In case of doubt…choose life

One of the most controversial legislations in the history of our Congress is undoubtedly the Reproductive Health law. So far, this is the only law of foreign origin that was drafted and first introduced here more than 15 years ago by foreign groups and International organizations used by the US to advance its hidden agenda of controlling the population growth in developing countries because they threaten its economic and security interests (1974 Kissinger Report or the National Social Security Memorandum [NSSM] 200).

The original foreign draft was adopted by some foreign funded local non-government organizations (NGOs) particularly the Philippine Legislative Council on Population Development (PLCPD) and the Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP). They drew up a local version based on said draft and recruited some legislators in both Houses of Congress to sponsor it. Its real purpose was further concealed by making it appear as a measure designed to promote the reproductive health of women and enable them to plan the size of their families by using artificial birth control devices and contraceptives manufactured by foreign pharmaceutical companies.

The bill has been introduced, discussed, shelved and re-introduced in several Congresses but was never voted upon and enacted into law obviously because of its doubtful constitutionality. It became a law only when the President of this country actively intervened and openly supported the bill by unduly pressuring members of Congress to pass it. He even certified the bill as “urgent” following a one-on-one meeting with US President Obama at the White House Oval Office during his State visit to said country last year. This chain of circumstances shows that it was enacted because of the open and active support of the President of this country to accommodate another head of State who is known worldwide as a staunch advocate of abortion.

But the more telling circumstance showing the link between this law and the foreign pressure groups promoting population control through abortion in developing countries like the Philippines is the congratulatory message extended by Melinda Gates to P-Noy when the bill was finally passed by the last Congress. Melinda Gates is the wife of multi-billionaire Bill Gates who have been actively supporting Obama’s project in this connection by donating billions of dollars through their Foundation. Indeed, no less than Obama’s former State Secretary Hillary Clinton has confirmed that “reproductive health is really abortion.”

The law’s connection to abortion is further manifested when the controversy surrounding its constitutionality reached the Supreme Court (SC). At the hearing of the 16 petitions filed questioning the bill’s validity, some of the justices raised the issue of when life begins, or the meaning of conception as contemplated in Section 12, Article II of the Constitution which requires the State to “equally protect the life of the mother and of the unborn from the moment of conception.”

This is the same issue brought up by the sponsors of the law in Congress to refute the claim that it is promoting abortion. They contended that life begins upon implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus of the mother’s womb and not upon fertilization of the egg by the sperm when the human embryo or the zygote is formed. And so they claimed that when the RH law allows and even subsidizes the use of contraceptives preventing implantation of the fertilized egg, it is not legalizing abortion. Notably, this is the very same contention advanced in the case of Roe vs. Wade that led to the legalization of abortion in the US.

Now some of the SC justices are also raising this issue and expressing the view that the petition should be dismissed because it is actually asking them to resolve a medical or scientific question of “when life begins,” which they claimed is not within their competence and authority to rule on. With this kind of stance, the legalization of abortion by Congress will not be far behind. They are in effect “washing their hands off” and allowing the implementation of a law based on a very technical issue that is not actually an issue at all.

This is no longer an issue and the SC is not being asked to resolve this medical question anymore because the Constitutional Commission itself which framed the Charter has already made clear that human life begins from the moment of conception when the egg and the sperm merge at fertilization to form the zygote. From that moment the woman becomes pregnant with an unborn child who has a basic right to life which the State is mandated to protect in much the same way as infants and children.

So one of the real and the main issues in this case is whether the RH law is valid despite the fact that, as admitted by the law’s sponsors themselves, it provides universal access to contraceptive devices and drugs or pills preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus of the mother’s womb. There is no doubt that the answer here is a resounding NO. In fact considering further, the ill effects of all contraceptives on the health of the mother and child some of which have been found to be carcinogenic, with more reason should the RH law be junked by the SC.

Actually, even if some SC Justices have doubts on when life begins, they must still resolve the question in favor of life. Their situation now can be compared to a hunter who heard noises beneath the bush but was not sure whether they are coming from his prey or from his fellow hunters. Fearing that he might kill a fellow human being, he opted not to fire his shotgun. He resolved his doubt in favor of life.

The general welfare of our children and the succeeding generation therefore lies on the choice to be made by our SC Justices on this vital issue.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]