Category: reproductive health

HOW MONA LISA DIED

Walden Bello

Representative Edcel Lagman of Albay has a term for legislative measures that gain approval in a congressional committee yet never make it to a full floor debate owing to one reason or other. He calls them “Mona Lisa” bills. “Mona Lisa” because, as he explains, “as that line from Nat King Cole’s famous song goes, ‘they just lie there and they die there.’.”

The Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008 – better known as the “RH bill” – is one of those Mona Lisa bills. The RH bill, however, did not die of neglect or lack of interest, which is the case with most of these measures. In this case, Mona Lisa was murdered.

During the last three Congresses, RH has been a topic that has elicited great controversy owing to rock solid opposition from the Catholic Church. In the 14th Congress, however, it was able to win approval in the Committee on Health, setting the stage for a much-awaited debate on the House floor. RH was listed as a priority bill throughout 2009; indeed, before the Christmas recess, the rules for the debate on it were being discussed.

When the House reassembled on January 18, however, RH had disappeared from the Speaker of the House’s list of priority bills. Inquiries by proponents of the bill produced evasive replies from the House leadership. When the House adjourned for the elections on Feb 3, RH was dead. The reason, however, was painfully obvious.

In December, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) instructed the electorate not to vote for candidates who espoused RH. Alongside this decree had unfolded a massive campaign that involved systematic disinformation about the bill. Among the malicious allegations that were spread was that the bill imposes penalties on parents who do not allow their children to have premarital sex. Another was that the bill promotes the use of abortifacients or methods of contraception that induce abortion.

It was not in the interest of the anti-RH lobby to have an open debate on the House floor because a rational, enlightened exchange would have revealed the aims of the bill to be not only morally legitimate but ethically imperative. Foremost among these goals is to provide women with the information and means to enhance their reproductive health. Second is to provide partners with the information and means to practice family planning. Third is to provide men and women with the information and means to avoid sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV-AIDS, which has now reached epidemic proportions.

The anti-RH lobby knew that even if the bill lost on the House floor, a debate on it would have contributed immensely to the enlightenment of the Catholic electorate, the majority of which, according to recent surveys, already favor modern methods of family planning and enhancing reproductive health. Thus, deploying its tremendous political clout, the lobby colluded with the House leadership to carry out a silent procedural homicide.

There is a great deal at stake in the RH debate. One of them is the preservation of the principle of the separation of Church and State. The Church seeks to prevent the State from having a say on reproductive issues. Yet the State must have a say since it has a responsibility for the health of the country and the health of women citizens in particular. The State must concern itself with reproductive issues because it must balance the needs of society and the fragility of the environment. The State must involve itself with reproductive concerns because it has a mandate to end poverty and promote national development.

Another bedrock principle of our liberal democracy that is threatened by the Church campaign against RH is pluralism. Many constituencies favor RH, and among these are other religious organizations, including Christian churches. Yet one religious denomination arrogates to itself the right to speak for all religions and to veto the opinion of other religious organizations on reproductive rights. This is absolutism, not democracy, and if allowed to go unchecked, it will erode the tolerance that is an essential component for the survival of our pluralistic polity.

Pro-RH people are not against the Catholic Church. Indeed, most admire the Church’s stance on many other issues – for instance, its urging voters to vote for candidates according to the dictates of their conscience. But does not this stand promoting respect for the individual’s conscience not contradict its ordering voters not to vote for pro-RH candidates?

The Church, to its credit, supports measures that would end poverty, like agrarian reform. Yet it opposes an initiative that would address one of the key causes of poverty, which is the failure of poor families to control the size of their families through natural means?

The Church has – again to its credit – taken up the cudgels for the environment. But it opposes effective family planning measures that would rein in one of the key forces behind environmental degradation: unrestrained population growth.

The Church lobby is powerful. Not only has it intimidated Speaker Prospero Nograles and the House leadership into killing RH procedurally. It has also now forced presidential contender Gilbert Teodoro to renounce his support for RH. And there are reports that Noynoy Aquino is also backing away from his support for RH.

Punishing people at the polls for their beliefs is certainly less reprehensible than burning them at the stake, which the Church did to dissenters centuries ago. But resorting to electoral punishment exhibits the same absolutist frame of mind that threatened Galileo with burning if he did not recant.

