Christ sanctified the womb and the innocent children who are its temporary residents. This artwork says it all.

Sadly, some of the proponents of the RH/abortion bill want to pretend that some unborn children aren’t even people. They say the fertilized egg must first be implanted in the uterus (which happens some three to eight days after conception) before it is considered a human life.

Some will even say that they become people much later than that. Worse, some even think they aren’t people until they emerge from the womb.

Worst of all, some don’t care at all whether the unborn are people or not — it’s supposed to be a “woman’s right” to decide to kill them or not!

Let’s not leave any doubt: abortion is murder (killing of the innocent).

Some contraceptives actually kill the unborn (for example, by preventing the fertilized egg — a newly-conceived human being — from implanting in the uterus. With nowhere to implant, the baby eventually dies. This is an early-term abortion.

Such contraceptives are called abortifacient contraceptives — meaning they can cause abortions.

HB 4244, the current number for the so-called “reproductive health/responsible parenthood” bill in the Lower House, will spend millions (or billions) funding these deadly abortifacient contraceptives. It should really be called the RH/ABORTION bill.

Abortifacients in HB 4244

Section 7, Access to Family Planning, of HB 4244 states:

All accredited health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family planning methods, except in specialty hospitals which may render such services on optional basis…

Section 10, Family Planning Supplies as Essential Medicines, states:

Products and supplies for modern family planning methods shall be part of the National Drug Formulary and the same shall be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national and local hospitals and other government health units.

Section 4 Definition of terms (HB 4244) states:

Family Planning refers to a program which enables couples, individuals and women to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children, acquire relevant information on reproductive health care, services and supplies and have access to a full range of safe, legal, affordable, effective natural and modern methods of limiting and spacing pregnancy;

Take note that natural methods are differentiated from so-called “modern” methods. Obviously then, these modern family planning methods include artificial contraceptives (since they are not the same as natural methods).

Section 4 Definition of terms (HB 4244) states:

Reproductive Health Care refers to the access to a full range of methods, facilities, services and supplies that contribute to reproductive health and well-being by preventing and solving reproductive health-related problems. . . The elements of reproductive health care include:

(1) family planning information and services; . . .

Thus, artificial contracetpives will be funded by the bill.

The thing is, some of these contraceptives are abortifacient, as the Philippine Medical Association warned:

Doctors warn DOH on contraceptives

The Philippine Medical Association (PMA) has urged the Department of Health (DOH) to study the possibility that some abortion-causing drugs are present in inventories of the department’s family planning program.

. . .

“Life begins at fertilization, anything that prevents the fertilized ovum to be implanted in the uterus may be considered as abortive and therefore, if prescribed, may violate our solemn oath as physicians to save and protect human life particularly the unborn,” said PMA president Dr. Oscar Tinio.

Larimore and Stanford (2000), in “Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent,” said that:

“It seems likely that for perfect use of COCs, postfertilization mechanisms would be likely to have a small but not negligible role. For POPs, COCs with lower doses of estrogen, and imperfect use of any OCs, postfertilization effects are likely to have an increased role. In any case, the medical literature does not support the hypothesis that postfertilization effects of OCs do not exist.“

Just a note: “OC” means oral contraceptive; “COC” means combined oral contraceptive.

Anyone want to guess what a “postfertilization effect” is?

MEDIA RELEASE
For immediate release
Task Force for Family and Life Visayas, Inc. (TFFL)

Marian Groups release statement opposing RH Bill

A national convention of leaders from Marian groups throughout the Philippines recently released a strongly-worded omnibus resolution opposing the RH bill. The statement was signed by over 1,400 leaders and members of the various Perpetual Dawn Rosary and Cenacle organizations that met in Carcar, Cebu, on February 12-13.

The Task Force for Family and Life Visayas, Inc. (TFFL) in turn forwarded copies of the resolution to President Aquino, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, CBCP President Nereo Odchimar, and newly-installed Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma. The TFFL called on all parties to heed the heartfelt sentiments of ordinary Filipino citizens expressed in the resolution.

The Marian convention’s statement noted that the RH bill “has caused a deep division among our people,” and that the proposed measure now pending in Congress “in its entirety is about contraception.” It warned that its passing would bring about the propagation of a culture of death, promiscuity, and breakdown of families.

The attendees at the convention concluded that they fully agree and support all the points taken up by the Bishops in their recent Pastoral Letter entitled “Choosing Life, Rejecting the RH Bill,” including the rejection of the RH bill.

