh bill if it were revised a little????
From a young mind..
Yes. If it were designed purposely to alleviate the burden of our country.
No
For me no. I do not and will not support the RH Bill there are way more ways to do this. First be a disciplined citizen. Second be honest in your action do not do it if you are not supposed to. Third think of what will happen to us kids. Fourth ask your self about what are the good and the bad sides of the rule and base it not only to what will happen to you or your family but what will happen to the others. Please government be wise in your actions! Look at what is front of you! If the government want to start a change why dont they start first and for us as citizens please do not choose it if it is not necessary A leader is not paid to get his/her salary. The leader is paid to govern and to listen to people.. suggestion why dont they make a committee the citizens suggestion.
We do not live in your ideal world...
Wherever you go and in any part of the world... The words "you must", "you should", "you must not" and "you should not" have been by-words that insinuate the do's and dont's of a better society... But hey, wake up to the reality surrounding you... There are a lot of things easier said than done and if only people have thought beforehand before they act rashly and have tried their best to act like what you as an idealist mentioned then this world will not be what it is now. But, sad to say the truth is that most people do the opposite of what should be correctly done because of personal gains and human desires so how do we help address the problem??? We can still do something, and RHBill is one of the best ways to help address the reproductive health and population problems that have long been impoverishing our society...
uhmm... the government is
uhmm...
the government is working for our country to rise. one way of it is the RH Bill,
by controlling the population they can control our economy
how can we raise the economy if our population is rising rapidly??
we dont have enough money or goods to supply 101,833,938+ humans
and we also cant trust everyone in the government
Maybe
We need a law to govern our actions. It's so easy to say to someone to be like that or this, but in reality, true decipline can only be applied to ourselves if we are being governed by laws. We need a law to control our population. The absence of laws on Family Planning in our country for so many years had resulted for the rapid increase of our population. I am in favor of the proposed RH Bill provided that there is a little ammendments for some of the provisions stipulated in the RH Bill.
BIG NO TO RH BILL. It is NOT
BIG NO TO RH BILL. It is NOT a solution to the problem. I am aware of what is happening to the society I mingled and lived with the poor and so is with the rich. Para sa akin ang RH BILL ay para lang BAND-aid na pansamantalang lunas sa totong sugat. Parang sinasabi natin na ang mga mahihirap ay walang disiplina sa sarili, at ang masaklap pa pwede clang ikumpara sa mga hayop dahil hindi nila kayang kontrolin ang sarili nila pagdating sa pakikipagtalik. Hindi kaya nagbibigay tayo ng maling mensahe. Para sa akin tamang edukasyon, respeto at pagpapahlaga sa mag asawa at sa magiging anak ang kailangan nilang matutunan. Ito ang magandang pundasyon na kailangn natin pagtuunan ng pansin ngunit nakaklungkot na wala na ito ngayon. Tingnan natin sa paligid natin, dahil ok lang makipagtalik kahit kanino kaya ngayon madami ang naging batang ina na naging dahilan ng mga iresponsableng magulang. bakit hindi ntin patatagin ang mga values sa loob ng tahanan. Kung sana naiitindihan ng mga magulang ang kanilang responsiblildad sana hindi na umabot sa ganito. Dapat ba tlag ana iba ang kumontrol sa atin? Nasa bwat isa ang sagot ng lahat ng problema hindi sa batas. Dahil kung magiging band aid lang yan, lalo lang bubulok ang sugat. At bilang isang mamayan na nagbabayad ng Buwis at may pakialam sa kapwa. GUSTO KONG GAMITIN ANG PERA NA BINABAYD KO SA TAMANG PARAAN.SANA NAKITA PO NINYO ANG ASPETONG ITO.
Yes to RH Bill
Kaibigan, wala namang band-aid na nakalagay doon sa proposed RH Bill eh, tama ka na tamang edukasyon ang kailangan para ma kontrol ang papulasyon natin, palagay ko, yon na ang tinutumbok ng proposed RH Bill na yan, ang proper education and care of mothers, pregnant women, during pregnancy, delivery, and soon, at marami pang iba. The propesed RH Bill is only a guiding principles para sa mga mag-asawa. Kailangan natin ng batas para sa bagay na yan. Tingnan nyo, ilang decada palang ang lumipas, abay aabot na tayo o malapit na sa isang daang milyon, ang lupa ng Pilipinas ay kakarampot lamang, hindi ito sapat para tirahan ng daan daang milyong mga Pilipino sa mga darating pang decada, kailangan nating controlin ito ngayon na, simulan na natin ito, bago mahuli ang lahat, sa paraang naaayon sa batas ng Dios. Kaya pabor ako sa RH Bill basta baguhin ang ibang provision doon, lalo na yong sex education sa mga bata, hindi dapat yon.
