Everything about : RH Bill ( Reproductive Health Bill)

[mannyamador]

---

Media, parishioners urged to help explain church's stand on Reproductive Health bill
Updated June 06, 2009 12:00 AM
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx...CategoryId=107

CEBU, Philippines - Writers and broadcasters of media outlets of the Archdiocese of Cebu, like the “Lungsoranon” and the Cebu Catholic Television Network-InTV, are called on to assist the archdiocese in providing the community with more information as to why the Roman Catholic Church has strongly opposed the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill, its provisions allegedly being anti-life and anti-family.

“The Church is only against one thing - the means they would like to use to attend the end is not appropriate,” said Msgr. Cristobal Garcia of the Commission on Worship. This pertains to the use of contraceptives which the Church opposes.

Likewise, lay ministers are urged to help disseminate the campaign in chapels/churches where they respectively serve.

For the youth, Archbishop Ricardo Cardinal Vidal asked them to help harness the capabilities of the Internet and other means of social communications to inform their fellow youngsters about the value of life and true love.

Members of lay organizations and movements are called to print and distribute flyers and other information materials in support of the campaign.

As for teachers and educators, they are urged to educate students on the proper perspective of life and love, while parents are called to nurture their children well.

Further, priests are called to spearhead a massive awareness drive against the bill by bringing the issue at the pulpit and at talks or seminars. -- Johanna T. Natavio/MEEV (THE FREEMAN)



Church hits ‘foreign funding’ for birth control bill
http://www.cbcpnews.com/?q=node/8869

MANILA, May 23, 2009—The Roman Catholic Church hierarchy is taking offense at the foreign intervention for a more aggressive population control program in the country.

Archbishop Paciano Aniceto, Commission on Family and Life head of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), tagged the “resurgence” of international funding agencies as “unethical”.

He cited the following: the US-AID, the European Commission, Australia’s Agency for International Development and even Agencia Espańola de Cooperacion Internacional of Spain.

The funding goes to the maternal health and population management program, a multilateral-funded program in several decades after the government’s suspension of more active population control programs due the pressure of the Catholic Church.

According to the archbishop, these agencies are also key players in pressuring lawmakers to pass a controversial “reproductive health” bill while linking increased aid to its passage.

“Unmindful of the already sharply decreasing rate of population growth in the Philippines after 39 years of unrelenting and well funded population control programs, still these international birth control groups foist upon our country their agenda for population reduction to a level that courts national peril,” he said.

Aniceto said billions of pesos have been committed and earmarked for release in the coming months, whereby funds will continue to be channeled to local government units and NGOs.

At a UN meeting on population decline, the Philippines was listed among 74 countries as "intermediate-level fertility." The meeting noted that if current trends persisted, those countries were expected to reach below replacement fertility levels.

The prelate said developments will threaten economic security in such countries with the first impact being felt in health and welfare systems.

He lamented that hefty funding which should be spent for authentic maternal, infant and child care, basic hygienic systems and measures are instead poured into contraceptives and birth control devices.

“Is this good for economic development?” asked Aniceto.

Foreign funding agencies claimed they are concerned with the fast growth rate of the Philippine population.

With this scenario, funding agencies believe it will be difficult for the government to address poverty and achieve sustainable economic growth unless an effective population management program is implemented.

The head of the delegation of the European Commission in the Philippines, Ambassador Alistair MacDonald, reportedly has intervened in a contentions legislative debate, pushing Filipino lawmakers to pass the RH bill.

Speaking at a forum sponsored by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) to promote the Reproductive Health Care Act of 2008 in Manila recently, MacDonald chided the legislators for failing to pass the bill.

He called the “provision of effective and accessible” reproductive health services “a responsibility of the State towards the people of the Philippines.”

Australia-AID and Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional, the global aid agency of Spain's socialist government also called for passage of the bill at the UNFPA forum. (Roy Lagarde)

[giddyboy]

No. You are wrong. Even using the Pearl Index, the condom has a higher failure rate.