To back up their call, the signatories vowed to support the actions recommended by the CBCP, including civil disobedience should the RH bill be passed, and possible excommunication of legislators and national leaders who endorsed the RH bill.

In addition, the resolution also called for an Oratio Imperata against the RH bill to be read in all churches during every Sunday Mass all over the country, and a Church-led educational initiative on Natural Family Planning (NFP) and issues concerning the protection and nurturing of human life and the family.

The convention gathered together leaders and members of the Marian movement from all over the country, under the theme, “Marian Pro-Life Witnesses of Hope, Reconciliation and Peace in Our Times.”

About Task Force for Family and Life Visayas, Inc. (TFFL)

The Task Force for Family and Life Visayas, Inc. (TFFL) is an association of men and women who are committed to the protection of family and life, as mandated by the Constitution and specific legislations and by the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. It is a juridical entity duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

###

Media contact
DOUGLAS GACASAN
President
Task Force for Family and Life Visayas, Inc. (TFFL)

This post also appeared on my blog: http://mamador.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/marian-groups-release-statement-opposing-rh-bill/

More worrisome, however, was a flood of posts, on FaceBook and other blog sites, expressing outright hatred and contempt for the Church. Some of these were so vile that they would probably qualify as “hate speech” in other countries.

That wasn’t all, however.

The other night someone forwarded me a text message calling for other acts of disruption and outright sacrilege. What would be next? Silencing of Catholic leaders through grave threats? Violence?

Religious freedom and harassment of religious persons

Carlos Celdran is my friend and I feel bad that he resorted to this stunt. I also feel bad that he is in jail. He has been good and respectful to me despite our disagreements on some issues. He, like myself, has the right to speak out on any issue.

Still, we have to make one thing clear: Carlos Celdran is NOT in jail because of his views on the Church and the RH/Abortion Bill. His right to freedom of speech is protected under the Constitution and no law can take precedence over that. The issue here is NOT about free speech. It is about protecting people of faith from harassment. It is about freedom of religion.

One person, writing in reaction to an editorial in the Philippine Star which sided with Celdran and called for a repeal of that particular section of the Revised Penal Code, put it this way (this letter was also circulated on the Internet; emphasis mine):

First of all, it is inaccurate to portray Carlos Celdran as a martyr for his free speech rights. He is not being charged for simply expressing his views; hence your fear that “80 percent of the population who through surveys have expressed support for birth control” could be imprisoned for offending religious feelings is unfounded. He is being charged for having scoffed at church authority during the mass and inside a church. Please take the trouble of researching what Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code actually penalizes. The constitution protects Carlos Celdran’s right to express his views, no matter how unconventional they may be, but the constitution likewise protects the rights of everyone to worship according to their religious beliefs in peace. While he has the right to express dissenting opinions, he has no right to infringe on other people’s right to worship in peace.

Second, the provision penalizing offending religious feelings applies to all religions alike. To repeal the law against offending religious feelings would be to expose all religions — and not just the Catholic religion — to contempt. The repeal would mean anyone can burn the Koran inside a mosque during an Islamic service, or make a heated attack on Manalo inside an Iglesia ni Cristo building during their Thursday pagsamba. These scenarios hardly promote mutual understanding among religions. The above mentioned examples are offensive to modern sensibilities; a similar affront on the Catholic religion is no less offensive.

Atty. Jose Sison, writing his column today (“Reprehensible,” A Law each Day (Keeps Trouble Away). Philippine Star), explained:

People who believe in God whether Christians, Muslims, Buddhists or any other faith would certainly feel offended if somebody disrupts the very rite or liturgy that is the center of their faith, the celebration of God’s presence in their midst. These rituals are the most sacred to them. This is the reason behind the provision of our Revised Penal Code (RPC, Article 133) penalizing with imprisonment from 6 months to 2 years and 4 months “anyone who shall perform acts in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony” which are “notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful”.

For Catholics “the Mass is the center of the Church. Nothing can compare to the Mass because it is the renewal of the Sacrifice on the Cross where Christ offers Himself up for all humanity. It is the moment when heaven and earth unite”. Disrupting the Mass is therefore the most offensive act against the feelings of Catholic faithful. Anyone who disrupts the mass like that Intramuros tourist guide (his name is not worth mentioning) certainly deserves to be imprisoned. His act can never be justified by his deep resentment against the prelates who oppose the RH bill. It is willfully, willingly and feloniously done during a rite most sacred to Catholics and therefore punishable under the RPC. Muslims and Buddhists would also feel offended if such disruption was committed against them. There is no reason why disruption of a Catholic ritual should be treated differently.

