Public acceptance for any reproductive health law may eventually be determined on how it will be generally perceived. And perception will be colored on whether one believes the spin that the law is pro-abortion (and therefore anti-life) or pro-information (which is positive as it empowers the individual to choose which family planning method to use). In fact the latter phrase has, over the years, acquired a negative religious connotation as it is equated with the use of artificial contraceptives. Responsible parenthood seems to be the more politically correct term. But regardless of which side you are on, it behooves upon the various groups to informatively discuss specific provisions of the various bills filed. In this regard, the plan of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines to use social networking sites for information dissemination is a step in the right direction. Targeting the nation’s youth makes sense as they will be the ones who will mainly live with the consequences anyway. But we need to all go beyond sound bites and sloganeering and really thresh out the moral and practical effects of the law. This early, two of the major issues include: 1) When is human “life” supposed to begin and therefore entitled to protection? The 1987 Constitution provides that the State shall protect the “life of the unborn from conception.” Conception is commonly equated with fertilization which is the beginning of the nine-month pregnancy of a woman. This definition seems to be religiously, as opposed to scientifically inspired. Query as to whether this definition will stand judicial scrutiny given the constitutional mandate for separation of Church and State?
The other major issue deals with the use of government resources. There will probably be no dispute regarding the ability of the various parties to engage in campaigns to inform and educate the people regarding their responsible parenthood choices. The issue is whether government resources can be used to purchase artificial contraceptives to honor the choices that individual Filipino have made. In a subsequent column, let me discuss how US legislatures and courts have dealt with these issues.
* * * *
Responsible Citizenship: In connection with the ongoing reproductive health debate, I wanted to share with you certain interesting facts and insights provided by Ortigas & Co. Chief Operating Officer Rex Drilon:
1. 1. 38 percent of our population lives below the poverty line (or subhuman existence).
2. 2. The lowest 20 percent of our households have an average of 5.2 children, the next 20 percent, 4.2. The top 20 percent only has 1.9 children. Our population growth rate has slowed down from 3.1 percent in 1971 to only 2.0 in 2007 or a 50 percent deceleration rate. We are approaching below replacement growth rates.
3. 3. Population growth, therefore, is not a national issue, as former Senator Ting Paterno would say. It is a problem of the very poor. And we should focus attention and help in the lowest quintile. Population management should be intensified there. A shotgun approach will not solve it.
4. 4. On the other hand, 800,000 unsafe abortions are performed every year, one of the highest in the region.
5. 5. And our maternal mortality rate exceeds 162 per 100,000 births. Compare that with the Millennium Development Goal of 52 deaths by 2015.
* * * *
The Bus!: To help ease traffic along EDSA, the Metro Manila Development Authority trial ballooned the idea of re-introducing the wider encompassing odd-even scheme as opposed to the current number coding regulation. In effect, this would have resulted in the “garaging” of a vehicle from one to three times a week. Expectedly, this proposal drew a howl of protest as motorists generally know who or what the culprit for the decongestion is. In the words of popular radio commentator Ted Failon (mimicking television personality Boy Abunda) — “It’s the Bus!”
According to a study commissioned by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (and validated by the World Bank), EDSA can only comfortably accommodate up to 1600 buses. Currently there are around 3800 franchisees (and another 3000+ colorums) plying the country’s main thoroughfare. In this regard, two centavos each are awarded to the following ideas: 1) the Metro Manila Council’s proposal to include public utility buses (PUBs) in the number coding program. Apparently, PUBs were covered by the latter until 2004 when then President GMA ordered their exemption upon the urging of bus operators; and 2) Sen. Ralph Recto’s proposal to cut down by half the number of buses using EDSA as this would not only ease traffic but bring down pollution levels as well. Recto further argues that limiting the number of buses would also force commuters to patronize the Metro Rail Transit 3) which is still enjoying a government subsidy of P7.3 billion as it has not been able to reach its break even target of 600,000 riders a day.
Speaking of buses however, I came across an article in the Singapore Straits Times which should make us count our blessings. In New Delhi, they refer to their buses as the “killer Bluelines.” These road menaces are privately owned, apparently poorly maintained buses which will be taken off the capital’s thoroughfares starting December 14. They are supposedly notorious for their overworked, rash and impatient drivers, and have been involved in more than 1,000 road deaths in the past 10 years. That figure translates to an average of 100 deaths per year or one death every three days. An Indian journalist also commented that the bus drivers were known to “jump traffic lights at will and all that mattered to them was to pick up as many passengers as possible. Little wonder they cause so many accidents.” Sound familiar? Well, looks like the end of the road for Delhi’s killer buses… but what about ours?
* * * *
“I think your whole life shows in your face and you should be proud of that.” — Lauren Bacall
* * * *
E-mail:deanbautista@yahoo.com