Sige i.simplified nako.
If parents are telling their kids not to engage PMS, for their safety (STI); so they wont stray into their education; so they wont hurt emotionally (depress); so they wont get married early; or what so ever parental concerns. Right now without RH we could see contraceptives available in stores nationwide, im not denying that but those contraceptives are not free. Teens are much more likely to adhere to their parent moral authority and also religious institution giving their moral teachings.
Now if RH bill is enacted as a law, and we could see contraceptives available in school (looking from other countries) or elsewhere to cater to adolescent (from ages 11-20) as what written in the bill. Does it not create mix message about PMS? the government guarantees reproductive health rights to all. If there are teens are doing PMS and use those free contraceptives, and let us not forget they are people saying prevailing na gyud ang PMs.. why cant this be a norm in the near future.
And when i said giving RH rights to teens = i meant naay access to contraceptives ang teens, why taggan sila ug access when we should educate or make them AWARE (like what someone said here) not to engage in PMS.
*** ed or no *** the problem is we are giving RH rights to teens; when contraceptives are available there will be more *** thats simple logic, if PMS is rampant why wouldnt it be much more rampant with RHB?
what you mean teaching abstinence by the government will make it a religious stand? i thought mahimong aware and responsible ang mga tao with RHB like many mga pro dire

you be careful with your words ha you are going against pro RH here.
relax lagi, way personalan agree.