----------------------------------------------------
2. Pearl Indices for Various Family Planning Methods
----------------------------------------------------
Method             Pearl Index -      Pearl Index -
                   'Perfect Use'      'Actual Use'
----------------------------------------------------

Natural Family 
Planning (NFP)         0.3                2.8

Male Condom             3                 12

Source: NFP Information Site

c'mon. u only wanted to show which studies have lower failure rates so that arguments will favor u...

i myt be careless enough to base on one source from wiki but,

ACTUALLY, some studies on STM have found actual failure rates of 25% per year or higher. At least one study has found a failure rate of less than 1% per year with continuous intensive coaching and monthly review, and several studies have found actual failure rates of 2-3% per year.

kabalo ka ngano dili mgkapareho?

it's because the big variances in results is due to different methods of sampling/study, and, conscious user non-compliance, i.e., the couple knowing that the woman is likely to be fertile at the time, but engaging in sexual intercourse nonetheless. but im not saying the condom has no similar failures too.

but as compared to the STM, the typical failure rate of the condom has a shorter spread of, say, 10-15%. while STM ranges from 1-25%, a bigger spread.

Disadvantages of STM

1. Fertility awareness does not protect against sexually transmitted disease (including HIV).

2. Some drugs, such as decongestants, can change cervical mucus. In women taking these drugs, the mucus sign may not accurately indicate fertility.

3. Some symptoms-based methods require tracking of basal body temperatures. Because irregular sleep can interfere with the accuracy of basal body temperatures, shift workers (like those in call centers) and those with very young children, for example, might not be able to use those methods.

4. To reduce pregnancy risk to below 1% per year, there are an average of 13 days where abstinence must be used during each cycle.

5. For women with very irregular cycles — such as those common during breastfeeding, peri-menopause, or with hormonal diseases such as PCOS - abstinence may be required for months at a time.

6. Consistent intensive coaching needed. Multiple charting. (suwayi na sa kabukiran doh)

that's why i said, combination of different methods works better than using only one: say, u can use the condom on fertile days while STM on non-fertile days. and not only that, proper education and information in using these methods is also an important key.

[giddyboy]

These laws and treaties are totally irrelevant as to whether HB 5043 (the anti-life RH bill) is constitutional. The Constitution itself is the relevant document.

The anti-life RH bill is patently unconstitutional since it violates Section II, Article 12 of the Constitution. The intent of the Constitutional Commission of this provision is the primary reference for the interpretation of Section II, Article 12, and here we find that the Constitution is intended to protect life from conception (fertilization). Any new laws that violate this are unconstitutional. Other existing laws (not part of the Constitution) and treaties are absolutely irrelevant and may also be declared unconstitutional.

c'mon, don't make another strawman here.

we are talking here about "artificial contraceptives". why in the hell are they not relevant to other existing laws? Contraceptives are basically the common denominator in all these existing laws including the proposed RH Bill. so why is it that u don't want contraceptives being available in the RH Bill when existing laws and BFAD regulations have permitted them so? that's selective objection my friend thru downplaying by saying these are irrelevant and insignificant. That's also lying thru omission.

u might say these existing laws "may be" declared unconstitutional. what the? that is just all talk and no walk my friend...argumentum ad ignorantium.

in fact, they are not, were not, and have not been declared unconstitutional.

[giddyboy]

Condoms were never emphasized during the successful campaign in Uganda. It was behavioral change (abstinence and fidelity) that made the difference.

c'mon. don't lie thru ur teeth here. here's even part of your article:

Abstract

Background: Although consistent condom use is effective in reducing individual risk for HIV infection, the public health impact of condom promotion in a generalized epidemic is less clear."

and here:

"Leaders adopted a comprehensive behavior-change approach that focused simultaneously on abstinence, partner reduction and condom use, as well as on reducing stigma and increasing testing and treatment. As a
result of this pioneering initiative, HIV prevalence declined from 18% in 1992 to an estimated 5% in 2001."

they didn't emphasize?