rh bill
bakit kailangan pa natin nang ganyan...its also like a deadly weapon that kills a lot of lives...kung matutuloy man iyan..eh parang wala tayong pinagkakaiba sa isang kriminal...we should remember that GOD CREATED US so it means all of us has the freedom to live here on earth..
hmmmm
Paraan ba talaga yan na naaayon sa kautusan ng diyos? kaibigan, ang sabi ng diyos sa biblia "Go to the world and multiply" oh! ngayon? naaayon ba sa kautusan ng diyos ang iyong mensahe?
tama astig yan
tama astig yan
tama..
yesss.. TAMA ka dyan... friend......
tama sana magiging ganon lang
tama sana magiging ganon lang ang lahat dahil sa huli tao rin ang maghihirap
Tama po yoong stand you sa
Tama po yoong stand you sa issue na ito.. Hopefully lang po yung nasa senado ay makita nila mismo ang root cause mismo ng problema at yon dapat ang bigyan tuon.
October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
Sabi ng mga naglalayong isabatas ang RH bill, itong panukalang batas na ito ay para sa Kababaihan. Totoo kaya?
Narito at unawain: RH bill (Senate Bill 2865 (isama rin ang HB 4244)).
Section 9: Family Planning Supplies as essential medicines: “The National Drug Formulary shall include hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables xx”
Mula sa National Cancer Institute.
“A 1996 analysis of worldwide epidemiologic data conducted by the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer found that women who were current or recent users of birth control pills had a slightly elevated risk of developing breast cancer. The risk was highest for women who started using OCs as teenagers.”
“In a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-sponsored study published in 2003, researchers examined risk factors for breast cancer among women ages 20 to 34 compared with women ages 35 to 54. Women diagnosed with breast cancer were asked whether they had used OCs for more than 6 months before diagnosis and, if so, whether the most recent use had been within 5 years, 5 to 10 years, or more than 10 years. The results indicated that the risk was highest for women who used OCs within 5 years prior to diagnosis, particularly in the younger group “
Mga Kababaihan ng Pilipinas (lalo na ang mahihirap) ilalantad ka sa sakit na Breast Cancer.
c.pio
(Pro-Rh spin to make your head spin)
Moralidad at ang pagsalag sa RH bill.
//pagtutol mo sa lahat ng kontraseptibo dahil sa relihiyon at moralidad.//
Ang nasa itaas po ay isang komento ng isang pro-rh (sa pangalang arm). Para sa kanya ang ugat marahil ng aking pagsalungat sa Kontraseptibong pildoras ay nakatuon lamang sa relihiyon partikular ang moralidad.(Mali. bukod sa moralidad, ang siyensya ay kaagapay rin sa paglaban sa RH bill.)
Pansamantalang bigyan ko muna ng kaunting kaalaman ang iba kung bakit mali ang paniniwalang:"Law should not enforce morality" Narito sa panulat ng isang former atheist, former political radical, former shipyard welder - J. Budziszewski sa kanyang aklat na "The Roots of Law" Wilberforce Forum 2001.:
"The root of the enacted law is the moral law; the root of the moral law is the design of the created order.
"How often have you heard the slogan, "Law should not enforce morality"? It is an error.. All law has a moral basis. Even bad law has a moral basis — a basis in false morality."
"Try to think of a law that is not based on a moral idea. You can't do it..taxes? That one is based on the moral idea that some people ought to be made to pay for the benefits that other people receive.the law punishing murder is based on the moral idea that innocent blood may not be shed; Now if all laws are based on moral ideas, then obviously we ought to scrutinize them to make sure that they are based on true ones instead of false ones. The root of the enacted law is the moral law. Even the everyday pagan can understand this."
Simple at madaling unawain.
c.pio
(isang simpleng manggagawa tulad ko)
Malinaw naman na moralidad at relihiyon
Malinaw naman na moralidad at relihiyon nga ang ugat ng pagtutol mo sa RH bill. Pinalinaw mo pa sa post na ito.
