Tatad: RH debate is one big swindle

DIVISIVE:

For Sunday reading, I am borrowing remarks of former senator Kit Tatad, a writer of note, many of whose ideas on the controversial Reproductive Health bill happen to coincide with my own.

Tatad says, “Respect for the Constitution, the moral convictions, religious beliefs, human dignity and solidarity of our people is indispensable to the health and well-being of the nation. No democratic government ever enacts a law that is certain to divide its people.

“Yet never before have we seen so many Filipino politicians trying to savage that view, and further divide an already divided nation. All in the name of a foreign-dictated Reproductive Health bill.

“Many of the debates, arranged or sponsored by the RH patrons and funders, have been one big swindle. Often moderated by the uninstructed and uninformed, they have tried to discuss every tangential issue, while evading the central issue that will ultimately decide whether the bill, if enacted into law, could bind anyone in conscience.”

*      *      *

DECEPTIVE: Proponents scare us with doomsday scenarios about our birth rate of 1.9 percent, and our population density of 313 per square km, which are quite healthy — without mentioning, Tatad says, “the plunging birth rates and the rapid ageing and dying in the developed countries, which should terrify anyone living in this Century.”

While RH proponents try to make us feel guilty that 10 or so childbearing women are dying every day for lack of proper obstetrics and maternal care, he notes that “several times more women are dying every day from cancer, heart ailments, respiratory illnesses, diabetes, tuberculosis, and other diseases, without any medical or burial assistance from government.”

The bill claims to protect the right of women (and men) to decide whether or not to practice birth control and what method/s to use. Tatad says that is “patently false, a gross deception.”

*      *      *

BILL NOT NEEDED: He explains: “No law prohibits contraception or sterilization. Everyone is free to contracept or get sterilized. No law distinguishes abortifacients from mere contraceptives either. A woman could commit abortion while ostensibly practicing contraception only. This has been so for the last 35 years.

“Since the 1970s, the government has been funding what it now calls RH every year. At least P2 billion this year. Additionally, some LGUs are implementing some foreign-funded RH programs. The constitutionality of these things has yet to be ruled on. But the nation’s contraceptive prevalence rate now stands at 51 percent and counting.

“So what women’s ‘right’ to contracept are they talking about? What need is there for this RH bill? We have the global population controllers and contraceptives and abortion providers to thank for.”

*      *      *

BIRTH CONTROL: The bill seeks to require married couples to practice birth control as an integral part of marriage, regardless of their religious beliefs and moral convictions. Tatad says “this will revise the very nature and organic laws of marriage, an institution that precedes the State.”

The bill will allow individuals to choose what method/s of birth control to use, but it wants all married couples and even unmarried individuals to be part of a state-run program of population control. It also wants to impose sex education on schoolchildren, without parental consent.

Tatad says: “These points have been muted in the debates. The proponents have tried to dance around the real issues, and many of those against have been lured into joining the dance too.

“Thus we have discussed the side issues, but left untouched the central issue, which is, ‘Does the State have the right or duty to organize the intimate private lives of its citizens? Can Congress enact the RH bill into law without regard to the moral law and the Constitution?’”

*      *      *

CORE ISSUE: Section 12, Article II, of the Constitution is clear: “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.”

Tatad notes: “Some people, including some supposed theologians and constitutional experts, have tried to muddle this issue by asking when does life begin. Is it upon ‘fertilization’ of the egg, or upon ‘implantation’ of the fertilized ovum?

“That would be relevant if we were discussing abortion, which we are not. The relevant issue is: If the duty of the State is to equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception, does it also have the right or the duty to run a program of contraception and sterilization whose purpose is to prevent the birth of children?

“The State can be either the protector or preventer of childbearing, but not both at the same time.”

*      *      *

DROP THE BILL: Likewise, if parents are the natural and primary educators of their children, the State can only support, but not replace them in that role. It cannot impose compulsory sex education on schoolchildren without parental consent.

Tatad concludes: “The resulting RH law would have no moral or constitutional basis and could not bind anyone in conscience. It would simply further divide the nation. Turning this country into a totalitarian state, and the government would, in the language of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, lose the moral authority to govern.

“The Congress would be well advised to simply archive the RH bill now, revoke the present RH program and appropriation, retool the Department of Health and the Population Commission, and begin to mind our more authentic and pressing national concerns.”

*      *      *

FOLLOWUP: Access past POSTSCRIPTs at www.manilamail.com. Follow this columnist at Twitter.com/FDPascual. E-mail feedback to [email protected]