Although an increase in sexual abstinence has been highlighted as a primary cause of the declines, large increases have also been recorded in monogamy and condom use.

and remember, the Ugandan gov't RH program was emphasizing reduction in HIV. this goes to show that they didn't have a RH program depending only on NFP but a combination of both NFP and MFP.

again, i've said this before and i will say this again: Sexual and Reproductive Health programs depends on the multi-pronged approach to make it successful.

Condom-only drives are not enough. NFP-only drives are not enough. It has to be comprehensive like in the Uganda case. Same with the proposed RH Bill that promotes both MFP and NFP.

[giddyboy]

That's just the bill's "press release." It's propaganda. The RH bill provides only lip service for NFP and basic health services. But the bill provides actual funds for abortifacient and artificial contraceptives and forces people to dispense them. The bill is biased toward contraceptives and populaion control. That's what the proposed bill is all about really

and u think yours is not propaganda too? that's ad hominem. that's ad nauseam. that's appeal to fear. that's appeal to prejudice. that's black and white fallacy. that's demonizing and labeling. that's disinformation and half-truths. that's flag-waving. that's making glittering generalities.

anyways, that is your right man sab. u have the right to be against the RH Bill and speak, as much as the other people have the right to be in support of the RH Bill and speak too. Propaganda is to sell ur idea or other's idea in a rhetorical fashion.

But unfortunately, me and others here saw your deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers your desired intent - to which we cannot buy - bsan tagaan pa ug discount.

Nya tanawa, mas maayo paman diay ninyog utok ang Uganda: they incorporated NFP into their programs but they are not against condoms or the pill. in fact they are also included in their program, unlike peeps like you who only want to arrogantly say "NFP ONLY!". and to think u take pride by making an example out of this country. shesh!

MATIRA ANG MATIBAY!

YES TO THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!!!

[mannyamador]

that's ad hominem. that's ad nauseam. that's appeal to fear. that's appeal to prejudice. that's black and white fallacy. that's demonizing and labeling. that's disinformation and half-truths. that's flag-waving. that's making glittering generalities.

Those are YOUR tactics. I do not do any of those. I back up my claims with evidence. You don't or you use already-refuted "evidence". You continually creatively interpret the RH bill, when in fact the text of the bill itself shows the very opposite. You have been caught lying over and over again. No wonder you have no credibility.

Nya tanawa, mas maayo paman diay ninyog utok ang Uganda: they incorporated NFP into their programs but they are not against condoms or the pill. in fact they are also included in their program, unlike peeps like you who only want to arrogantly say "NFP ONLY!". and to think u take pride by making an example out of this country.

Now you're making things up. I did not cite Uganda as a showcase for NFP, but for abstinence and fidelity. Granted those are part of NFP, but NFP is much more than that. Condoms were a last resort in Uganda for those who refused to use the first two EMPHASIZED and PRIORITIZED methods: abstinence and fidelity. In any case the studies show that condom programs were a dismal failure in preventing or lessening AIDS infections. What worked was abstinence and fidelity (both lead to fewer partners).

• A Framework of Sexual Partnerships: Risks and Implications for HIV Prevention in Africa
  Edward C. Green 1 , Timothy L. Mah 2 , Allison Ruark 3 , and Norman Hearst 4
  http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0
  
  ABSTRACT
  
  The global diversity of HIV epidemics can be explained in part by types and patterns of sexual partnerships. We offer a typology of sexual partnerships that corresponds to varying levels of HIV-transmission risk to help guide thinking about appropriate behavioral interventions, particularly in the epidemics of sub-Saharan Africa. Declines in HIV prevalence have been associated with reductions in numbers of *** partners, whereas many other prevention strategies have not been demonstrated to reduce HIV transmission at a population level. We suggest a reorientation of current prevention efforts, based on the epidemiology of sexually transmitted HIV epidemics and trends in sexual behavior change. Concurrent sexual partnerships are likely to play a large role in transmission dynamics in the generalized epidemics of East and Southern Africa, and should be addressed through improved behavior-change interventions.
  
