Facts, fallacies and counter facts on RH Bill

Our friend, former Speaker Jose de Venecia, had a blitzkrieg in Cambodia last week, addressing three speaking engagements before the Asian Economic Forum, the Asian Interfaith Dialogue, and the University of Cambodia which conferred on him an honorary doctorate in International Relations, together with Cambodian First Lady, Madame Hun Sen.

Joe revived the proposal for Asian Monetary Fund, which he acknowledged as a Japanese initiative, to complement and not to compete with the International Monetary Fund. He explained that Asia has in excess of US$3 trillion, far larger than the combined reserves of the G-7 countries. He also proposed the creation of an Asian Anti-Poverty Fund and an Asian Micro-Finance Fund as part of what he called an Asia-wide financial stimulus package, with the poorest among Asia’s urban and rural slums as beneficiaries with Grameen-type loans of US$100 to US$1,000, and who never had access to the World Bank or the Asian Development Bank.

Joe, ever the statesman, said Premier Hun Sen and Deputy Premier Soc An, during their meeting, expressed their full support to President Arroyo’s call for an economic summit at the sidelines of the Asia-Europe leaders meeting in Beijing.

* * *

The Reproductive Health Bill (HB 5043) has four policy pillars — responsible parenthood, informed choice, birth spacing and respect for life. People opposed to it have twisted facts about the objectives of the bill.

Below are the fallacies promoted about the bill, and the counterfacts, as taken from a publication of Likhaan, a women’s NGO, which cites studies and figures from the World Health Organization, United Nations Children’s Fund, Department of Health, and scientists and demographers.

1. Fallacy: There is no overpopulation problem; the “carrying capacity” of the country is not compromised; it is all a problem of malgovernance.

Counterfact: Economic experts say that while bad governance, high wealth and income inequality and weak economic growth are the main causes of poverty, rapid population growth and high fertility rates do exacerbate poverty and make it harder for the government to address it.

At the family level, the “carrying capacity” of women and couples have long been compromised, resulting in their physical, psychological and economic harm. Eleven Filipinas die daily from pregnancy and childbirth, while 1100 encounter life-threatening maternal complications. For every woman who dies, her orphaned children have three to 10 times the risk of dying during the first 28 days of life. Almost half of all pregnancies are unplanned or unintended, and one of six are ended in unsafe abortion — about 473,00 a year.

2. Fallacy: The bill imposes population control.

Counterfact: The bill, in fact, is founded on informed choice. While it promotes an “ideal family size of 2,” there is no compulsion or punishment for those who have more. Women who want to be pregnant will be assisted to deliver safely; women and couples who want to regulate the number of their children and those having difficulty conceiving will also be assisted accordingly.

3. Fallacy: Family planning leads to “demographic winter” (a future scenario where there are only old people and no children).

Counterfact: The claim of having 0 children in the future is false. The prediction of replacement fertility or 2 children per couple by the year 2040 in the Philippines mean that there will be many children by then. This cock-eyed concern for the plight of children in the future betrays gross insensitivity to the plight of neglected children today.

4. Fallacy: The bill promotes DEATH through abortion, or through the contraceptive mentality that leads to abortion.

Counterfact: The bill explicitly maintains the current law that criminalizes abortion (sec. 3m), forbids it and warns young people about its dangers (Sec. 12d). However, it adopts a humane approach to women suffering complications of induced abortion by offering post-abortion care (secs. 3m, 4g4, and 12d). The bill also seeks to prevent abortion (sec. 4g4) through family planning.

Experiences in other countries, e.g. Russia, Korea, Turkey and Bangladesh, show that eliminating the “root cause” of abortion — unwanted pregnancy — actually reduces the incidence of abortion.

5. Fallacy: Contraceptives are abortifacients, especially pills and Intrauterine Device (IUD).

Counterfact: Pregnancy is deemed by health authorities as part of the continuum of human reproduction that is established at “implantation,” i.e. when the fertilized egg attaches to the wall of the uterus. The proof positive that a woman is pregnant — the pregnancy test — is due to the increased amounts of the hormone, HCG, which is released by the fertilized egg as it attaches to the uterus. Contraception is the prevention of pregnancy before it starts, i.e., implantation. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy before the fetus is capable of surviving outside the uterus.

Contraceptives are drugs or devices that are postulated to work in three ways: preventing the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation), preventing the union of egg and sperm (fertilization), and preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall (implantation). Pills are known to work primarily by preventing ovulation although it has the potential to also prevent fertilization and implantation. IUDs are known to work primarily by preventing fertilization, although it also has the potential for preventing implantation and ovulation. Once a woman is pregnant, contraceptives cannot terminate the pregnancy.

Pure breastfeeding in the first six months after delivery — the Lactational Amenorrhes Method (LAM) — works, like the pill, primarily to prevent ovulation. But it also thins out the lining of the uterus which can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

My column on Tuesday, answers questions on whether contraceptives are harmful, and sex education promoting promiscuity.

* * *

My e-mail: [email protected]