Everything about : RH Bill ( Reproductive Health Bill)

[mannyamador]

---

Let's not bury our heads in the sand. We must consider the consequences of such a bill.

Another topic. Some history...

Archbishop Jesus A. Dosado’s catechesis on Humanae Vitae: Kissinger Memorandum, Population Commission, and the Reproductive Health Bill
Archbishop Jesus A. Dosado’s catechesis on Humanae Vitae: Kissinger Memorandum, Population Commission, and the Reproductive Health Bill Monk’s Hobbit

In his series of catechesis on the Humanae Vitae of Pope Paul VI, Ozamiz Archbishop Jesus A. Dosado, CM outlined the history behind the reproductive health bill :

1. Henry Kissinger authored in 1965 the National Security Study Memorandum No. 200 mandating the creation and funding of massive population control programs in 13 countries identified as having high population levels and growth rates. The Philippines was one of these 13 countries.
   
   
2. President Marcos signed Presidential Decree No. 79 which created the Population Commission to spearhead an aggressive national population control program. POPCOM was to be the office for the flow of funds from three principal funding agencies: the World Bank, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and the United States Agency for International Development. The Asian Development Bank subsequently became a significant player.
   
   
3. A National Family Planning Office was created in the Department of Health. Two major private institutions were also created to support the government program: the University Of The Philippines ‘ Population Institute and the Population Center Foundation, which augmented the program with research utilization capability.
4. As the program moved along, b1lateral funding from Japan, Australia, Canada and a few European countries, and project funding from private agencies supplemented the population war chest.
   
   
5. POPCOM evolved to be a powerful mini-Cabinet formed among Trustees representing major government players in population control, namely, Health, Labor, Local Governments, Finance, Social Welfare and Economic Development. The objective of POPCOM is to reduce the growth rate and level of population to what it believed to be manageable, conducive to “sustainable development.” This level and rate were determined by external agencies like the Population Council based in New York.
   
   
6. Present population controversy between the church and the government backed up by International Development/ Funding Agencies. With this standoff, there was no other way to achieve this in a country whose population was significantly Roman Catholic except to aggressively promote modern artificial family planning methods. “That is the purpose of the recurring RH Bills.” Dosado concluded.

Source: Wendell Talibong, Ozamiz prelate reiterates stand on RH Bill in RP (Ozamiz City, CPCP News, March 20, 2009).

Note: I rearranged the material.


Please sign the online petition against the so-called RH bill
http://www.petitiononline.com/xxhb5043/

[basketballer]

KWARTA! KWARTA! KWARTA!
Mahal magpakasal
Mahal magpabunyag
Bayad ka para pamisa sa kalag.
Mao btaw kontra kaau sila anang paksal sa huwis ky wala man silay income.

Amen sakto gyud

[mannyamador]

Contraceptives are a billion dollar industry.

Reproductive health is abortion
A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx...bCategoryId=64

The hidden agenda of US and other European countries are now exposed. They are pushing for this RH bill to make investments on the contraceptive industry more profitable which is possible only if abortion is legalized as it is in their jurisdictions.

[flanker]

yabo ang negosyo ni padre ani...mao angal cla.

Pangita nlang mo lain negosyo nsad.. hahaha...

[mannyamador]

Filipino bishops call for education and development, not contraceptives
by Santosh Digal
PHILIPPINES Filipino bishops call for education and development, not contraceptives - Asia News

Two congressional committees back the Reproductive Health bill, triggering the bishops’ reaction against the ‘pro-abortion” bill. The prelates want the government to come up with policies that focus on “education, agricultural development and help to the poor.”

Manila (AsiaNews) – In a tough statement following the decision by the House Committee on Appropriations to approve the Reproductive Health bill, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) urged the country’s lawmakers to spend money on education, food and housing programmes for the poor, instead of contraceptives.

“Our lawmakers should not spend billions of pesos for contraceptives. They should spend it on education, food and housing programs for the poor,” said Fr Melvin Castro, executive secretary of the CBCP’s Commission on Family and Life.

The House Committee on Appropriations and the House Committee on Health have backed the Reproductive Health bill, hoping it gets through second reading in the House.

Committee on Appropriations Chairman Congressman Edcel C. Lagman said that the draft bill was backed by 67 congressmen. He noted that the measure had been approved by the powerful Committee on Appropriations. “Everything is set for the eventual enactment of the bill into law,” he added.

Despite such optimism the fight against the bill continues. Pro-life Congressman Eduardo Zialcita tried to douse Lagman's optimism, saying the measure would face rough sailing once floor deliberations begin.

He accused the bill promoters of lying when they say the bill does not include abortion, which remains “a crime and is punishable.”

