Yes! We choose life

CEBU, Philippines - I had never heard of Leoniver until a few days ago when one of his classmates told me about him. 

Leoniver (his real name) is a 21-year old student, a third year political science major in one of the universities in Cebu. The young man is quite up-to-date in current events and is a history buff. He is an avid reader and interacts quite actively with his classmates. His friend describes him as confident and generous. 

He is also physically blind. He lost his sight at age one and a half years old due to chicken pox and measles that destroyed the pupils of his eyes.

Late last year, he asked his classmate if she was "doing anything about the RH bill." He said he had initially favoured the bill because of what he heard from people who supported it. He was made to believe it is only trying "to promote medication especially for women who will be obliged to take pills, complete with doctor's prescription, for their health." Based on this assumption, he agreed that the bill "should oblige government agencies to conduct seminars on women's health."

After reading the bill and listening to another perspective, Leoniver realized that it would "actually promote abortion since certain contraceptives prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterine wall thus killing this foundation of life."

He also realized the bill will "turn people like dogs since distributing pills or contraceptive is the same as saying you can have sex anytime with anyone as long as you don't get pregnant." For him this promotes immorality.

Furthermore, the bill takes away parental authority over their children. Parents cannot anymore control their children's access to contraceptives. If children want to use it they don't need to have their parent's consent. The value of the family is lost even as the same happens to the relationship between husband and wife. The bill promotes a "kanya-kanya attitude."

Doubtless, some readers would dismiss Leoniver's views as simplistic and even out-of-touch with the times. 

But is this really so? Have they really read and pondered upon the consequences of House Bill 4244 or any of its precedents?

Doubtless, some readers would also dismiss this article as the close-minded, unfeeling views of someone representing a group of men and women who do not experience the travails of family life.

But is this really so? After all, we all do come from families. I am one of eight children. Growing up, we did not have many material comforts but we had faith, each other, and a society built on good moral values. We loved each other and shared hope.

I started to read various versions of the RH bill since 2008 to prepare for an unexpected assignment in a university forum. I saw ominous handwritings on the wall as some key words used in the bill are common fare in the abortion lobby. Is this, in truth, a Trojan horse? Don't you change mindsets before you change behaviour? And is not language a carrier of mindsets? 

Nevertheless, I also felt sad because the bill also contained needed provisions for the welfare of women and children. I felt bad because I saw that underlying the formulation of the proposed law was an either-or spirit, as if mother and child, husbands and wives, parents and children, are natural enemies. I also felt betrayed because the bill's proponents had so packaged the bill that one is forced, so to speak, to "burn the whole house in order to roast the pig," to use the words of a lawyer.

I refused to demonize those who did not share my views, even as some proponents from both sides lost civility. I know a God-given conscience is embedded in all of us and conscience formation, fed by right information and moral teachings, is a journey towards the truth. 

A few days ago, I read HB 4244, the latest version of the bill. I agree with the CBCP statement on the bill and its panel's decision not to continue dialogue with RH bill proponents. Let me share some reasons why. 

Section 28 on "Prohibited Acts" sub-section (e) includes "any person who maliciously engages in misinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act." Does this mean that once the law is implemented, any contrary view is prohibited? Is pro-choice about having it my way and smothering all contrary views? Is this what People Power is all about? Why should doctors who will not, in conscience, provide the services called for by law, be penalized, cf. sub-section (a)? If the law is really founded on truth, is not the splendour of truth its own convincing power? Why penalize (section 29)?

Furthermore, as Leoniver has noted, why indeed is a wedge of division being inserted among members of the family and why is parental authority weakened, cf. sub-section (a.2)? Why introduce a foreign mentality that highlights conflict? "Kanya-kanya" indeed.

Section 10 defines "family planning supplies as essential medicines." Is getting pregnant then a disease? Can people progress when their collective consciousness is supposed to tell them they are the fruits of a disease? This is absurd and looks at life as an enemy to be vanquished rather than a gift.  

I could go on, like asking what is the economic basis of the proposed ideal family size of two (section 20) or why we seem intent on going the way of countries that have an aging population due to negative growth rates, but let me end by visiting some salient points of the CBCP 30

January 2011 statement. What is striking about it is that it focuses on the Philippine Constitution. The bishops are right in insisting that the RH bill violates the fundamental law of the land. The bishops also point out that the moral perspective is a missing link. The bishops and Leoniver agree. So is a growing number of individuals and groups who see the major features and underlying assumptions of the RH bill as basically unreasonable. It is not just a Catholic issue. 

I add a last key point. For nearly a decade now, I have been involved in advocacy work against graft and corruption. Every year P400 billion (not million) is lost to corruption. How many poor people would be adequately served if such money were used for education, social services, livelihood projects, and legitimate health needs? Why blame the gift of life for the consequences of corruption? Why open up another venue for graft by pouring funds into the coffers of government for the distribution of condoms and contraceptives? Why must a program be legislated for behaviour best left between wife and husband in the quiet of the bedroom? As the bishops rightly point out, moral corruption is "the root of all corruption."

Yes, Leoniver sees eye-to-eye with the bishops. He sees. Do we?

 (Fr. Carmelo O. Diola is a secular priest of the Archdiocese of Cebu. He is also Overall Steward of the Dilaab movement. It, among others, promotes good governance. He can be contacted at [email protected] or 09173248388. Or visit www.dilaab.net). (FREEMAN)