For intelligent debate, publish text of RH bill

BIASES: Let’s admit it: We are all biased when we discuss what is widely known as the Reproductive Health bill, sometimes referred to by President Noynoy Aquino as the Responsible Parenthood measure.

In our democratic space, that is all right. Anyway, after the clash of ideas in good faith, the biases melt and a consensus emerges to guide not only the majority but also the entire community.

The problem is that sometimes our biases arise from lack of correct information. We are heatedly debating the RH bill, yet many of us have not even read the proposed law.

On the table is House Bill 4244 that the authors want enacted as “The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011.” We should read the consolidated text first.

*      *      *

PUBLISH TEXT: On plain bond paper, the 5,550-word text of HB 4244 runs to 15 pages. I won’t be surprised if many congressmen themselves have not read that important document, having left it to their staff to peruse and comment on.

As if that is not complicated enough, there lies waiting in the Senate another version, SB No. 2378, introduced by Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago. When enacted, she wants a less pretentious title for it: “The Reproductive Health Act.”

At this point, there is no merged Senate-House copy to speak of or to debate on.

Maybe the House of Representatives and the Senate should publish in one blow in the media the full text of their respective bills. That way, we will be in a better position to generate more light than heat in our discussions.

(For my part, I can email my copy of the consolidated HB 4244 to interested readers whose software can handle the large file.)

*      *      *

ALL OR NOTHING: Reading the bill with an open mind, there are many sections that you might like. There will also be some provisions that will make you stop and think hard, and a few lines that you might reject outright.

But for lack of complete information, when we define our stand for or against the RH bill, we say either Yes or No. We take it or reject it in its entirety. The usual separability clause toward the end is only in case the Supreme Court is asked to rule on its constitutionality.

What we should look for in the discussion is the golden mean, the compromise edition that will be acceptable to both sides. Our lawmakers, with all parties watching closely, can work toward this middle ground.

*      *      *

BLIND MEN: Our situation is no different from the predicament of the blind men who were asked to touch that part of an elephant closest to each of them and then describe the animal.

When someone says he likes the RH bill because it makes us understand human sexuality and teaches us responsible parenthood, she may be talking of those sections that she has heard or read about.

When a congressman says he voted for the RH bill because it would help slow down population growth and relieve pressure on our resources, including food, he may have been moved by those parts of the measure that he liked.

When a priest says the RH bill must be rejected because it advocates abortion, it is possible he has not read the full text, or that the definition of terms was not clear enough for him and most people.

*      *      *

SEX SUBJECTS: On the contentious provision on sex education, let me quote from Section 16 on “Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education” which says:

“Age-appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education shall be taught by adequately trained teachers in formal and non-formal education system starting from Grade Five up to Fourth Year High School using life skills and other approaches… The Department of Education, Commission on Higher Education, TESDA, Department of Social Welfare and Development, Department of Health shall formulate the Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education curriculum. Such curriculum shall be common to both public and private schools, out of school youth, and enrollees in the Alternative Learning System based on, but not limited to, the psychosocial and physical wellbeing, demography and reproductive health, and the legal aspects of reproductive health.

“Age-appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education shall be integrated in all relevant subjects and shall include, but is not limited to, the following topics:

“Values formation; Knowledge and skills in self protection against discrimination, sexual violence and abuse, and teen pregnancy; Physical, social and emotional changes in adolescents; Children’s and women’s rights; Fertility awareness; STI, HIV and AIDS; Population and development; Responsible relationship; Family planning methods; Proscription and hazards of abortion; Gender and development; and Responsible parenthood.”

An amendment proposed by Rep. Edcel Lagman, the bill’s original sponsor, added this paragraph: “Parents shall exercise the option of not allowing their minor children to attend classes pertaining to Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education.”

*      *      *

SHE’S NOT BLONDE: Let me close with an RH-related story:

A college class was told to write a short story in as few words as possible. The instructions were: The short story must contain three elements: Religion, Sexuality, and Mystery.

In the entire class, only one charming coed got the top grade of A+ with this masterpiece:

“Good God, I’m pregnant. I wonder who did it.”

(I wonder, too, if she got into her situation because of, or in spite of a la RH sex education. What do you think?)

*      *      *

FOLLOWUP: Access past POSTSCRIPTs at www.manila mail.com. Like POSTSCRIPT on www.facebook.com/manilamail. Or follow @FDPascual on Twitter. E-mail feedback to [email protected].