Undermining the nation’s foundation

Giving too much emphasis on individual human rights makes people overzealous in protecting and exercising them. It tends to promote unbridled individualism that saps the community spirit so essential to a cohesive society or nation. Our Constitution recognizes the Filipino Family as the foundation of the nation (Section 1, Art. XV) but many of our laws or proposed laws are designed to undermine it. Like the proposed bill on the reproductive health care.

This bill gives too much importance on the rights of individuals concerning such intimate and purely personal matter of having "a satisfying and safe sex life"to the extent of weakening the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It also needlessly intrudes into the right of the couple to decide the size of the family they should have under the guise of attaining the "highest standard of sexual and reproductive health."

Among the health care program enumerated in the bill is to "provide accurate information and education and counselling.... on the full range of legal and medically-safe family planning methods"( Section 5 (b). To enable couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children,the bill provides for "informed choice and access to a full range of safe and effective family planning methods."(Sec.4 (h).

"Safe and effective family planning methods" is a phraseology broad enough to include all means available to achieve the proper spacing of children. Including artificial means of birth control like abortifacients or drugs or contraceptives causing abortion and intra uterine devices that hinder the firm "setting-in" of the embryo into the uterus as would result in the termination of the unborn child’s life.The bill should have at least specified these abortifacients as prohibited.As aptly stated in the position paper of Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines, Inc.(ALFI) submitted to the Congressional Committee: "artificial contraception leads to many vicious wrongs in society as it facilitates the sexual revolution that eventually leads only to unexpected pregnancies.Unwanted pregnancies then lead to a lowering of morality, and eventually, abortion becomes an option to take every time contraception fails.Where there is contraception, abortion is not far behind, either as a medical procedure, or in the form of ‘emergency contraception’(EC). In simple terms EC terminates the life of the unborn".

Reproductive health, according to the bill, implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life."People" here includes young people aged between 13-24 for which the bill coins and defines the term "adolescent sexuality" as referring to their "reproductive system, gender identity, values or beliefs, emotions, relationships and sexual behavior. The reproductive health care program for these young people consist in "education and information on human sexuality and responsible parenthood in schools, workplaces and communities." which the bill also provides(Sec 5i). But it is very clear in our Constitution that in matters of education, including of course sex education, the primary and natural right and duty belongs to parents( Sec. 12 Art.II). The State cannot just usurp this function by providing sex education in schools. It is the right of parents to raise their children in accordance with their cultural, moral and religious beliefs. This sex education in schools may only expose young children to information they are not yet ready to receive or willing to take. As rightfully observed by ALFI in their position paper: "Such education damages the children’s natural stages of development and will not make them wholesome persons but hedonistic, promiscuous and selfish youth who will become irresponsible adults".

The litmus test of a valid and effective State legislation is its conformity with the Constitution, the basic law of the land. This proposed bill on reproductive health care has utterly failed this test. The sponsors of the bill should take a long, hard second look at it before endorsing it any further.

Note: In last Friday’s column, I inadvertently omitted the word "not" in the last sentence. The sentence is supposed to read: It should not even go beyond the committee level. So sorry.

E-mail: [email protected]