Yet, just as we have left the Inquisition behind, so are we destined to advance towards a more tolerant pluralist polity that makes decisions based not on intimidation and threat but on enlightened democratic debate. Mona Lisa may have been murdered this time around, but let those who have killed her be put on notice that, as Congressman Lagman predicted, she will be resurrected in the 15th Congress or in succeeding Congresses until she is finally enacted into law.

environment 8: population word war

THE POPULATION WORD WAR

Junie Kalaw

The raging word war between Catholic Church representatives and the indomitable secretary of health on the topic of condoms as a means of addressingour pressing population problem is turning NGOs red with frustration or green with envy, and the air gray from the swirling dust that has obscured the real issues surrounding our pressing population problem which are: the relationships between population and consumption, population and poverty, poverty and natural resource policies, and between population and human resource development.

A one-sided view of the problem considers population in terms of number of bodies and ignores the fact that these bodies consume food and use energy.  This view dominates even international fora like the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) where rich countries point to the fast rate of population growth of poor countries as the main problem of sustainable development, while poor countries single out the high per capita consumption of the rich countries as the major problem.

To bring the two sides together, a more realistic and dynamic population index would emerge by multiplying each unit of body by the per capita consumption of food and energy.  Thus, multiplying the Philippine 2.4% body count increase per year by a factor of one on both food and domestic energy-use yields a total of 2.5% on both counts.  On the other hand, the US yearly increase of 1.5% multiplied by 6 (the ratio of their per capita consumption of food compared to Filipinos) yields a total of 9%, and 1.5% multiplied by 13 (the ratio of US energy consumption to Philippine consumption) yields a total of 19%. There is a bigger problem, therefore, on the consumption side than on the birthrate side of the issue.

If we are to consider the warnings of environmental economists that our present US$32 trillion global economy cannot continue to grow sustainable in the closed biospheric system of our planet because we are now using 40% of net primary production of energy and that doubling this rate of appropriation by our species might not be possible, it becomes imperative for the rich to reduce their consumption and the poor their birthrates.

The correlation of higher birth rates with poverty is well documented.   There are two major causes: (1) the cultural bias for large families in the belief that more children is an investment for ensuring the survival of the family unit, and (2) the fact that women in poverty have less opportunities for education or options as regards childbearing.  Only when there is a rise in the income level of the poor does the family birthrate decrease.

Obviously, more than controlling poverty, both material and educational poverty need to be addressed to solve the population problem.  Perhaps if church representatives could fight to the death the causes of poverty, they would be performing a better witnessing for all the children of God.  If the church would threaten loggers, big landholders, and politicians with the same intensity they summon vis-a-vis condom-pushers, the country would be better served.

But levity aside, what is distressing is that all the heat the word-war has generated has not reached the core of the population issue, which is the quality of life as expressed in its consumption patterns and lifestyles.  The sustainability of our ecosystems, cultures, and communities ultimately depends on the citizens’ personal choices of what to consume and what lifestyle to develop. Perhaps for the first time in our evolutionary history, our private and personal decisions impinge so critically on public interest.  We need to translate our personal moral values into values for the common good.

If the concern of the church over the immorality of birth control could be expended instead on the quality and justness of the lifestyle of its faithful, then there would be integrity in its moral stance.  If the state could exercise the same determination over social equity and ecological security as on the prevention of birth, governance would be more sustainable.

Church and state have since seen fit to reconcile.  In the normal course of such moves, reconciliation amounts actually to a partition, with the church protecting its moral ascendancy and the state its political primacy.  But while it is necessary to respect cultural and religious differences, poverty is not sustainable and its eradication not negotiable.  As the North-South Commission Report on a Program for Survival puts it:

“While hunger rules, peace cannot prevail.  He who wants to ban war (or for that matter artificial contraception) must also ban poverty.  Morally, it makes no difference whether a human being is killed in war or condemned to starve to death because of the indifference of others.”

14 August 1994

political chitchat

for the latest political tsismis i always make silip the tribune column of former senator ernie maceda a.k.a. mr. expose(y) who is also the spokesman of former president erap.   no thanks to ping lacson’s disclosures, erap’s reelection bid might be in trouble, and manong ernie must be wishing for the good old days before cory died when the erap camp was supremely confident of a win in 2010.   just the same i t don’t see him advising his boss to give it up.   manong ernie loves the political intramurals much too much.   he loves being in the thick of things.   besides it’s early days.

anyway here’s what manong ernie says about alfonso yuchengco’s statement in the inquirer re ping lacson’s allegation that yuchengco was forced to sell his shares in pldt to manny pangilinan when erap was president.

