More harm than good

Reports say that PNoy is submitting to Congress as one of his priority bills an alleged “Responsible Parenthood” (RP) bill. It is not clear however whether said bill contains the same provisions as the RH bill filed in the past and present Congress. But since it has a different title then it should once more pass through the usual legislative mill and referred to the proper committee which has to conduct public hearings so that interested parties can examine its contents and express their views on them.

Since the RP bill uses the phrase “responsible parenthood” which is originally formulated by the Church, then its contents must substantially conform to the concept envisioned by the Church. In other words, this RP bill at least should not provide for the universal distribution of all methods of birth control including abortifacient pills, injections and IUDs; it should not provide for mandatory comprehensive sex education beginning from the fifth grade that will surely “destroy the innocence of the children and get them ‘hooked’ on contraception”; it should not provide for heavy fines and imprisonment for Catholic and other hospital personnel who refuse to distribute contraception or perform sterilizations; and it should not provide for imprisonment of anyone who disseminates ‘malicious information’ about the bill which certainly includes those who oppose the bill.

If it contains the above provisions, then its title must not be “Responsible Parenthood” bill. It should still be called Reproductive Health (RH) bill. Changing its title without changing its contents is deceptive and smacks of an attempt to conceal the real nature of the bill as envisioned by its original title of “reproductive health” which, no less than Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton openly say, “includes contraception, family planning and access to legal and safe abortion”. Definitely, limiting the number of children for economic and other just reasons by freely choosing and using contraceptives that leads to abortion is not “responsible parenthood”.

Indeed the existence of the link between contraception and abortion has long been established and recognized since the 1950s by high profile abortion advocates themselves like Alfred Kinsey, Beckworth Whitehouse and Christopher Tietze. Malcolm Potts, the former medical director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPFF) which is the foremost promoter of abortion, said in 1979 that “as people turn to contraception, there will be a rise and not a fall in the abortion rate”.

The US Supreme Court, while upholding the right to abortion in the 1992 case of IPPF vs. Casey, expressly said that “in some critical respects, abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception. For two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on availability of abortion in the event contraception fails.

And in a recent article, “Contraception Linked to Massive Rise in Abortion Rate” (LifeSiteNews.com, January 5,2011), Patrick B. Craine once more cited the “long recognized and documented scientific fact that almost all contraceptives routinely fail at statistically significant rates resulting in unplanned pregnancies”. Then he quoted Dr. Irving, who asked: is there any wonder that elective abortions are socially required in order to take care of such accidents? Thus abortion has become a contraceptive in and of itself”.

Indeed in a recent study out of Spain that came out in the January 2011 journal entitled Contraception, surveys conducted every 2 years from 1997, of about 2,000 Spanish women aged 15 to 49, show that the number using contraceptives increased from 49.1% to 79.9%. Yet in the same time frame, abortion rate more than doubled from 5.52 per 1,000 women to 11.49. Obviously this is because as Mr. Craine concluded “contraception results in greater sexual activity and because contraception fails so consistently, in more unwanted pregnancies. This in turn leads to more abortions”.

But aside from abortion, there are other grave side effects of oral contraceptives that have been medically proven. Studies of known medical doctors particularly Dr Chris Kalenhorn and Joel Brind show the cancer risks of birth control pills such as breast and cervical cancer. Then it can also cause heart disease like hardening of the arteries that leads to stroke. The children of mothers who take the pills also take the risk of prostate cancer and bladder disease. So many medical analyses have shown that these pills are more dangerous to mother and children. Making them available as means of controlling birth for purposes of family planning certainly will bring more harm than good to our population.

Admittedly, I have not read all the contents of the RP bill. But as a precaution, it is better to voice once more the objectionable portions of the previous bill that has been considered by the past Congress commonly known and denominated as RH bill. In fact, hearings on the same RH bill have already been conducted and allegedly concluded. Hopefully the priority bill coming from Malacanang is not exactly the same as that RH bill except for the title. If it is, then the Palace boys should take it off from their list of priority bills and seriously re-study the dire consequences of introducing contraceptives and artificial birth control devices and making them available for free.

The emotional reason that has always been advanced for the introduction of these contraceptives has been to help the poor in planning their families by limiting the number of their babies to feed and take care of. But as shown above, contraceptives are really not helping them. The best way to help them and to fight poverty in this land is by eliminating corruption and promoting social and economic justice by bridging the gap between the rich and the poor.

E-mail us at [email protected]