//Pinalinaw mo pa sa post na
//Pinalinaw mo pa sa post na ito.//
Tama. Sa iyo mismo nanggaling. may batayan pala para humadlang gamit ang moralidad.
'Now if all laws are based on moral ideas, then obviously we ought to scrutinize them to make sure that they are based on true ones instead of false ones. The root of the enacted law is the moral law.'J. Budziszewski
Ang nagsususog ng panukalang batas na ito ay nagsasabing para sa kapakanan ng kababaihang mahirap.(moralidad ang batayan nya)
Moralidad kasama ang siyensya naman ang tugon ng lumalaban sa RH bill dahil kapakanan ng kalusugan ng mahihirap ang apektado:
"..elevated risk of developing breast cancer. The risk was highest for women who started using OCs as teenagers.” cancer.gov
....
c.pio
OC not associated w/ an increased long term risk of death (2010)
Mortality among contraceptive pill users: cohort evidence from Royal College of General Practitioners’ Oral Contraception Study
BMJ 2010; 340:c927 doi: 10.1136/bmj.c927 (Published 11 March 2010) http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c927.full
Objective: To see if the mortality risk among women who have used oral contraceptives differs from that of never users.
Design: Prospective cohort study started in 1968 with mortality data supplied by participating general practitioners, National Health Service central registries, or both.
Setting: 1400 general practices throughout the United Kingdom.
Participants: 46 112 women observed for up to 39 years, resulting in 378 006 woman years of observation among never users of oral contraception and 819 175 among ever users.
Main outcome measures: Directly standardised adjusted relative risks between never and ever users for all cause and cause specific mortality.
Results: 1747 deaths occurred in never users of oral contraception and 2864 in ever users. Compared with never users, ever users of oral contraception had a significantly lower rate of death from any cause (adjusted relative risk 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 0.93). They also had significantly lower rates of death from all cancers; large bowel/rectum, uterine body, and ovarian cancer; main gynaecological cancers combined; all circulatory disease; ischaemic heart disease; and all other diseases. They had higher rates of violent deaths. No association between overall mortality and duration of oral contraceptive use was observed, although some disease specific relations were apparent. An increased relative risk of death from any cause between ever users and never users was observed in women aged under 45 years who had stopped using oral contraceptives 5-9 years previously but not in those with more distant use. The estimated absolute reduction in all cause mortality among ever users of oral contraception was 52 per 100 000 woman years.
Conclusion: Oral contraception was not associated with an increased long term risk of death in this large UK cohort; indeed, a net benefit was apparent. The balance of risks and benefits, however, may vary globally, depending on patterns of oral contraception usage and background risk of disease.
Breast Cancer.
Moving Goalpost. Maling-mali.
Ang premise, "BREAST CANCER ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE"
Subalit para na rin maganda at mailatag ang katotohanan eto:
1. Ang 'bjm.com' ay hindi opisyal na pamantayang siyensyang medical hindi tulad ng nailatag kong National Cancer Institute atbp.
(http://www.likhaan.org/content/rh-bill-philippines-full-text-reproductiv...).
2. "cohort study started in 1968" ang 'bjm.com ang nagsabi. Lumang-luma na.
ang nailatag ko 1996 at bagong-bago.
Salamat sa pagsubok pero mali.
c.pio
Intindihin mo muna kung ano ang cohort study
Intindihin mo muna kung ano ang cohort study. Madming source. Halimbawa: http://www.enotes.com/public-health-encyclopedia/cohort-study
"In the analytic method of epidemiological study called a cohort study, subsets of a defined population are identified and categorized on the basis of exposure to known levels of a risk factor that is believed to be associated with a disease outcome such as coronary heart disease or cancer. The numbers of persons in the total population and the numbers in each subset are known. All are followed over a period, usually years or even decades, and the disease outcomes are recorded and counted at specified periods. ...
This is a more powerful observational method of epidemiological study than a case-control study, but as the above account makes clear, it is a major undertaking, involving prolonged study of very large numbers. Cohort studies require considerable logistical support that must be maintained over a long period, often for many years or even decades. They are also expensive and require a large, dedicated staff. For these reasons, cohort studies are undertaken only when the investigators have good evidence to support their working hypothesis."
Huwag linlangin ang kapwa. Huwag ilayo sa katotohanan
Breast Cancer at ang paggamit ng kontraseptibong pildoras.
Moving Goalpost argument. Maling-mali.
Huwag linlangin ang kapwa. Huwag ilayo ang premise
c.pio
Sabi mo: "Lumang-luma na."