Yuchengco sick. Ambassador Alfonso Yuchengco, 86, is in New York for treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. He could not himself have issued the statement confirming Sen. Panfilo Lacson’s exposé that President Estrada coerced him to sell his 3 percent stake in PLDT to First Pacific headed by Manny Pangilinan.

It is alleged that Ambassador Albert del Rosario accompanied by 10 soldiers forced him to sign the Deed of Sale in August 1998. But the record shows that deal was actually consummated in November 1998 after several months of negotiations over the price. So, it is clear that when the sale was consummated in November 1998, there was no coercion consideringthat there were continuing negotiations and the original contract that Yuchengco alleged he was forced to sign was even amended to reflect a much higher price. If there was coercion, then Helen Yuchengco Dee would have had nothing to do with Manny Pangilinan or PLDT. But she accepted to be member of PLDT’s Board of Directors and PLDT continued to keep RCBC, the Yuchengco owned bank, as its major banker.

The question remains: Did Ambassador Del Rosario who allegedly forced the Yuchengco’s to sell, act upon President Erap’s order or was he acting for someone else? Del Rosario is a Manny Pangilinan man, not close at all to President Erap.

Stock market brokers call attention to the fact that one of Yuchengco’s daughters is very, very close to First Gentleman Mike Arroyo.

Here comes former Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez saying that Erap could be charged with coercion. Secretary Gonzalez is again showing his partisan ignorance. The alleged coercion happened more than 10 years ago. Therefore, the crime has prescribed.

hmmm.    just because there were price negotiations and just because a yuchengco daughter is on the board of directors of pldt, hindi ibig sabihin na hindi napilitan ang mga yuchengco na magbenta.  it only tells methat the yuchengcos managed to negotiate some terms, sort of.

but what about the alzheimer thing?   perhaps it was the yuchengo kids who issued the statement in the name of their father?   and yet and yet and yet i just heard in the evening news that erap is charging al yuchengco and the inquirer with libel and asking 10-20 million php in damages.   no mention of the alzheimer thing, which, if true, would put into question the validity of the allegedly libelous statement di ba?

tungkol naman kina mar at korina and their future plans:

Mar and Korina say yes. At the birthday party of RC Constantino at the Architect’s Center, Sen. Serge Osmeña told us that Sen. Mar Roxas finally decided to accept Noynoy’s offer of the VP slot after fiancée Korina Sanchez withdrew her objections to Mar’s accepting the offer.

Sen. Serge Osmeña, who admitted he was running Chiz Escudero’s campaign for the last 12 months said he has decided to run for the Senate and implied he has left the Chiz Escudero campaign. He revealed he did commission the latest SWS survey conducted on Sept. 5 and 6. He conceded that after the euphoria has gone down, Noynoy’s ratings should go down. While he did not say so, it is clear that he will be running on the Liberal Party ticket. Serge ran for VP to Mayor Lim as LP official candidate in 1992. At the moment, he is a member of PDP-Laban. Serge admitted that with a 30-percent discount from ABS-CBN head Gabby Lopez, he will budget P100 million for his TV-radio ads

tungkol kay noli de castro and his future plans:

Noli de Castro’s ranking dropped to 7 percent in the latest SWS rating. Reports say ABS-CBN chairman Gabby Lopez has informed Noli he is supporting Noynoy and advised him to give up his plans to run for president or vice president and just return full-time to his TV hosting job.

at tungkol sa kung ano-ano at kung sino-sino:

Tidbits. At the Umagang Kay Ganda, ABS-CBN’s early morning talk show, the audience roundly applauded President Erap after his interview by Pinky Webb and ABS-CBN employees requested picture with Erap. The picture taking lasted for 30 minutes… Kim Atienza told us that he had not witnessed this happening to other guests… For the month of August, the top spenders on TV commercials are DILG Secretary Ronnie Puno — P87 million; Sen. Manny Villar — P84 million and Sen. Mar Roxas P64 million… Former Batanes Rep. Butch Abad is the de facto campaign manager of Noynoy. Active behind the scenes is uncle Peping Cojuangco. Will Sen. Tessie Aquino Oreta and Paul Aquino leave the GMA camp for Noynoy?… Lawyer Pancho Villaraza of the FIRM and his Sigma Ma Ro associates are supporting Manny Villar. Partner Nonong Cruz is with the Noynoy-Roxas camp.