The Reproductive Health bill includes pregnancy termination, contraceptives (including condoms, contraceptive pills and intrauterine devices) for birth control and a “distorted vision” of *** education, practices that seem to favour promiscuity and free *** among the young who are under the illusion that condoms can protect them from risks. The bill also sets up a pre-natal emergency centre and provides for mobile health care services.

Health Secretary Francisco T. Duque III said that the P150-billion budget (just over US$ 3 billion) for the implementation of the projects under the Reproductive Health Bill will be sufficient as a start-up fund. But “for the full implementation of the projects, the department would need more than the amount initially [. . .] allocated,” he said.

[Peacefulguy]

KWARTA! KWARTA! KWARTA!
Mahal magpakasal
Mahal magpabunyag
Bayad ka para pamisa sa kalag.
Mao btaw kontra kaau sila anang paksal sa huwis ky wala man silay income.

Lol ug kung mahalan ka anang mga butanga bai, nganu buhaton man sad nimo? Ayaw pakasal! Ayaw pabuntisi, Ayaw sad pamisa.. Simple ra ana!

[giddyboy]

^^^ nya ang church gasugo raman pag subay sa natural family planning (NFP). but per studies, it has a typical failure rate of 24%. it means 2 out of 10 women will still get unwanted pregnancy if they follow NFP only. abstinence is the core principle behind NFP which cannot apply to all couples and to all situations. mao nay giingon sa uban "Vatican roulette". so mao na giingon sa uban nato dre mahal mgpa bunyag...mahal mgpa ospital, mahal mgpa misa.

even the church is against the use of condoms w/c could prevent STDs and AIDS.

[bodie]

mannyamador, there are 62 pages in this thread and you keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

You keep citing position papers as "proof" of your cause. They are not. They are POSITION papers-- Opinions of those who wrote them.

You breeze thru arguments given by the other side and selectively read the parts without taking in the whole reply. In effect, you fail to understand the proper context of the other sides argument.

You keep screaming abortion, even when it had been shown by several sources that abortion is not part of the bill. Your committing a straw man fallacy by repeatedly implying that the use of contraceptives leads to widespread abortion. That is not that case. Majority of the contraceptives in use today are not abortificiants. Pills, condoms, injections, morning-after-pills are technically not considered abortificiants.
Even IUDs do not fall under that definition.

The church is pulling at straws when it attempts to redefine the definition of conception when it insists that life begins when the sperm and egg meets. A more technically correct definition of conception is "The onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst into the endometrium." Pills, diaphrams, condoms, injections attempt to prevent the former definition. IUD's and the morning after pill prevent the latter.

The thread has, in my opinion, gone horribly off topic. I think the original intention of the thread had been to debate the role of the church. Instead it has become a debate on the efficacy of the family planning bill instead.

Anyway, I will not attempt to weigh in on the effectiveness of the bill. I will however say that I am supportive of the bill, I believe that there are a lot of parts that could be strengthened and that it should have been more aggressive in pushing for the family planning agenda. I do concede that a strongly worded bill that is too aggressive would probably fail to pass muster in congress. Better to have a family bill now (it can be strengthened later) than continue with what we are doing (which is nothing in a lot of areas).

Regarding the role of the church... the church has a disproportionately large voice in the arguments regarding this bill.

I am not a theist, and I feel that this opposition to the bill illustrates how the catholic church uses its influence to push their ideals and their definition of morality in the defense of their perceived view of society. Not everyone in the country is a catholic, not everyone is a Christian, not everyone believes in god. The constitution separates church and State partly to protect our (non theists) rights.

I think the church is entitled to expressing their opinion on the bill. However, their (sometimes personal) attacks on the proponents of the bill a few months back left a bad taste in my mouth. The church in the Philippines in too involved in the day to day running of the government. I definitely agree with the poster a few pages back when she said that the church should concentrate on their own backyard before interfering with government affairs.

[mannyamador]

You breeze thru arguments given by the other side...

I have effectively refuted all their arguments. Apparently, YOU haven't read through them.

You keep screaming abortion, even when it had been shown by several sources that abortion is not part of the bill.

I have conclusively shown that the RH bill funds and even forces the dispensing of abortifacient drugs and devices (which include pills, IUDs, injectables and implantables). If you disagree, let's see you try to refute the evidence. (which you haven't). it seems you haven't even looked at the scientific evidence.

A more technically correct definition of conception is "The onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst into the endometrium."

That is an unscientific and completely arbitrary definition. If a gfertiliozed egg is no more than a clump fo cells to you, then there is no reason why a fertilied egg should suddenly become human being simply because it has implanted in the uterus. The process of development began at fertilization, not at implantation.

I think the church is entitled to expressing their opinion on the bill. However, their (sometimes personal) attacks on the proponents of the bill a few months back left a bad taste in my mouth.