Sabi mo: "cohort study started in 1968" ang 'bjm.com ang nagsabi. Lumang-luma na.
Sabi ng paliwanag sa cohort study: "All are followed over a period, usually years or even decades"
Moving Goalpost Argument.
Premise: Breast Cancer at ang kaugnayan sa kontraseptibong pildoras.
http://www.cancer.gov/
cancertopics/factsheet
idugtong ang /Risk/oral-contraceptives#2
c.pio
Moving goalpost, o ayaw mo lang tanggapin
Moving goalpost, o ayaw mo lang tanggapin na may 2010 pag-aaral na nagsasabing: "Oral contraception was not associated with an increased long term risk of death in this large UK cohort; indeed, a net benefit was apparent." Huwag mo na kasi bihisan ng siyensya yung pagtutol mo sa lahat ng kontraseptibo dahil sa relihiyon at moralidad.
ayaw mo lang tanggapin
//ayaw mo lang tanggapin na may pag-aaral na nagsasabing//
elevated risk of developing breast cancer. The risk was highest for women who started using OCs as teenagers.
The results indicated that the risk was highest for women who used OCs within 5 years prior to diagnosis, particularly in the younger group
Mula sa source na opisyal na pamantayang siyensyang pag-aaral na medikal tulad ng cancer.gov at suhayan pa ng WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Mga source na hindi napupulot sa tindahan ni Aling Nena.
//Huwag mo na kasi bihisan ng siyensya yung pagtutol mo sa lahat ng kontraseptibo dahil sa relihiyon at moralidad.//
Napuntohan mo: hindi lang relihiyon at moralidad ang sumasalungat pati siyensyang pag-aaral din.
Huwag mo na kasi bihisan ng pro-woman yung pagsang-ayon mo sa lahat ng kontraseptibo dahil sa kulturang makasarili.
c.pio
Mula sa source mo
Mula sa source mo: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives
"The findings of the Women’s Contraceptive and Reproductive Experiences (Women’s CARE) study were in contrast to those described above. The Women’s CARE study examined the use of OCs as a risk factor for breast cancer in women ages 35 to 64. Researchers interviewed 4,575 women who were diagnosed with breast cancer between 1994 and 1998, and 4,682 women who did not have breast cancer. Investigators collected detailed information about the participants’ use of OCs, reproductive history, health, and family history. The results, which were published in 2002, indicated that current or former use of OCs did not significantly increase the risk of breast cancer."
mula sa source na kompleto.
//"The findings of the Women’s Contraceptive and Reproductive Experiences (Women’s CARE) study were in contrast to those described above.//
Ito yung pag-aaral na sinasabi mo: "between 1994 and 19983".Oral contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2002;
Ang Tindig ng National Cancer Institute ay ito:
"In a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-sponsored study published in 2003, researchers examined risk factors for breast cancer among women ages 20 to 34 compared with women ages 35 to 54. Women diagnosed with breast cancer were asked whether they had used OCs for more than 6 months before diagnosis and, if so, whether the most recent use had been within 5 years, 5 to 10 years, or more than 10 years. The results indicated that the risk was highest for women who used OCs within 5 years prior to diagnosis, particularly in the younger group"
Cancer Causes and Control 2003;
Sama mo pati yung WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Mga source na hindi napupulot sa tindahan ni Aling Nena.
c.pio
Ikaw nagbigay ng link sa National Cancer Institute
Ikaw nagbigay ng link sa National Cancer Institute http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives bilang source. Tapos yung nilathala din nila na Women’s CARE study sadyang babalewalain mo lang dahil iba ang conclusion.
Tama
tignan mo yung pag-aaral ng Cancer.gov na bago
c.pio
the truth of the matter.
..
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Uka, I am sorry I have to interrupt you because your three-minute time has expired.
MR. UKA: One minute more, Madam President. What is one minute among friends.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner is granted a one-minute extension.
MR. UKA: Thank you, Madam President.
Today, every major nation is both modern and free; it is also on a fertility trap, .. If Rizal said that the youth, the conceived child in the womb included, is the fair hope of the Fatherland, then the Western contraceptive is already preventing that to happen in our country. There will be no more hope — children or youth — for our Fatherland.
..
Ang talakayan sa itaas ay mula sa paghadlang na ginawa ni Comm. Uka sa usaping Population Control.
.