  
• Increasing Condom Use Without Reducing HIV Risk: Results of a Controlled Community Trial in Uganda
  http://journals.lww.com/jaids/pages/...&type=abstract
  
  Abstract
  
  Background: Although consistent condom use is effective in reducing individual risk for HIV infection, the public health impact of condom promotion in a generalized epidemic is less clear. We assess the change in condom uptake and number of *** partners after a condom promotion trial in Kampala, Uganda.
  
  Methods: Two similar poor urban communities near Kampala were randomized. One received a condom promotion program that taught condom technical use skills in workshops for men aged 18 to 30 years (n = 297) and encouraged condom use. Men in the control community (n = 201) received a brief informational presentation about AIDS. Participants received coupons redeemable for free condoms from distributors in both communities and completed questionnaires at baseline and 6 months later.
  
  Results: Six-month follow-up was completed for 213 men (71.7%) in the intervention group and for 165 (82.1%) men in the control group. Men in the intervention group redeemed significantly more condom coupons than men in the control group (on average, 110 vs. 13 each; P = 0.002). Men in the intervention group increased their number of *** partners by 0.31 compared with a decrease of 0.17 partners in the control group (P = 0.004). Other measures did not support a net reduction in sexual risk in the intervention community compared with the control community and, in fact, showed trends in the opposite direction.
  
  Conclusions: In this study, gains in condom use seem to have been offset by increases in the number of *** partners. Prevention interventions in generalized epidemics need to promote all aspects of sexual risk reduction to slow HIV transmission.

--
KEEP THE PEOPLE FREE! NO TO THE COERCIVE PROVISIONS OF HB5043!
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[cebulifer]

with our overpopulation... i would like to suggest... the solyent green solution!

look it up!


SOLYENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!

[giddyboy]

No wonder you have no credibility.

oh now u r talking about credibility here. kinsa man kuno dre ang nipabor nimo beh? 1 or 2 ra? AFAIK, ikaw ra man gani cguro nag inusara dre! if u mean credibility where u r the only one talking forever oblivious to the fact that almost everybody is against ur opinions here, well wow!, that's credibility for you gyud. hikhikhik

don't get me wrong. im not against abstinence or fidelity. they are actually good. what im just against is the idea of NFP-only in the Phils where it leaves no other informed choice for the people. what im just against is some peeps holding their morality over others waving them up high like a shining beacon in the night.

and correction: Condoms were not a last resort in Uganda in fighting HIV/AIDS. The last resort was incorporating abstinence and fidelity programs and emphasizing them together w/ condom use.

and another correction: What worked was not only abstinence and fidelity (both lead to fewer partners). What worked actually was incorporating these methods to condom use ALTOGETHER.

anyways, our discussion is getting pretty out of topic, boring, redundant, repetitive, and nowhere to go. mura ranig relihiyon di gyud mag abot.

getting back to the topic:

What is the Role of the Church in the Reproductive Health Bill?

(1) The role of the church is to speak against or in support of the RH Bill by way of direct statements or by rhetoric fashion aka propaganda techniques.

(2) The church can "blackmail" Catholic Filipino people who want to support the bill by denying communion and penalizing excommunication.

(3) The church can legally support groups that are in congruence to their religious beliefs like Pro-life as indirect lobbying against the RH Bill.

(4) The role of the church is also too see itself in the mirror if there have been no violation of women and children reproductive and sexual rights among their clergy.

(5) The role of the church is not to pay business taxes and deny sexuality education in their supposedly non-profit schools. Their role is to sue if the city insists them on paying taxes.

---000---

hey istoryans, what can u say about this book? it think it is related to the topic.

In the book titled Rejection of Pascal's Wager:"A Skeptics guide to Christianity"

The Catholic Church and Contraception

The Church's stand on contraception is even less logical than its stand on abortion. One would naturally assume that anyone totally opposed to abortion would be in favor of contraception. Contraception would thus prevent the unwanted pregnancies that would otherwise have ended in abortions. Yet the Catholic Church is not only opposed to ending unwanted pregnancies, it is also opposed to preventing them.