I wonder why the very personal attacks by the proponents of this useless bill against the Church and its personnel didn't leave a similar bad taste in your mouth. That smacks of prejudice on your part, if you ask me.

even the church is against the use of condoms w/c could prevent STDs and AIDS.

Studies have shown that promoting condoms only increases dangerous behavior, leading to more HIV/AIDS infections. No country has ever lowered the infection rate by using condoms,. It has been shown that abstinence and fidelity programs are far more effective (look at Uganda).

Studies also show that increased use of contraceptives leads to more unwanted pregnancies. These devices only make the problems worse.

[bodie]

I have effectively refuted all their arguments. Apparently, YOU haven't read through them.



I have conclusively shown that the RH bill funds and even forces the dispensing of abortifacient drugs and devices (which include pills, IUDs, injectables and implantables). If you disagree, let's see you try to refute the evidence. (which you haven't). it seems you haven't even looked at the scientific evidence.

And thats one of the big problems in all your arguments. Your assuming that all your arguments are conclusive. Its always "I have..." with you. The fact is, it has been refuted by many posters here. You choose to disregard those proofs. Your word (and your biased reference material) isnt good enough.

Also, If you read my previous post, pills, IUDs, injectibles, and implantibles are not abortifacients. If we go with your very conservative (and erroneous IMHO) definition condoms, pills, injectibles, and implantibles, do not fall under that definition. Besides, I do not recall the bill specifying a specific type of contraceptive to use. If the bill should pass, contraceptives can be used or discarded based on their own merits after a study by the implementing agency.

That is an unscientific and completely arbitrary definition. If a gfertiliozed egg is no more than a clump fo cells to you, then there is no reason why a fertilied egg should suddenly become human being simply because it has implanted in the uterus. The process of development began at fertilization, not at implantation.

Who is forwarding unscientific and arbitrary definitions now? Your also disregarding the fact that most of the contraceptives in use PREVENT fertilization. A few pages back you cited failure rates, but the statistics presented were misleading. The sample population was very limited, and the numbers chosen (percent unwanted pregnancies in some clinic using X, Y, and Z contraceptives) makes it seem like the failure rate is higher than it should be.

I wonder why the very personal attacks by the proponents of this useless bill against the Church and its personnel didn't leave a similar bad taste in your mouth. That smacks of prejudice on your part, if you ask me.

Sources? Not just one, a comprehensive list would be ideal. How does one go about doing a personal attack against an institution anyway? Are there specific bishops being singled out for personal attacks. Compare and contrast that with the vitriol spewing out against lagman and the other proponents of the bill.

Studies have shown that promoting condoms only increases dangerous behavior, leading to more HIV/AIDS infections. No country has ever lowered the infection rate by using condoms,. It has been shown that abstinence and fidelity programs are far more effective (look at Uganda).

Studies also show that increased use of contraceptives leads to more unwanted pregnancies. These devices only make the problems worse.

Proper use you mean? Facts please. Are we talking about the same thing here? You seem to interchangably use condoms, contraceptives and abortificients. Can you try and explain the mechanism how the use of condoms increases increases infection rates? It boggles the mind, to be honest. I think your are (improperly) interchanging definitions again. UNPROTECTED s3x increases infection. In other words, non barrier contraceptives can increase infection rate, but thats a sociological issue. No studies have demonstrated that the availability of condoms or other contraceptives increased infection rate. Correlation DOES NOT imply causation. Sociological issues are also prevalent here, not just the availability of condoms.

Again, your using false statistics. Someone has already pointed out the failure rate of these contraceptives, it is far less than the unwanted pregnancy rate without it.

Let me give you several examples:

The proper use of contraceptives couples with a blacklist, constant testing and information drive have been shown to decrease the infection rate of the people working in the adult industry. Contraceptives, education, oversight, and self awareness have been shown to work.

One of the main reasons for the current spread of aids is the false belief that it is a homosexual disease. While this may have been true with the initial strain of HIV; it had trouble with the heterosexual jump, the strain of aids prevalent in Thailand and other parts of the world had no such hindrances. People got infected because they were ignorant of this fact and had unprotected *3*.

Also, how to you propose enforcing abstinence and fidelity? Its not something you can place in a bill and expect people to follow right away. Isnt this what parents should be teaching anyway? Do you expect schools to be teaching students thats its ok to have s3x? Have you ever had s3x ed?

Let me enlighten you since it seems like you havnt gone through it or you forgot. S3x ed involves showing students the results of STDs, its gruesome and definitely does not encourage them to have irresponsible ***. It also teaches how children come about and several other things... maturity can be a confusing time for children. Sweeping it under the rug and claiming ignorance doesnt help.

Bill or no bill, people always have that option anyway.