Among other things, the bill seeks to legalize and decriminalize abortion. The bill contains an explanatory note (HB 4110, page 4) which says:
"The right to freedom from interference in reproductive decision-making refers to the principle of bodily autonomy or the right to physical integrity where women are protected from unwanted intrusion of their bodies and other non-consensual restrictions on women’s physical autonomy. For instance, denying a woman the option of avoiding pregnancy or under exceptional circumstances of carrying a fetus to full term interferes with her right to decide on a matter that has tremendous impact on her body and her personal liberty."
The language is distinctly American, not Filipino. It is the language of the pro-abortion lobby in the United States. Pregnancy is considered an "unwanted intrusion" into a woman’s body, giving the woman the option "not to carry the fetus to full term."
In other words, the option to murder a living child in the womb.
The language of this bill is the language of a nation that no longer values motherhood. It is not the language of Filipina womanhood.
Which raises the question: Who really drafted this bill? Was it drafted by Filipinos?
The proponents of this bill are presumably good and decent men and women. How then could they have drafted a bill so contrary to the best instincts of human nature and so contrary to Filipino instincts? Human nature and Philippine culture are both geared to the protection and development of a human being in a mother’s womb. Human nature gives a mother a natural tendency to cherish, protect and love her child. How then could decent and good men and women in Congress draft a bill so contrary to human instincts?
The proponents of this bill include several congresswomen. How could these good ladies propose to enact into law a bill so contrary to Filipina womanhood?
This gives rise to the suspicion that perhaps they did not draft the bill. They probably never even studied its provisions. They perhaps merely signed a bill drafted for them by someone who was merely echoing the language of the pre-abortion propagandists of the United States.
Are we so colonial-minded that our legislators must accept dictation from America, not only as regards military and political matters, but also in our cultural, moral and family life?