Confusing the issues

The RH law is really one of the most controversial and very divisive legislations passed by Congress. Its enactment into law did not end the controversy and division among our countrymen. On the contrary, the dispute worsened and even reached the Supreme Court (SC) before the law can be implemented. This is really an unprecedented development in the history of law-making in our country which is lamentable because it could have been avoided.

It could have been avoided if the law is clearly and categorically in accordance with the Constitution. But obviously it is not, because the SC which is entrusted to uphold our Constitution still chose to look into its constitutionality and even stopped its immediate implementation.

Unfortunately, even in the SC there is an attempt to confuse the issues. The question of “when life begins” is still being raised and debated when it is already accepted and well settled that life begins from conception or upon fertilization or fusion of the male sperm and the female egg to form a zygote, the biological term for a fetus. Indeed this is the concept accepted by the framers of the charter when they provided in Section 12 Article II that the State shall “equally protect”… the “life of the unborn from conception”.

Hence the validity of the RH law should have been decided on the basis of whether it protects the fertilized ovum or the zygote. Yet its authors and backers are still claiming that conception does not mean fertilization of the ovum but implantation of the fertilized ovum in the mother’s womb. And worse is their claim that life does not actually begin from conception or fertilization of the egg by the sperm but when the embryo has been infused with a “soul”, even citing the religious belief of one of the great doctors of the Church, to prove a legal stand.

This is again another clear attempt to further confuse the issue by resorting to immoderate hair- splitting in the use of the words “life” and “soul”. What we are talking about here is not the infusion of the soul in the embryo but the beginning of life that the Constitution seeks to protect precisely because it already has, or will surely have a soul. In fact these words are interchangeably used since they are stages happening in split seconds or perhaps even simultaneously.

The law actually promotes “contraception” as a means of limiting the family size in the exercise of “responsible parenthood”. Its authors and backers have repeatedly pointed out that “contraception” is really “contra conception” or preventing the fertilization of the egg by the sperm. Hence, according to them, it is not an abortion law because no life has yet been formed. With this argument, they themselves already recognize that the beginning of life is from conception.

The truth however is that not all contraceptives merely prevent the fertilization of the egg by the sperm. In fact most of them induce the destruction of the fetus and/or prevent its implantation in the mother’s womb. Yet the law itself in Section 4 (q) provides “access to full range of methods, facilities, services and supplies that contribute to reproductive health and well being”.

Actually, the law’s authors and supporters frequently refer only to condoms and IUDs as the contraceptives preventing fertilization. But it cannot be denied that they are not also fully effective or fool proof. In fact even without the RH law and for several years now, the DOH has already been allotting billions of pesos to purchase and freely provide and distribute these contraceptives particularly condoms in various public places including bus stations. Yet recent statistics show the continuing rise in HIV/AIDs cases to almost epidemic proportions.

The law’s supporters are now even claiming that if it is already in effect there would been no alarming rise in teenage pregnancies and maternal deaths as recently reported in the papers. They say that these morally and physically damaging incidents would not have happened if these adolescents were given the proper and sufficient education on sex and reproductive health and also afforded the right to use contraceptives for safe and satisfying sex as provided in the law.

The truth however is that long before the law was passed public schools have already been conducting sex education pursuant to modules provided by international agencies, while condoms and other contraceptives are already available from the DOH and the open market. In fact some cities and municipalities have already passed and are implementing ordinances containing all the features of the RH law. So there is a rise in teenage pregnancies and maternal deaths precisely because of this sex education and availability of contraceptives in the market which the RH law will in fact require.

But the mother of all deception and duplicity regarding this law is found in the law itself. In Section 2 on “Declaration of Policy” it proclaims that “the State recognizes and guarantees the human rights of all persons including… the right to choose and make decisions for themselves in accordance with their religious convictions, ethics, cultural beliefs”… Yet Section 23 in relation to Section 24, penalizes with imprisonment of one to six months or fine of P10,000 to P100,000 or  both, “any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall (1) knowingly withhold information or restrict the dissemination of programs and services on reproductive health… (2) Refuse to perform legal and medically safe reproductive health procedures on any person of legal age on the ground of lack of consent or authorization of the spouse in case of married persons, or of the parent or the person having parental authority in case of abused minors… and (3) Refuse to extend quality health care and services and information on the ground of the persons…religious convictions.

Truly this is a law full of constitutional infirmities and should therefore be scrapped.

E-mail: attyjosesison@gmail.com