Everything about : RH Bill ( Reproductive Health Bill)

[rage963]

---

Dictador kaayu ang RC, pugson tag gamit og natural method!!!!

ot: ila sang limpyohon ilang kaugalingon kay daghan jud pari na involve og rape,drugs etc...

nya kabantay mo unsay mga school nga pwereteng mahala sa tuition, mga RC owned school gyud(ateneo,lasalle,USC etc..) dba sacrifice manang ilang e.preach pirmi og help the poor, unsa.on pag help sa poor pwerting mahala sa tuition, bisag sacrifice lang gud sila sa ginansiya....

[em_b]

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL IN THE PHILIPPINES


There are four bills pertaining to reproductive health and/or population management that have been filed for deliberation in both the House of Representatives and the Senate for the 14th Congress. These are House Bill No. 17 authored by Rep. Edcel Lagman, House Bill No. 812 authored by Rep. Janette Garin, Senate Bill No. 40 authored by Sen. Rodolfo Biazon and Senate Bill No. 43 authored by Sen. Panfilo Lacson.


The most controversial of these bills is House Bill No. 17 authored by Rep. Edcel Lagman. This bill, according to Rep. Lagman, promotes information on and access to both natural and modern family planning methods that are medically safe and legally permissible. It assures an enabling environment where women and couples have the freedom of informed choice on the mode of family planning they want to adopt based on their needs, personal convictions and religious beliefs.


House Bill No. 17, also known as the proposed "Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008," will cover the following areas:



information and access to natural and modern family planning;
maternal, infant and child health and nutrition;
promotion of breast feeding;
prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications;
adolescent and youth health; prevention and management of reproductive tract infections, HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases;
elimination of violence against women; counseling on sexuality and sexual and reproductive health;
treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers;
male involvement and participation in reproductive health;
prevention and treatment of infertility; and
reproductive health education for the youth.

The bill is controversial, as it is being opposed by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is against the use of artificial contraceptives.


Rep. Edcel Lagman, however, says that the bill does not have any bias for or against either natural or modern family planning. Both modes are contraceptive methods with a common purpose of preventing pregnancies.


source: Wikepedia

I think this issue is blown out of proportion. What is new to this bill? These contraceptives are legal right now, being used by a lot of us. Go to a pharmacy and there's a ready supply of different contraceptives. Go to Select or maybe Watsons, and you can buy condoms just beside the counter.

The bill just aims to educate the people of these alternatives. It did not force anyone to use contraceptives. God even gave us FREE WILL, to decide for ourselves what we think is good and what we think is right. Church are there to guide us, to always remind us of what is wrong and what is right. Let their power remain that way. Let government do their job, and let the Church guide its people.

Immoral? Not using contraceptives per se will make you moral, right. But bringing a child into the world you cannot afford to support, for some forcing them to squat under bridges, feeding their kids mere noodles 3x a day, forcing their kids to prostitution, living in the streets, these are inhumane. I am not sure if being inhumane is moral, but which is less evil?

I am pro rhb, pro to giving alternatives to our fellow men. Pro to educate them about what contraceptives are, what are the pros and the cons, proper use of these contraceptives to prevent complications resulting to misuse and pro to letting them decide what they think is best for them. If these people thinks that this will make them less a person and immoral, let them decide for themselves.

[jayclint.libres]

[B]I think this issue is blown out of proportion. What is new to this bill? These contraceptives are legal right now, being used by a lot of us. Go to a pharmacy and there's a ready supply of different contraceptives. Go to Select or maybe Watsons, and you can buy condoms just beside the counter.

Exactly, so why spend a portion of the national budget to this? Why not spend it for better health care services?

[em_b]

Exactly, so why spend a portion of the national budget to this? Why not spend it for better health care services?

this is better health care services.

[giddyboy]

Exactly, so why spend a portion of the national budget to this? Why not spend it for better health care services?

that is exactly one of the purpose of the bill. a national budget. and spending funds for reproductive health care & services is also spending it for a better health care services. Health care services in general has so many aspects u know.

coz pgka karon wala pay klarong balaud to give the LGUs funds and guidelines to implement a national RH program. as of now, ga ija ija aho aho ra gyud ron ang mga LGUs ug pangita ug paagi to make their own local RH program versions work but unfortunately this is not enough. that's why we need a comprehensive RH bill that is national in scope. that also avoids confusion and deviations between each LGU's RH programs by creating some sort of clear cut guidelines to follow.