(para bigyan linaw ulit at hindi magkamali na maaring mauwi sa pagpapaikot-ikot, panglilinlang gamit ang maling argumentong ‘Similis hoc ergo propter hoc’. Ang nasa itaas ay makikita sa ibat-ibang website tulad ng filipinosforlife atbp, maaring sa akda ni ginoong raul nidoy atbp ay hindi nangangahulugan na eksklusibo sa kanila ang dokumentong ito. Ang source ay ‘Records of the Constitutional Commission No. 95 (Sept. 29, 1986)).
Bagkus ating pagtuunan ang sinabi ng isang sponsor ng RH bill, P13.7 bilyong piso ang kailangan ng DOH para maiimplementa ang RH sa taon 2012 lamang. Halaga para mabawasan ang isisilang na kabataang itinuturing na pag-asa ng bayan. Bakit? Ayon sa kanila dulot ng kahirapan ang dami ng populasyon (Mali. Ito po ang tugon ng isang pag-aaral na ginawa ni Simon Kuznets, Nobel Prize winner ng pag-aaral ng ekonomiya at sinuhayan ng 2008 Commission on Growth and Development na pinamumunuan ng Nobel prize winner Michael Spence
“Korapsyon, maling pamamahala ng gobyerno, hindi pantay-pantay na pamamahagi ng yaman ang dulot ng kahirapan - ibang-iba sa tinuturo ng RH bill)
Ang kababayan nating mahihirap ay biktima lamang at maling ituring na hindi pag-asa ng bayan ang kanilang magiging anak.
Iwaksi ang kulturang makasarili, iwasan ang kulturang pumapatay.
c.pio
(malayang makapaglatag ng argumento ang iba)
Kalibugan ang dahilan ng pagdami ng anak sa isang pamilya..
Dami nyo pang paligoy ligoy eh, kalibugan ang dahilan ng kahirapan sa bansa, alam nyo ba kung bakit, kasi dahil sa libog ng mga tao, lalo na ng mga mahihirap, dumarami ang kanilang anak, alam na nilang hirap na sila, e, nagdagdag pa ng anak, lalong humirap ang buhay, at syempre pagmarami na, hindi na nila kayang tustusan ang pangangailangan ng lumalaking meyembro ng pamilya. Ang mga pamilyang may isa o dalawang anak lamang ay mas magaan ang pamumuhay kumpara sa maraming anak sa iisang pamilya, ganun din ang maagang pag-aasawa na hindi pa handa sa mga aspetong pinansyal, emosyunal, at pisikal..kulang din sa edukasyon, kapag walang tinapos ang isang bata, hindi makakahanap ng desenting trabaho, so ang kahirapan ng magulang ay namamana ng mga anak, hanggang pasalin salin na lamang ito. Kailangan natin ng batas na magbibigay solusyon sa mga ito. Makakatulong ang RH Bill na ito na mabawasan ang pagdami ng anak sa isang pamilya kung susundin ito ng mag-asawa, kasi hindi naman pala ito conpulsory eh ayon sa RH Bill, piro at least makakatulong ito. Piro ayaw ko sa probisyon sa RH Bill na ito yong sex education sa mga grade five at high school. Magbibigay ito ng masamang impresyon sa mga murang isip ng mga bata. dapat alisin ang probisyong iyon. at palakasin ng mga leaders ng iba't ibang relihiyon ang pagtuturo ng moralidad sa mga nasasakupan nito. tungkulin ng mga leaders ng mga relihiyon na gawing matuwid ang mga meyembro nito. ituro ng mabuti sa mga Pilipino ang sampong utos ng Dios.
the truth of the matter3
…
MR. GASCON: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, but I was speaking more about some contraceptives, such as the intra-uterine device which actually stops the egg which has already been fertilized from taking route to the uterus. So, if we say “from the moment of conception,” what really occurs is that some of these contraceptives will have to be unconstitutionalized.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, to the extent that it is after the fertilization, Mr. Presiding Officer.
..
Ang talakayan sa itaas ay mula sa paglilinaw na ginawa ni Comm. Gascon sa usaping IUD bilang ‘Unconstitutional’.
.
(para bigyan linaw at hindi magkamali na maaring mauwi sa pagpapaikot-ikot, panglilinlang gamit ang maling argumentong ‘Similis hoc ergo propter hoc’. Ang nasa itaas ay makikita sa ibat-ibang website tulad ng filipinosforlife atbp, maaring sa akda ni ginoong raul nidoy atbp ay hindi nangangahulugan na eksklusibo sa kanila ang dokumentong ito. Ang source ay ‘Records of the Constitutional Commission No. 85 (Sept. 17, 1986)).
