Nation's conscience

At this time, when the Congressional committees are again conducting a hearing on the proposed RH bill (HB 96), its proponents should abandon their previous “non-negotiable” stance. They should not insist on the passage of the bill as drafted especially because said bill has been drafted by foreign funded groups with agendas that are not purely for the Filipinos’ general welfare and best interest. The committees’ function here is not only to consider the merits of the arguments for or against the said bill as worded and decide on rejecting or recommending its passage depending on which side has the stronger and more convincing arguments. They can, and should, come up with another bill incorporating the good points and proposals coming from both sides.

P-Noy’s decision to have a dialogue with the CBCP is a step in the right direction towards this end. Apparently P-Noy and the CBCP are on the opposite sides of the fence. P-Noy admittedly favors the RH bill while the Bishops oppose it. Their dialogue will surely end the controversy and break the impasse. By its very nature dialogue opens the lines of communication between the clashing sides and allows them to consider each other’s position by talking on the same wave lengths.

In this connection, some “talking points and proposals” issued and filed on July 1, 2010 jointly by the Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues and authored by renowned Jesuits, Fr. Eric O. Genilo, Fr. John J. Carroll and Fr. Joaquin Bernas, may be useful and helpful in the on-going dialogue. In what they termed as “critical and constructive engagement” they asked the proponents and opponents of the Bill to work together to amend its objectionable provisions and retain the provisions that actually improve the lives of Filipinos particularly those that will change the “status quo of high rates of infant mortality, maternal deaths and abortions”.

These talking points and proposals actually deal with the constitutional provisions on the protection of human life, the primary right and duty of parents in the education of their children, the equal protection clause, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, among others. Fr. Bernas, S.J. must have already written extensively about this matter in his column in another newspaper and our legislators may have been furnished copies thereof, so reiterating them here is no longer necessary.

But also worth writing about is this apparently sound, well-founded and well-expressed comments and observations sent by Dr. Angel C. de Dios, PhD, associate professor, Department of Chemistry, Georgetown University in Washington D.C. In his essay entitled “Birth Control versus Population Control” Dr. de Dios wrote:

“My problem is not birth control. It is population control. Population control takes the bedroom scene out into society. Population control has a social agenda, a clear objective. Having such a clear aim makes it very different from birth control. It is no longer individual. It is now a social matter, transcending the private bedroom of a couple. Choices are no longer free if it is clear that population control is the objective. Yes, there is a choice between artificial and natural method — but the choice not to do either is lost. It may not be 100 percent coercive, but clearly it is no longer 100 percent free.

In the context of population control, contraceptives are essential medicines and unwanted pregnancy is then considered a disease. The ideal size of a family would be both consciously and subconsciously imprinted on all members of society. Medical professionals and health care workers would no longer see the offer of family planning as a service, but as an obligation and as an order to fulfill the goals of population control. A movement of population control that specifically targets the rural poor exposes itself to a great potential of abuse, overzealousness and coercion (even it if is not authorized or sanctioned by the proposed bill).

The Philippines does not need the RH Bill if it was only about birth control. Birth control is not illegal in the Philippines. Increasing access to birth control is not illegal in the Philippines. The national government and local government units can already do this without a bill. The government does not need a bill to promote maternal health. The government does not need a bill to reduce child mortality. These are actions we already expect a government should do for its citizens. What is new in the bill is population control. And that is what I am strongly against.

There are times when we feel that we are so overwhelmed by a problem, we are very much tempted to take the easy way out instead of hitting the problem directly. Population growth is evident in the developing countries. The developed countries have much lower population growth rate. What is amazing here is that the developed countries began their reduction in birth rate before contraceptives were widely used. Poverty, oppression of the poor, unequal distribution of income and opportunities, corruption in government, poor education are the causes of a high population growth rate. It is not the other way around.

Birth control should not be made population control. Birth control may well be a matter of individual conscience but population control deals with the conscience of a nation.”    

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]