 |
| Illustration from quierosaber.wordpress.com/ |
In the September 2008 editorial of The Varsitarian (the official student publication of the University of Santo Tomas), which is titled “Lagman bill is Stalinist,” Rep. Edcel Lagman of Albay, the primary author of the Reproductive Health Bill (RH Bill), was condemned for reasons ranging from unproven economic theories to comparisons with China’s one-child policy and the Marcos regime. They even blatantly insulted the position of 27 Economics professors from the University of the Philippines, calling it inane and dishonest. Amidst all these allegations however, it doesn’t seem like the editorial board of The Varsitarian did their own research.
House Bill No. 5043, better known as the RH Bill, is a law drafted by six representatives (led by Lagman) that seeks to promote the well-being of women and their children. An Economics degree shouldn’t be necessary to say that population has a direct relationship with poverty. It’s very basic: more people in the country equals more mouths to feed which leads to more people seeking jobs which the country can’t provide. To prove this point further, the National Statistics Coordinating Board (NSCB) report that as family size increases, poverty worsens. In 2003, poverty incidence for a family of four is at 17.05 percent, compared to 46.55 for a family of eight. This is the reason why a lot of developing countries are seeking to control rapid population growth rates. Estimates for the Philippines’ population growth rate are at 1.95 percent, above the 1.5 percent average of ASEAN members.
This is why the RH Bill has been drafted. In order to assist economic growth and raise the standards of living of the Filipino people, population control is necessary. However, because of the Philippines’ strong Christian values, abortion is not an option, and artificial birth control is frowned upon. The solution: a softer bill that would educate women on how to achieve the desired number of children, and at the same time, not contradict the teachings of the Church, even though the state is separated from it. The Catholic Church still doesn’t seem to be pleased though.
The Church strongly opposes the bill, repeatedly saying that it is pro-abortion and anti-life, even anti-Christ. This is because some contraceptive methods are believed to cause abortion. Some representatives of the Church also claim that the bill denies the freedom of religious belief, because it imposes penalties to those who don’t comply with the law.
If you take a close look at the proposal, however, you would know that these claims are not founded solidly. First of all, it does not compel all constituents to use contraceptives. It merely wants to inform the people about their choices, and making those choices available to all. Section 12 provides for reproductive health education, which encompasses responsible parenthood, reproductive health care, family planning, and responsible sexuality, among others. It does not, however, state that all who receive this education should apply it in their daily lives. The choice is implicitly given to the individuals. Even the much-debated Section 16, which designates two as the ideal number of children, explicitly state that it is neither mandatory nor compulsory, and reassures that no punitive action shall be imposed on parents who decide to have more children.
From my standpoint, no right is violated and no morals have been downgraded. The people have the right to know what these methods of contraception are, so that they can make an informed choice. By blocking this bill, women will continue to conceive unwanted children which they won’t be able to provide for properly, all because they didn’t know that there are more effective ways of contraception.
In the end, it all comes down to a choice between morality and prosperity. The Church obviously advocates the former, opposing even the slightest hint of immorality in all laws that are passed. On the other hand, the Filipino people have long been suffering from poverty and all its related problems. While it may be argued that graft and corruption are the tyrants that rob the people of their hard-earned money, the high population growth rate certainly doesn’t help either. Are we willing to give one up in favor of the other? The individual should be free to choose; not the Church, not the State.
As for The Varsitarian, I suggest a brush-up on current economic development theories is in order. Simon Kuznets died in 1985 and certainly didn’t have the power of foresight to predict current trends in economics. Economics professors in UP, however, do. If indeed their research was funded by the government, then I applaud them for putting the taxes we pay to good use. Or would the editors of The Varsitarian rather have it channeled to political campaigns? Do not question other people’s credibility without establishing your own.
(The Varsitarian's September 2008 editorial can be read here.)
No comments:
Post a Comment