The RH Bill as pro-life and pro-women

We support the RH Bill because it protects life and promotes the wellbeing of families, especially of women and their children. Contrary to what its detractors say, the RH Bill is not “pro-abortion,” “anti-life,” or “anti-women.” With “respect for life” as one of its guiding principles (sec. 2), the bill unequivocally states that it does not seek to “change the law on abortion, as abortion remains a crime and is punishable” (sec. 3.m). It can be argued, in fact, that in guaranteeing information on and access to “medically-safe, legal, affordable and quality” natural and modern family planning methods (sec. 2), the bill seeks “to prevent unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies” (sec. 5.k) ― the main cause of induced abortions.

The RH Bill is also pro-life and pro-women because it aims to reduce our maternal mortality rate, currently so high (at 162 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births) that the government has admitted that it is unlikely to meet the Millennium Development Goal target of bringing it down by three-fourths (to 52 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births) by 2015 (NEDA and UNCT 2007). For example, section 6 of the bill enjoins every city and municipality to endeavor “to employ adequate number of midwives or other skilled attendants to achieve a minimum ratio of one (1) for every one hundred fifty (150) deliveries per year.” Section 7 instructs each province and city to seek to establish, for every 500,000 population, “at least one (1) hospital for comprehensive emergency obstetric care and four (4) hospitals for basic emergency obstetric care.” Section 8 mandates “all LGUs, national and local government hospitals, and other public health units [to] conduct maternal death review.”

Moreover, the RH Bill’s definition of “reproductive health care” goes beyond the provision of natural and modern family planning information and services, to include a wide array of other services (sec. 4.g). These include: maternal, infant, and child health and nutrition; promotion of breastfeeding; prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications; adolescent and youth health; sexual and reproductive health education for couples and the youth; prevention and management of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmittable infections (STIs); treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers and other gynecological conditions; fertility interventions; elimination of violence against women; and male involvement and participation in reproductive health. We therefore ask, How then can the RH Bill be violative of human life and dignity?

To reiterate, because reproductive health is central to women’s overall health, fundamental aspects of women’s wellbeing are compromised when reproductive health is ignored. The conditions under which choices are made are as important as the actual content of women’s choices: the right to choose is meaningful only if women have real power to choose.