The debate on H.B. 5304 (RH bill) would have been very informative and enlightening to our legislators and the public in general if the issues raised by those against its passage are met head on, directly refuted and clearly shown to be erroneous. Unfortunately however, they have been muddled by evasive, fallacious and misleading arguments or sometimes, by resort to personalities.
Foremost of these issues is the bill’s promotion of the use of artificial contraceptives. Scientific tests and actual experience in countries allowing their use have shown that some of these contraceptives (IUD, Depo Provera, Norplant, RHU 486, emergency morning after pills) directly cause abortion or the expulsion and killing of the foetus. Although the bill states that “abortion continues to be a crime” the bill does not however specifically and expressly ban this abortion causing artificial contraceptives. On the contrary, it even penalizes with fine or imprisonment, health care providers who do not administer or promote their use by women with two or more children.
In answer to this scientific fact about artificial contraceptives, the proponents could only cite the U.S. theory that the crime of abortion occurs only from the time of implantation of the ovum in the uterus because that is the only time when life allegedly begins. This theory however even directly contravenes the constitutional provision protecting the life of the unborn from the moment of conception, which takes place before the implantation (usually six days according to international medical experts). Adopting this theory, even shows that the real intent of the RH bill is to legalize abortion as in the U.S.
The use of artificial contraceptives is further justified by diverting our attention to, and pointing out the ineffectiveness of the natural family planning methods to control our growing population since it is allegedly “too difficult, cumbersome and needs much discipline and spirituality” especially for “so many poor and uneducated couples”. According to this argument, since these poor are “already deprived of so many things” we should not “make their lives even more miserable” by depriving them of “love-making when they spontaneously feel like doing so”. Hence they should be allowed to use artificial contraceptives in lieu of the difficult and cumbersome natural methods.
The trouble with this argument is that: (1) it uses poverty as a justification to commit abortion with the use of these abortion-causing artificial contraceptives; (2) it assumes that these artificial contraceptives are fail safe when the truth is that in countries where they are used, so many unwanted pregnancies nevertheless occur; (3) due to these unwanted pregnancies the poor couples may even resort to clandestine and unsafe abortion thus it even causes the rise in abortion cases that are already so numerous; (4) it exposes the poor couple to serious and more expensive health problems as it has already been proven that these contraceptives result in other more harmful sickness and physical defects of the women and children; and (5) it may unfortunately lead the poor and uneducated couples to believe that few moments of pleasure will make their lives less miserable.
Indeed poverty has been used as an excuse for so many wrongs committed in our society. Now the RH bill proponents are using alleviation of poverty which is allegedly due to overpopulation as the reason for passing the bill that promotes abortion. This argument is misleading because: (1) our population may admittedly be growing since we are inhabited by men and women of reproductive age. But it is not growing unabated since our population growth rate has slowed down and is steadily decelerating as statistics show; (2) poverty is not caused by our growing population but by a combination of many factors particularly greed, government corruption and inefficiency, uneven distribution or misuse of resources, lack of technology, waste and even natural disasters or wars.
The use of these abortion causing artificial contraceptives is also being justified on the ground that it is supposedly based on an informed choice made by women who are merely afforded their freedom to pick out from among a wide range of natural and artificial methods of birth control. It is argued that as long as there is adequate information on reproductive health and services, women should be left alone to choose their own methods based on their well informed and responsible consciences.
The fallacies of this argument are that: (1) conscience guided by information is not a safe guide since the information given may be wrong as what is happening now in some false ads on TV and radio. Indeed “a conscience is a safe guide only when God is the guide of the conscience”; (2) the element of coercion in the bill in the form of penalty on health care providers who refuse to administer or promote artificial contraceptives on women with two or more children already, actually negates this alleged free choice; and (3) opposing a woman’s freedom to choose these abortion-causing artificial contraceptives is not opposing a right but opposing a wrong. Indeed any civilized society should restrict the individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm or kill another innocent and helpless human being as in abortion.
Finally, it has been correctly pointed out that 3/4 of Filipino taxpayers are Catholics. So it is thus unfair for the RH bill to appropriate and use their money to purchase and coercively promote and administer these artificial contraceptives which is against their conscience.
Hence if this RH bill is really for the reproductive health of women and their children, it should ban this abortion causing artificial contraceptives. I doubt however if the authors will do that.