.
Subalit mangyari na ating tignan ang kaibahan nito sa RH bill (Senate Bill 2865)
Section 9: Family Planning Supplies as essential medicines: “The National Drug Formulary shall include hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables xx”
Ipamamahagi po sa mahihirap nating kababaihan ang IUD. Bakit ? Isang Pro-RH ang nagsabi ng ganitong obserbasyon :
‘Paano mo sasabihin na ang kabataan ang pag-asa ng bayan? kung hindi naman sila mapag-aral ng kanilang mga magulang sa sobrang dami nila.’
“.. kaya nga ang daming bata sa langsangan eh.”
Para sa kanya hindi maituturing na pag-asa ng bayan ang mahihirap nating kababayan kung hindi ito nakapag-aral. (kasaysayan po ang sumagot na mali sya. Napakarami pong bayani ang mula sa dukhang pamilya.)
Mula sa kanyang pahayag maaring kailangan patayin ang “buhay” gamit ang IUD dahil hindi nila nakikitang pag-asa ng bayan ang kabataang anak ng isang dukha.
.
Iwaksi ang kulturang makasarili, iwasan ang kulturang pumapatay.
c.pio
(maaring maglatag ang iba)
Opinyon lamang ni Gascon at Azcuna
Opinyon lamang ni Gascon at Azcuna. May alam ka bang ebidensya na nilabas ang dalawa para patunayan na after fertilization ang epekto ng IUD? May IUD sa Pilipinas bago ang 1987 Constitution. Matapos itong i-ratify ng tao, may IUD pa rin sa Pilipinas, dahil wala namang ebidensya na gumagana ito bilang abortifacient. Noong 1990, inamin ng CBCP ang ganitong status ng IUD nang pumirma sila sa joint statement kasama ang mga kinatawan ng gobyerno at DOH, sa ilalim ng Cory Aquino na administrasyon:
Mula sa website ng CBCP: http://www.cbcponline.net/documents/1990s/1990-family_planning.html
"The government presentation covered the principles which guide the Family Planning Program as well as the implementation details that will operate in the field. The discussions that followed were serious, substantive and amicable. Premised on the varying roles of the Church and the government, there was a meeting of minds although further discussions are clearly needed. In sum, all agreed that the Program is in substantive consonance with the following points:
...
4. The means allowed under the Program are limited to what is legally available in the Philippines. Abortion being illegal, any practice found to lead to or to induce abortion would also be deemed illegal on the basis of medical evidence evaluated by government authorities.
5. The means allowed, which include natural family planning, IUD's, sterilization and oral contraceptive pills, are made available to those who opt for them. If any of these methods are determined to be abortifacient, they will be disallowed."
Kung may ebidensya nga ang mga ayaw sa IUD na abortifacient ito, 24 taon na matapos ang 1987 Constitution. Bakit wala pa ring sinasampang kaso sa FDA (BFAD) para maipagbawal ito?
Huwag Linlangin ang Kapwa.
Basahin ang sulat na ito mula sa source na inilatag mo. http://www.cbcponline.net/documents/1990s/1990-family_planning.html
"In the interest of correcting certain misimpressions regarding the statement borne out of the initial church/government dialogue of Aug. 14, 1990 on the matter of family planning, I as Chairman of the Church panel would like to state that:
The statement is not an endorsement by the Church of the Family Planning Program of the government:
The Church, with constant firmness in its long standing teaching, condemns contraception, sterilization, and abortion. This teaching will be reemphasized in the forthcoming CBCP pastoral letter.
The statement, contrary to the understanding of some, is neither an agreement nor an accord.
