Legalize Abortion?

[vp-rakista]

---

no to abortion

yes to pills and condoms

fair enough?

medyo uyon ra ko ani, at least wala moabot sa abortion

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

at if 9 year old na gi rape sa papa dili sad pwede ka abort?

[giddyboy]

at if 9 year old na gi rape sa papa dili sad pwede ka abort?

dili pwede ipa abort bro...

[giddyboy]

Let me make a correction. I did NOT say that certain provisions in the RH bill are illegal which renders the bill unconstitutional. It's sorta the other way around.

I say that certain provisions of the RH bill are unconstitutional (not illegal) because they violate the letter of the Constitution and their proper interpretation of the Constitution as voted on by the Constitutional Commission.

Whether these provisions of the RH Bill are also illegal is a different matter. I'm not claiming they are. In fact, provisions of a new law cannot be "illegal" since, if passed, they supersede any contradicting any provisions in other laws (effectively repealing those provisions). But a new law can be declared unconstitutional if there is reason to do so.

bsan pa unsaon nimo pag tambling2x, what u implied is that when the RH Bill promotes contraceptives in one of their provisions, u mean it renders those provisions unconstitutional. right? But how could that be when those provisions do not even supersede or contradicts any provisions in other laws that have been rendered constitutional?

One RA regulates the sale, dispensation, and/or dispensation of contraceptive drugs and devices. then BFAD has created their own regulatory rules based from that RA. so how could the RH Bill provisions supersede or contradict this RA?

Another RA also regulates the practice of pharmacy and setting standards of pharma education in the Phils. so tell me of any RH Bill provision that supersedes or contradicts this RA too.

then there is this international treaty signed by the phils...ayaw nlng ky taas na.

[oblevion]

Re: SOON-RUIZ signed ABORTION LEGALIZATION...a Mother
did she really sign,.?

[mannyamador]

hat u implied is that when the RH Bill promotes contraceptives in one of their provisions, u mean it renders those provisions unconstitutional. right? But how could that be when those provisions do not even supersede any contradicting provisions in other laws that have been rendered constitutional?

A law is unconstitutional when it contradicts the Constitution. Whether it contradicts other laws is irrelevant.

A law does not have to contradict any other laws (except the Constitution itself) to be unconstitutional. In fact, many laws contradict existing ones and effectively supersede them (some even repeal older laws). This happens all the time.

Awareness of abortifacient contraceptives was not widespread when the BFAD regulations were passed (by the way, they are NOT laws). Now that more people are aware of the deadly effects of these abortifacient contraceptives, these rules can be changed so that they conform to the Constitution. But as I said before, a proceeding must be initiated. either at the administrative level of the BFAD or in the courts. Another (and I think more effective) way is to simply pass an anti-abortifacients law.

then there is this international treaty signed by the phils.

International treaties are inferior to the Constitution. They are irrelevant when deciding if a law is unconstitutional or not. If they are found to be against our Constitution, they are abrogated (but I think they have to pass some kind of direct resolution or act doing so; not sure on the procedure).

[mikoi23]

Education is best and everything will follow ----Discipline----.

[giddyboy]

A law is unconstitutional when it contradicts the Constitution. Whether it contradicts other laws is irrelevant.

A law does not have to contradict any other laws (except the Constitution itself) to be unconstitutional. In fact, many laws contradict existing ones and effectively supersede them (some even repeal older laws). This happens all the time.

Awareness of abortifacient contraceptives was not widespread when the BFAD regulations were passed (by the way, they are NOT laws). Now that more people are aware of the deadly effects of these abortifacient contraceptives, these rules can be changed so that they conform to the Constitution. But as I said before, a proceeding must be initiated. either at the administrative level of the BFAD or in the courts. Another (and I think more effective) way is to simply pass an anti-abortifacients law.

those existing RAs have been constitutionally sound so far. proof of that is there was no SC decision declaring those unconstitutional.

as i said before, one RA provides regulations on dispensing contraceptives. another RA provides regulations on pharmacies and pharma education. and based from these RAs, BFAD made their own internal regulations on what contraceptives are legal and not. and because some contraceptives are BFAD-approved thus legal, there is no reason why these contraceptives cannot be made available and provided by other proposed laws such as this RH Bill.

that's why i said if u have a beef w/ certain contraceptives, barking at the RH Bill is barking at the wrong tree, and thus those against the RH provision is only making a selective condemnation or objection.

ang mas sakto unta is u bark at BFAD's internal rules. they are the ones who approve or disapprove contraceptives. and like u said, make a law on abortifacients to support it. but remember, BFAD is following US Food and Drugs and WHO guidelines to which these contraceptives were categorized. contesting if a contraceptive or device is "abortifacient" based on other expert studies wouldn't only be a localized issue i.e. SC decision but also an international issue as well. to add, u also have to go against pharma companies on that description too.

International treaties are inferior to the Constitution. They are irrelevant when deciding if a law is unconstitutional or not. If they are found to be against our Constitution, they are abrogated (but I think they have to pass some kind of direct resolution or act doing so; not sure on the procedure).

This international treaty (CEDAW) that the Phils signed has been there for quite some time already and no SC decision has found them to be unconstitutional. and because of this, it proves the treaty is relevant to the Consti.

[bodie]

In the first place, the current RH bill does not legalize abortion. It even states that explicitly. The poll is misleading.

[Electromagnetic]

dli gyud nuon maau e legalize ang abortion