[randzg]

Exactly, so why spend a portion of the national budget to this? Why not spend it for better health care services?

maybe because you need money for implementation or educating the other poor who lives in slums or under bridges and dont have access to this kind of information. how are we gonna educate them without budget?

[giddyboy]

like i said we never know until we try the bill. sir trying a bill and eating manure is different. manure has been proven to be disgusting but we have yet to prove the RH bill to be disgusting. all we have now is paper works and not the works.

@mannyamador has already made a hard-lined stance against some provisions in the RH Bill a long time ago and in fact has been campaigning against it for a long time already. It is his personal advocacy and nothing can convince him otherwise. Coz doing so will be an effort in futility ug ikaw pa cguro nuon ang posible ma convince to his way of ultra-conservative thinking in the long run. from my experience, he is very good in persuasion techniques. so let's just respect his opinion nlng...ky kng sa relihiyon pa na, way kahangturan ang lalis ky di gyud mag abot bsan unsaon pa...take it from me.

[mannyamador]

The most controversial of these bills is House Bill No. 17 authored by Rep. Edcel Lagman.

Take note that the Wikipedia entry is somewhat dated. The consolidated version of this bill in the lower house is HB 5043. The bill number has changed many times.

The bill just aims to educate the people of these alternatives. It did not force anyone to use contraceptives.

I'm afraid that isn't true. The Bill DOES force people to dispense contraceptives.

Section 17 forces employers to provide such abortifacient contraceptives even against their conscience.

Section 21, number 5, requires doctors and health workers to dispense such abortifacient contraceptives and If they refuse to do so on religious grounds, they must still refer those who want to use such abortifacients to another person who will dispense them. Conscientious objectors are thereby required to cooperate in such acts, eliminating any choice for legitimate conscientious objectors.

The bill violates freedom of conscience and religion. These are basic human rights.

that is exactly one of the purpose of the bill. a national budget. and spending funds for reproductive health care & services is also spending it for a better health care services.

But the bill does NOT provide for basic maternal health care. It provides funds for non-essential contraceptives that do not cure any disease. In contrast, the medicines to fight the real killer diseases remain costly, and non-free. The bill's priorities are skewed.

my question stl stands...did it ever in the bill stated that it WILL legalize abortion?

Yes and no. The bill does NOT explicitly legalize surgical abortion. But by funding abortifacient contraceptives, it is a de facto legalization of chemical abortion.

As for the role of contraception in increasing unwanted pregnancies and demand for abortion, see:

• The Evil Cousins: Contraception and Abortion
  http://mamador.wordpress.com/2009/02...-and-abortion/
  
  
• Habit Persistence and Teen ***: Could Increased Access to Contraception have Unintended Consequences for Teen Pregnancies?
  http://www.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/teensex.pdf

Let me quote the second source:

The persistence in sexual activity is such that policies that affect access to contraception will have very different effects in the short run than the long run. Our results suggest that increasing access to contraception may actually increase long run pregnancy rates even though short run pregnancy rates fall. On the other hand, policies that decrease access to contraception, and hence sexual activity, are likely to lower pregnancy rates in the long run.

[jayclint.libres]

this is better health care services.

that is exactly one of the purpose of the bill. a national budget. and spending funds for reproductive health care & services is also spending it for a better health care services. Health care services in general has so many aspects u know.

I this your idea of better health care services? Have you ever been to a government owned hospital?

maybe because you need money for implementation or educating the other poor who lives in slums or under bridges and dont have access to this kind of information. how are we gonna educate them without budget?

Exactly, but why spend our money on this? Sigh.

[em_b]

i never thought dispensing is synonymous to using, and force to dispense to force to use.

precisely the point. it is always the patient and not the doctor who has the last say on how to go about any treatment for that matter. a doctor will just lay you your options. did it say mandatory taking of contraceptives?

that's just me.