US State Secretary Hillary Clinton has undoubtedly charmed the Filipinos during her two-day whirlwind visit. Like a true diplomat, she ably traipsed her way through delicate and highly sensitive matters concerning Filipino-American relationship by tactfully emphasizing that we are “partners” in finding solutions to political, socio-economic and cultural problems.
As expected, she batted for the RH Bill by offering Washington’s assistance in promoting planned parenthood and reproductive rights of women although they “do not have any intention or plan to preempt or otherwise go beyond the attitude of the society” regarding this matter. She stressed the importance of family planning in the aspect of development because it “empowers women by enabling them to make choices for the best interest of their children”.
Such genteel but convincing words coming from one of the most powerful women in the world clearly constitute a heavier and much greater though very subtle pressure to pass the RH Bill despite her repeated avowals that the US is leaving all the decisions “up to the people and the government of the Philippines”. Euphemism and diplomacy however is not enough to cover up the objectionable features of this bill.
There is no dispute that family planning may be necessary for development. Family planning per se is not bad. No religion or faith is opposing it. They are merely opposing some of the methods provided by the Bill for family planning especially the artificial contraceptives. This Bill makes available to women the entire range of contraceptive pills and devices including those already proven by scientists and doctors as causing abortion or what are known as abortifacients like Depoprovera, RU 486, IUD, Norplant and Morning After Pill. In fact, the US FDA has deemed Depoprovera as unsafe for American women but has not discouraged its producers from promoting and distributing it in third world countries.
There is also no opposition to empowering women and giving them the freedom of choice. But when that choice would harm or kill innocent and utterly defenseless children any civilized society would certainly restrict it. Here the opposition is actually not “against a right but against a wrong” What is actually wrong with the RH Bill is that it justifies evil means with good ends.
The RH Bill also advocates women’s reproductive rights. Actually there is nothing wrong with giving women the right to reproduce. What is wrong is giving them the “right to kill a child after reproduction has taken place”. What is wrong is giving them abortion rights or the right to choose abortifacients which are not “reproductive rights but child-killing rights”. Reproductive right really means the right to decide when to have a baby or not, for serious economic or health reasons. And this right entails a duty to determine when to have sex or to abstain from it. This is the essence of natural family planning.
To be sure, Clinton’s endorsement of the RH Bill finally erases all doubts that it legalizes abortion despite the contrary protestations of its authors and sponsors. Last March 28, 2009, Clinton was awarded the Margaret Sanger Award by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Sanger was the founder of said Federation with abortion clinics scattered throughout the United States which kills approximately 300,000 unborn baby boys and girls. She was also known as a eugenicist and racist who advocated population control that “would exclude and exterminate from the human race” the “poor, disenfranchised, weak, disabled, a colored person and unborn child among the many so called undesirables”. In 1921 she said that “Eugenics (the science and art of improving human breeds by applying principles of genetics and inheritance) is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of the racial, political and social problems”. In 1922, she also said that “The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it”.
Upon receiving the award, Clinton said she was really “in awe” of Sanger and that “the 20th century reproductive rights movement, really embodied in the life and leadership of Margaret Sanger was one of the most transformational in the entire history of the human race” and that “Sanger’s work is not yet done”.
In a US House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting, Clinton was confronted with said statements and asked whether Obama administration seeks to dismantle anti-abortion laws around the world. Responding categorically, Clinton confirmed that the Obama administration’s definition of reproductive health “includes abortion” and that “We are now an Administration that will protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive health care”.
Then, in reply to the question of another Congressman who decried the taxpayers’ funding of abortion overseas and challenged Clinton to instead pursue a foreign policy that “upholds the genius of womanhood and the life nestled within her”, Clinton responded that the “choice” to carry or kill an unborn child should be available “for all women”.
At least now it is clear. The real object of this RH Bill that Clinton and the Obama administration support is, “to force the tragedy of abortion upon women around the world especially and including countries where democratically elected leaders want to continue to protect their unborn children”. This is the conclusion of another Congressman which Clinton has not refuted.
Our legislators particularly those who are sponsoring this RH bill can check this out in the recorded video conversation of Clinton in youtube.com. If they have a right conscience, they will readily realize that this Bill is immoral and illegal as it promotes abortion or the killing of an innocent, defenseless, and helpless child in the womb of a mother. Hence they should junk the bill even if its purpose is to solve our supposed overpopulation problem which is more apparent than real.
E-mail us at jcson@pldtdsl.net