masaya.  samantala umiinit na naman ang usaping reproductive health.   the bill is up for final debate and vote sa house of representatives, that is, as soon as the church stops objecting, so the speaker can muster a quorum, haha, what a house of wimps.

noli, loren, manny & the RH bill

congress reconvening today.   sana matuloy ang promised testimony of scam & escape artist jocjoc bolante sa senado.  lalo pa, lalo na, sana matuloy ang long-delayed showdown on the reproductive health bill sa konggreso.

kung magkasabay, which one kaya will ANC air: bolante or RH?   sana pareho, one on ANC, the other on channel 2.  and if, by chance or circumstance, isa lang ang puwede i-cover, then let it be RH, parang awa niyo na.   i want to see, we need to see, the world needs to see, which congressmen and congresswomen dare defy the wishes of 7 of 10 filipinos who want, need, deserve, a reproductive health law like the rest of the civilized world.

dr. quasi romualdez, once doh secretary, counts heads in his malaya column:

In the House of Representatives, 114 members have signed up as sponsors of HB 5043 which mandates a government-supported reproductive health program that includes making available to the poor all the possible legal methods of family planning.

Given these numbers, opponents of the measure will likely resort to dilatory tactics that substitute parliamentary tricks for rational discussion.

Working in favor of these tactics is the fact that there are a number of legislative issues that will be competing for congressional attention during the six weeks that remain before the Christmas break.

Among these are agrarian reform extension and the impeachment complaint filed recently. Proponents of HB 5043 are confident however that when it comes to a vote, the RH bill will finally pass.

If the House approves the measure, the situation in the Senate appears to be similar in the sense that the minority members who oppose RH legislation will use all sorts of parliamentary tricks.

By their past statements and recent actuations, advocates of the bill count 14 senators: Angara, Biazon, Pia Cayetano, Enrile, Escudero, Estrada, Gordon, Honasan, Lacson, Madrigal, Pangilinan, Revilla, Santiago, and Zubiri.

Senators Aquino, Arroyo, Alan Cayetano, Legarda, Roxas, and Trillanes are listed as undecided. It is noteworthy that of these six senators, two (Legarda and Roxas) are among those invariably included in surveys for presidentiables, indicating the possibility that Church power may be a consideration in some senators’ decision. The neutral position of Senator Arroyo is noteworthy only becausehe is the only one among the six identified with the administration.

Listed as opposed to reproductive health legislation are Senators Lapid, Pimentel, and Villar. Senator Lapid’s position is clear – he opposes the measure because he perceives Malacañang to be against it. Senator Pimentel’s opposition to any population management or family planning proposals has been consistent for many years – he has always supported the position of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue.

Senate President Villar’s position that is somewhat of a mystery.

As a presidentiable who seems to be sympathetic to the plight of the poor Filipino majority, Senator Villar, more than the other aspirants for higher office, might have been expected to support what is clearly pro-poor legislation. After all, the proposed law is designed to help those who cannot now afford them to use the family planning methods of their choice in order to fulfill their responsible parenthood obligations.

Here again, the factor of Church power in national politics may again be a decisive influence. There are unconfirmed reports that the Senate President has promised a Catholic bishop that he would block reproductive health proposals. Advocates hope that this is just a rumor and that Mr. Villar, just like his political rivals, will in the end decide on the basis the people’s interest rather than political expediency.”

how dismaying that loren legarda, no. 2 presidentiable in the latest SWS survey, is undecided.  and manny villar, no. 3, is unequivocally committedly anti-RH pala.  alam kaya ito ng 7 out of 10 pinoys who want an RH law?   iboto kaya nilang pangulo sa 2010 ang isang indecisive, ehe, undecided?   iboto kaya nilang pangulo sa 2010 ang isang anti-RH/anti-women?  eh si no.1 presidentiable noli de castro kaya — malamang whatever gloria wants, noli wants, ‘no?

suddenly i’m not sure the RH bill is coming to a vote soon.  maybe not until there’s a public outcry for an end to the debates and other delaying tactics.   i hope i’m wrong.