What are the implications on education of House Bill No. 4244, popularly known as the RH Bill?
To be transparent, let me reveal that I once worked for the Population Center Foundation and have written scripts about population.
Having said that, let me state that I am solidly behind the RH Bill, except for one sentence in it concerning the curriculum.
Here is the section of “An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development, and for Other Purposes” that talks about the curriculum:
“SEC. 16. Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education.
“Age-appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education shall be taught by adequately trained teachers in formal and non-formal educational system starting from Grade Five up to Fourth Year High School using life-skills and other approaches. Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education shall commence at the start of the school year immediately following one year from the effectivity of this Act to allow the training of concerned teachers.
“The Department of Education (DepEd), the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), and the Department of Health (DOH) shall formulate the Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education curriculum. Such curriculum shall be common to both public and private schools, out of school youth, and enrolees in the Alternative Learning System (ALS) based on, but not limited to, the following, the psycho-social and the physical wellbeing, the demography and reproductive health, and the legal aspects of reproductive health.
“Age-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education shall be integrated in all relevant subjects and shall include, but not limited to, the following topics: (a) Values formation; (b) Knowledge and skills in self protection against discrimination, sexual violence and abuse, and teen pregnancy; (c) Physical, social and emotional changes in adolescents; (d) Children’s and women’s rights; (e) Fertility awareness; (f) STI, HIV and AIDS; (g) Population and development; (h) Responsible relationship; (i) Family planning methods; (j) Proscription and hazards of abortion; (k) Gender and development; and (l) Responsible parenthood.
“The DepEd, CHED, DSWD, TESDA, and DOH shall provide concerned parents with adequate and relevant scientific materials on the age-appropriate topics and manner of teaching reproductive health education to their children.”
I see nothing wrong with the government mandating government-funded schools to promote its programs. That is the whole point of having minimum learning competencies for public schools. In order to ensure academic freedom, of course, government-funded schools may go beyond the minimum and even challenge public policy, but they first have to ensure that their students know what the government is pushing.
Parents that do not want their children to be educated by the government, however, have the option of sending them to private schools. That is what private education is all about. Private education is an alternative to public education. Why go to a private school if you will get exactly what you would get in a public school?
I am, therefore, against this provision: “Such curriculum shall be common to both public and private schools.” Many private schools are Catholic and have to adhere to official Catholic Church teaching. Catholic schools (and all other private schools) should not be forced to teach something they do not want to teach. I urge our legislators, therefore, to make Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education obligatory only for public schools.
Anyway, private schools (especially Catholic schools) already provide children a very strong foundation in values formation, which naturally leads to the other desired outcomes listed in the RH Bill. Government need not worry about private school children and their parents.
By the way, the Catholic bishops have no right to impose their views on children in public schools. The bishops should not claim that these children are Catholics. The mantra that we are a Catholic country is plain silly. If we were really Catholic, why are we one of the most corrupt countries in the world? Isn’t the commandment “Thou shall not steal” just as much a commandment as “Thou shall not kill” (granting for the sake of argument that contraceptives kill)? One mortal sin is as grievous as any other mortal sin. Or did I get my catechism wrong?
In fact, as a Catholic, I follow what the Pope says. The Pope himself has already said that condoms are not evil in themselves, because homosexual men can use them to protect each other from dying of AIDS. Or did I get the Vatican press release wrong?
As a writer, I have a suggestion for those arguing for the RH Bill. Why don’t you call what the bishops call Natural Family Planning by its proper name, namely, Catholic Contraception? When a husband and a wife abstain from lovemaking at exactly the time a baby is likely be born, are they not preventing conception?
Of course they are; they are doing exactly what non-Catholic married couples using condoms do. The Rhythm Method is as anti-life as the pill. By calling it Catholic Contraception, you can remove the emotional baggage that accompanies the word “contraceptive.”
After all, much of the debate about the RH Bill is not about reason, statistics, or medicine. Much of it is simply unbridled passion.