The Russian Roulette of NFP

A slight modification went into the papal position in the next encyclical, Humanae Vitae. The development of the birth control pills in the fifties had, at last, given the world the most effective method of contraception ever devised. Rather than welcome the development, the Church condemned it. In the Humanae Vitae Pope Paul VI asserted that contraception was to be condemned as much as abortion. He gave three reasons for this condemnation. The first, in line with the earlier encyclical of Pius XI, was that contraception "is a sin against nature." The second reason was that contraception "could open up a broad and easy path to conjugal infidelity." The third reason was even more incoherent than the first two, he asserted that "Men who have become accustomed to using contraceptives could lose their respect for women." Ranke-Heinemann gave the following comment on this reasoning:

"A church that understands human rights chiefly as men's rights and human dignity as male dignity ... should show some restraint when the topic is human dignity, and not impute their lack of respect for women to husbands ... the Church's celibates have no notion of why a husband loves his wife not just physically but spiritually."

It was also in this encyclical that the pope introduced the church approved method of birth control, the so-called "rhythm method" or, more recently, "natural family planning" (NFP for short)...

The Effects of the Anti-Contraception Stance

The Church today is doing its utmost to prevent the spread of contraceptive knowledge in the underdeveloped countries. The result of this action can only mean suffering for the poor in the third world. With more children than they can afford to feed, doubtless starvation, disease and infant deaths will remain a common occurrence in the third world. But then starvation, disease and infant deaths are not "against nature."

The Church actually gives more protection to fictitious children than it does for real one. One would think that any moral philosophy that prohibits the killing of even "potential" children via contraception would oppose war, for in wars real children are killed. But true to its schizophrenic form, the church does not condemn war. In fact, the need to provide sufficient manpower to fight a war was the reason cited by some theologians as a reason against contraception.

This absolute opposition against the use of condoms is felt most strongly in the third world - where the rampant spread of HIV/AIDS continues unabated.

10% of Uganda's population has HIV/AIDS. One would of course argue that abstinence is the ideal to follow but with such large numbers of infected persons, it is certainly prudent to allow other measures that could stop the spread of the dreaded disease. This, of course, is not how the Catholic Church sees the situation. In 2000, the Archbishop of Uganda, Christophe Pierre, called on the country's youth to resist the use condoms.

Similarly Bishop Claudio Hummes of Sao Paolo, Brazil issued a "letter of condemnation" against an Italian Catholic priest, Valeriano Paitoni for his campaign to stop AIDS in Brazil. His crime? Distributing condoms. Father Paitoni's position was that since condoms protect life, it deals with a "greater good". The Church's absolutist ethics position does not allow for such consequentialist thinking: Condoms prevents the possibility of conception during the *** act and is therefore evil.

Indeed its irrational battle against the use of condoms the Church have even stoop to falsifying scientific data. In 2003, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, speaking on behalf of the Vatican's "Council for the Family" announced that "scientific studies" have shown that the latex of the condom is permeable to the HIV virus. He urged that condom manufacturers should add a warning label to their packets stating this "fact". However when the data cited in his "scientific studies" where checked by the BBC it turned out that our Cardinal had bent the facts quite a bit...

...It comes as no surprise then when we hear Morten Rostrup, President of the international council for Médicins Sans Frontièris (Doctors Without Borders), stating that the Church's position on condoms " was totally unacceptable from a moral, ethical, and medical perspective ...the ban was helping the spread of the deadly disease." He added that the Catholic Church is now part of the problem.

...The position of Roman Catholicism on birth control shows the Church for what it is now and what it has always been throughout its history: a morally bankrupt institution."

full article:
Rejection of Pascal's Wager: The Catholic Church and Contraception

[GemWArrioR]

i agree with giddyboy.

[cebulifer]

wa pa kita mannyamador ani!

unsa na lang kahay tubag!

pungko lang ko sa kilid ka basin matapsingan ta!