Stop the Witch Hunt of RH Bill Advocates
Sen. Vicente Sotto’s interpellation of the RH Bill at the Senate has deteriorated into a witch-hunt of organizations supporting the bill that, in his opinion, have an agenda to legalize or promote abortion in the Philippines. The organizations that he has named so far are the Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP), Likhaan Center for Women’s Health (Likhaan), the Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights (WGNRR), and the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (DSWP). More could follow as the senator has asked for a list of all organizations that have expressed support for the bill.
Instead of arguing about the content of the RH Bill, Sen. Sotto has shifted to attacking advocates.
This crude antic is an implied admission of weakness in conducting a reasoned and respectful debate with fellow senators who are, in the final analysis, the authors and sponsors of the measure. Civil society organizations (CSOs) are formally invited to public hearings on proposed laws and asked to present and argue their position. This engagement of CSOs is a key feature of democracy, of governance through dialogue. Unfairly using the immense powers of the Senate to attack CSOs for their different points of view is the act of a bully and violates the tenet of responsive governance.
Some RH Bill advocates—like the organizations maligned by Sen. Sotto—are truly concerned about the harm to women and their families of unsafe abortion. Because of our work in very poor urban and rural communities, we know firsthand of women who have suffered severe complications—hemorrhage, infection and perforated bowels—some of whom survived, while others died. We know of women survivors who were subjected to verbal abuse, maltreatment, and neglect in hospitals by the medical people who were supposed to help them. We know too that the reasons that push women to have an abortion are desperate, that the decision to have an abortion is never easy, and that if women could prevent abortion, they would.
Beyond the RH Bill, we stand for openly and soberly discussing the impact of abortion in the Philippines and finding humane and workable solutions. Last time we heard it, discussing abortion is legal in this country. A century of criminalizing abortion has not stopped its widespread use, but only made it dangerous.
The RH Bill has at least three features that can substantially reduce abortions without even changing the law. Family planning—whether through natural or artificial methods—can address the root of abortion, unintended pregnancy, by enabling women and couples to plan the timing, spacing and number of pregnancies. Post-abortion care, including medication, surgery and counseling, can save women’s lives, preserve their health, and help them to use family planning that will prevent repeat abortions. School-based sexuality and RH education can address peer pressure and sexual coercion and violence, delay sexual experimentation, and promote responsible behavior so that unintended pregnancies are reduced.
Those who obstruct family planning while exulting in the Philippines’ extreme anti-abortion law—which has no exception even when a woman’s life is in danger—are morally responsible for the vicious cycle of unintended pregnancy and abortion that continues to kill and maim masses of women. If government-supported measures to reduce abortion or to treat and counsel women with post-abortion complications are denied, where else could women go? What else could women do?
Sen. Sotto, if he has a modicum of sympathy for women, should find solutions to the problem of abortion instead of maligning organizations that support RH. If he is against RH, what is he for?
Anyone concerned about the health of women and the families that they care for will find it unconscionable to object to the RH Bill. If Sen. Sotto is worried that the bill will legalize abortion, then he needs to simply study the text and accept or reject it based on what he actually reads, not on what he reads of advocates’ intentions.
Released 7 September 2011 by:
|
Roberto Ador |
Junice D. Melgar |
Sylvia Estrada Claudio |
Elizabeth Angsioco |
For further information, contact: Joy Salgado • Likhaan Center for Women’s Health • 926-6230 • 411-3151
Download printable PDF from here
- Tags:
- Printer-friendly version
- Add new comment
- 1405 reads

Comments
The Kissinger Report and RH Bill
To all readers, please read the "Kissinger Report" and its connection to RH Bill.
Be attentive, do not look for any fancy ad. saying that they are really a "Pro-woman's right".
Don't spin your head by Pro-RH. RH Bill will never address the problem of abortion.(good example is USA, 100% contraceptive but with 68% abortion rate)
ALAMIN ANG KATOTOHANAN.
c.pio
re: USA, 100% contraceptive
Nagkamali ka sa contraceptive use ng USA. Baka gusto mong baguhin/itama ang post mo?
USA, contraceptive prevalence, any modern method (sterilization, pills, injectables, etc), 2006-08: 73%
Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2011). World Contraceptive Use 2010 (POP/DB/CP/Rev2010).
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wcu2010/Data/UNPD_WCU_2010...
Tama! Kaya dapat ma-approve
Tama! Kaya dapat ma-approve talaga rhb. Sa US matagal nang psychologically conditioned ang mga tao lalo edad 15-24 years old na sige lang nang sige, wala dapat ikatakot dahil with condoms, pils, etc. safe talaga from pregnancy ang girl. Halos 90% talagang di nabubuntis kababaihan. At sa latest data, America has only 19million cases of STI recorded each year. Kaya sige, rhb tayo nang rhb arm!
Different Stat never change the reality.
well maybe we have different source of statistics. But again it will never change the reality that contraceptive prevalence will reduce the case of abortion.
secondly, accept the reality that RH bill is part of "Kissinger report".
c.pio
re: well maybe we have different source of statistics
"well maybe we have different source of statistics" Can you cite your source please?
No need to cite the source of c.pio
Tama! kahit hindi na ilabas ni c.pio ang statistical data sources nya totoong tama sya.
Sige nga Arm, para walang pagkakaiba ng source (data) gamitin natin yung source mo na 73% yung prevalence rate.
Tignan mo 73% na pero may abortion cases pa rin bakit? Di ba sabi nyong mga Pro-RH bill ay ito, I will quote:
"The RH Bill has at least three features that can substantially reduce abortions without even changing the law. Family planning—whether through natural or artificial methods—can address the root of abortion, unintended pregnancy, by enabling women and couples to plan the timing, spacing and number of pregnancies. Post-abortion care, including medication, surgery and counseling, can save women’s lives, preserve their health, and help them to use family planning that will prevent repeat abortions. School-based sexuality and RH education can address peer pressure and sexual coercion and violence, delay sexual experimentation, and promote responsible behavior so that unintended pregnancies are reduced."
Tama o Mali.
Hehe talagang Pro-RH spin to make your head spin sabi nga ni c.pio
It is moot and academic to
It is moot and academic to say so.
> Just accept the fact that RH bill (artificial contraceptive pills in particular) cannot solve the abortion case.
> Just accept the fact that RH bill is part of "Kissinger Report" that all filipinos will never benefit from it.
> Just accept the fact that RH bill spin to make your head spin ( I already cite one example : Section 28 No.3 "Conscientious Objection")
> Just accept the fact that RH bill is another virtue of "Culture of Death"
> Just accept the fact that even without RH bill, maternal death are decreasing.
> Just accept the fact that there are 79% of women's death cause by TB, Cancers, etc. that RH bill cannot address.
c.pio
: you can check my stat source from the internet. do your job to find the truth because I knew it already. secondly, try to examine RH bill Sec.28 No. 3 again
re: it is moot and academic to say so
In short, you have no source to cite. Ok.
mag-isip ng malalim.
How shallow your argument.
Hindi ibig sabihin na ayaw ipakita ang "source" ay walang source at all.
Mag-isip ka, pakilaliman ng konti.
c.pio