Rather, it is a statement which merely identifies points of dialogue, including common and divergent concerns."
c.pio
Wala akong sinabing inendorso ng CBCP
Wala akong sinabing inendorso ng CBCP. Eto ang ipaliwanag mo:
"The means allowed, which include natural family planning, IUD's, sterilization and oral contraceptive pills, are made available to those who opt for them. If any of these methods are determined to be abortifacient, they will be disallowed."
kampihan na 'to! The church's
kampihan na 'to! The church's people necessarily is the state people. If only State of God is present in the world, then there must must necessarily be a clear demarcation line between the State of God and the State of Men. The point here is that, everyone must understand that the church position is church position founded with the church's moral foundation. It is the church's moral duty to stand on matters of faith and morals. For the RHbill proponents and supporters to associate anti-RH bill to the church (catholic church) is wrong because the church is anti because even prior to the first family planning program of former pres. marcos, the church is already steadfast in its position, so it's not the church that is anti but it's the rhbill proponents who are anti church position! E.g, it is clear for the church that fertility cycle including menstruation is an order designed by God according to its purpose namely; there is a time for woman's red period (in this period, no sexual intercourse is supposed to be done), there is a fertile period(this is a period of sexual intercourse for man and woman who wanted to have child, and supposedly a period to refrain from sexual intercourse for couple who does not want pregnancy) and a non-fertile period (a period to do sexual intercourse for couple who refrains from pregnancy). Observance of this order is what the church would like man and woman to do.
Along this line, the following questions are for the proponents and supporters of rh bill to answer:
1.Is the order specified above (fertility cycle, etc.) true?
2.Is this order science made?
3.Is it wrong to do sexual intercourse according to the period following the specified order(i.e no sexual intercourse at woman's red period, no sexual intercourse at woman's fertile period if both man and woman does not want pregnancy, and do sexual intercourse only at fertile period if both man and woman wanted pregnancy)?
4.Is it wrong to refrain from sexual intercourse outside of marriage?
5.Do you believed that filipinos esp. the poor can hardly understand about the said order?
6.What do you think is moral, do the sexual intercourse and disturb or deprived life development process by taking contraceptive
pills/medicines? Or do sex only at safe period to avoid pregnancy?
7.Do you think just because science said life begins at implantation or fertilization it's not a sin to take medicines to deprived life from being developed? and
8.Is it not persuasion in the guise of being pro-choice to emphasize essentials in contraceptive medicines? Or is it more pro-choice if both is emphasize as essential (i.e natural method and the use of contraceptive medicines) and have the people do the choice (to use the natural or the non-natural means)?
By the way, church has nothing to do with the inputs above. It's purely from a good theology student and ethics teacher.
Pro rh bill people and rh bill oppositions are both loved by God. To be or not to be is a choice.
NB:walang matinong magulang na marahil ay nahihirapan na siyang pangaralan at subaybayan ang kanyang tigas-ulong batang lagi na lang na sa basag-ulo ay sosulosyonan na lang niya ng ganito: "Dahil masyadong tigas ulo nyo at palagi kaba at takot ang sa ami'y lalagi tuwing wala kayo sa bahay, sige dala kayo lagi ng armas o pambugbog"!
Wala rin akong sinabing inendorso ng CBCP
"The statement, contrary to the understanding of some, is neither an agreement nor an accord.
Rather, it is a statement which merely identifies points of dialogue, including common and divergent concerns."
c.pio
Kung may ebidensya si Gascon at Azcuna noong 1986 pa
Kung may ebidensya si Gascon at Azcuna noong 1986 pa na gumagana ang IUD pagkatapos ng fertilization, bakit pagdating ng 1990 pumirma ang CBCP sa ganito: "The means allowed, which include natural family planning, IUD's, sterilization and oral contraceptive pills, are made available to those who opt for them. If any of these methods are determined to be abortifacient, they will be disallowed." IF ANY..., sabi ng gobyerno at CBCP. Saan napunta ang ebidensya?
Kaya ang sagot ko nga sa una mong post, opinyon lang ang sinabi ng dalawa.
(out of context) Isang paglilinaw.
Out-of-context kung hindi isasama itong unang pangungusap:
"The Church, with constant firmness in its long standing teaching, condemns contraception.."
"The statement, contrary to the understanding of some, is neither an agreement nor an accord.
Rather, it is a statement which merely identifies points of dialogue, including common and divergent concerns."
Una, ang sabi ng CBCP, "with constant firmness.. condemns contraception (kasama ang IUD)
Kagyak nililinaw na ang pagpirma ay "statement which merely identifies points of dialogue including common (natural family planning) and divergent concerns (artificial means na hindi sinasang-ayunan)
c.pio
Eto ang punto ko
Napakalinaw sa joint statement na hindi sang-ayon ang CBCP sa artificial family planning. Hindi ito ang punto ko.
Eto ang punto ko. Noong 1990, wala pa ring ebidensya ang CBCP na ang IUD ay gumagana pagkatapos ng fertilization.