Fate of RH bill: Fate of the nation

The conversation at gatherings during the past few days revolved around the result of the third reading on the Reproductive Health bill scheduled yesterday in the House of Representatives. Up to the last minute, legislators were moving heaven and earth to convince their colleagues to cast their vote either for, or against, the bill, as the case may be. The result may have been known last night. More than the strident campaign against the election of former Health Secretary Juan Flavier to the Senate for his advocacy of reproductive health, the issue on the passage of the RH bill in Congress today has split forces — families and educators, media persons, scientists and economists, and even within the church. The most common assault has been the lumping of pro-RH bill advocates as evil, that the cause of poverty in the country is not over-population, but corruption.

As my readers know, I am for the passage of the RH bill, and accordingly, have received favorable responses, and — condemning reactions. I read the arguments of the two sides, and find that the pro-RH scientific studies are more credible, not based on faulty and wrong allegations.

Even as Rep. Gina de Venecia and I are on opposite sides on the issue, I respect her position, partly because she bases her arguments on conviction, not for political exigency, and partly because she is a strong advocate for women’s rights and well-being, as well as those of her male constituents.

Gina and I were at the Second International Ecological Safety Assembly in Bali, Indonesia, to which she was invited to speak on her own initiatives to combat climate change. Gina also touched on her favorite bills — from naming malunggay as a national veggie to humanitarian advocacies such as building assisted-centers for children suffering from Down Syndrome and autism.

At the second hearing in the House of Representatives on Dec. 12, Gina, one of those who voted against the RH bill, explained her vote. My respect for her allows me to quote from her speech, which I am at variance with.

Said Gina: “The RH bill or the Reproductive Health bill is an attempt to institute measures to control the country’s population, masquerading as a reproductive health measure, with the end in view of diminishing, or alleviating the problem of poverty. It is anchored on the idea that a country’s growth is a function of the size of its population.

“Studies have shown, however, that economic progress is attained through the prudent use of meager resources and the exercise of good governance. Corruption and poor use of resources these studies confirm, rather than overpopulation, are what retards a country’s ability to progress.

“Much has been argued for and against this contentious bill. But at the end of the day, the question I ask is whether the state, in its effort to attain a highly divisive growth target, has overstepped its bounds in choosing to interfere in its citizens’ family life? Is it appropriate for the state to prescribe the size of family one must have? Is it fitting for the state to mandate when our children should be taught sex education and by whom? Is it proper for the state to make contraceptive pills and condoms readily available and within reach of anyone, at no cost to the user? Is this the price we must pay to achieve our economic targets?

“The old saying that ‘the end does not justify the means’ comes to mind. For I do want to see growth, but not at the expense of the Filipino family. I do want to see progress, but not at the cost of our youth’s moral values that will be corrupted by the proliferation of contraceptives and condoms. I do want to see a better life for every Filipino, but certainly not at the cost of an unborn child.

“I therefore vote ‘NO’ to the RH bill.”

E-mail: [email protected]