
Originally Posted by
john_dux
he may be the author but.. i dont trust the guy.
Neither do I. Lagman was lying, of course, when he said that population control was not the main purpose of the Bill. I'm glad you saw through his smokescreen. He was also lying when he said that the Bill would not promote abortion, because it actually does.
Why the hell would they mention anything of recommended number of children if population was not an issue beh?
Like you said, Lagman cannot be trusted. You were correct there. He was lying.
sa RH-bill agree ko but naa ko slight probs with it
It's great that you have an open mind. That means there can be a real discussion. Most of the other pro-RH people here are just too fanatical and just want to conduct a smear campaign against the Church.
I would like to note that there are some sections of the Bill that are GOOD. I would specifically point to section 6 (Midwives for Skilled Attendance) and section 7 (Emergency Obstetric Care) as having good ideas. These two sections just need to be improved because the Bill does NOT provide for proper funding and institutional support for the provisions in these two sections. If this were done and implemented we could significantly lower maternal and child mortality (which are supposed to be two of the objectives of this Bill).
These good sections of the Bill have been noted by members of the Church. Allow me to quote the "Open Letter of International Catholic Educators to the 14 Ateneo Professors" on this matter:
Finally, it must be emphasized that there are two sections in the bill that should be applauded and expanded. Both Section 6 and Section 7 call for the expansion of midwives and birth attendants, as well as greater access to obstetric care. Such measures are critical to reducing maternal mortality and making progress toward the Millennium Development Goals, particularly MDG 5 (maternal health) and MDG 4 (infant health). Healthy mothers are the critical factor in assuring infant and child health.[11]
Unfortunately, these two sections are the weakest in the bill. Most of the reproductive health proposals of the bill are mandatory and supported through financial means, as well as through the creation of new government agencies to assure implementation. Sections 6 and 7 of the Bill, which provide the only concrete health care and services to prevent or eliminate maternal mortality, are not mandatory, and the bill earmarks neither institutional support systems nor finances for their implementation. The POPCOM, which is established in Section 5 to implement and oversee the commitments outlined in the bill, has nine specific areas related to reproductive health and reproductive health services, yet no explicit mention of any responsibility in the area of maternal and ObGyn care. This most important section of the bill - and the only section actually consistent with Catholic social teaching - has been entirely neglected in the allocation of responsibilities to the agency established to oversee its implementation.
Unfortunately, most of the Bill is really about funding and forcing the distribution of artificial/abortifacient contraceptives and services. There is a growing body of evidence that shows that certain types of contraceptives (such as all hormonal contraceptives and the IUD) can cause an abortion. I have compiled some evidence proving the existence of abortifacient contraceptives at the URL below:
The Bill, sadly, directly funds these types of abortifacient contraceptives. That is why we properly refer to it as the RH/Abortion Bill.
Allow me to offer some stuff to think about.

--
PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS AND THE LIVES OF THE UNBORN.
NO TO THE TOTALITARIAN RH/ABORTION BILL (HB 5043)
Please sign the online petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)
http://www.petitiononline.com/xxhb5043/