Article 133 of the RPC does not penalize the proponents and supporters of the RH bill or those who want to impose a family planning program and the promotion of women’s reproductive health. It only penalizes the act of disrupting religious worships and rites. Definitely this is not a medieval law. It is relevant and appropriate for as long as faith in the almighty God exists. Those who are therefore advocating the repeal of the law on the premise that it is being enforced by the “Padre Damasos” allegedly still in our midst or by “people whose thinking is stuck in the dark ages”, are grossly mistaken and miserably misinformed.

Religious services are basically “soft” targets. They are generally open to the public, have little (if sny) security, and are easily disrupted. Historically, many governments and extremist movements — from ancient times to this very day — have easily suppressed religious worship. Often it is overt, but sometimes this repression is more subtle. Even today wehave some democratic, secular government suppressing what can be uttered in a religious ceremony. It is because of this vulernability that religious worship must be protected.

Prelude to Anti-Religious Fanaticism?

We should also remember the effect that such extreme forms of disrespect can have on constructive and informative debate. When mutual respect disappears, people resort to acts of offensive acts of destruction and humiliation, and rational discussion is sidelined. When reason is pushed aside, fanaticism takes over.

I have personally observed that the debate on the RH/Abortion Bill (HB 96, formerly HB 5043) often devolves into name-calling and accusations, usually started by the pro-RH camp. All sorts of incredible and ignorant claims against the Church are brought up, revealing the outright ignorance and immature nature of the bill’s proponents. It is rare for persons from the pro-life side to initiate such low, below-the-belt tactics (although some can dish it out as well).

Let’s hope that the sacrilege committed at the Manila Cathedral is an isolated incident and not the beginning of a fanatical trend.

The RH/Abortion issue is literally a life and death matter for many, especially the unborn, who will become victims of anti-life policies. It deserves honest, informed debate. Disrespectful antics by fanatics are simply out of place.

(NOTE: This article was also published in my blog at: http://mamador.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/open-season-on-catholics/)

A New York-based law firm, the Center for Reproductive Rights, has released a paper blaming the Philippines’ pro-life laws criminalizing abortion for endangering women. The group alleges that current laws force women to turn to illegal abortions that can result in complications and — in around 1000 cases annually — even death. The report basically ties the laws against abortion to what it says are human rights violations.

This is nothing new. Pro-abortion forces used the same deceptive tactic to get abortion legalized in the U.S. The deception lies on many levels, some of which we will examine.

Who’s rights?

The CRR sees access to abortion as a human right, and in their view the denial of such is effectively a violation of a woman’s rights. This claim, however, is extremely ironic because abortion is itself a violation of human rights: it is a denial of the unborn child’s right to life. Since the situation therefore involves the alleged “rights” of a woman over the right to life of an innocent child, we must ask: whatever rights a woman may have regarding choices about having children, can these be more important than the right to life itself?

Life is the most paramount right. Without it no other rights can be exercised. Therefore, even if choosing an abortion is part of a woman’s rights — as claimed by the CRR — it is necessarily a lesser right than the right to life, a right which will be denied to the victim of an abortion, the unborn child.

Human life

To get around this dilemma, many pro-abortion groups sinply deny that unboirn children are people. Doing so, however, requires ignoring basic biology and scientific evidence. Once a human egg is fertilized, it can naturally develop only into a human being. It will not become a dog or a cat. It is definitively a human being. Furthermore, science tells us that the 46 chromosomes that define a unique human individual come together at fertilization. The fertilized ovum will become only a specific human individual and not another. It is clearly then a human person.

Aside from the scientific evidence, those that deny that the unborn are people have to face another problem: if the unborn are not human, then when do they become human? Obviously, birth is just an arbitrary defining point since the transfer of location and physically parting from another person (which is what a birth involves) does not define humanity. Other changes in the embryo or fetus are also not sufficient defining points since these are simply stages in the development of a unique individual already defined at fertilization. Even born human beings are still undergoing development. An infant is physically different from an adult. Later stages in development of an already unique individual cannot therefore define the beginning of human life and personhood.

The price of “safe” abortion

There are many laws that result in difficulty and hardship. Enforcing our laws against murder, for example, often result in shootouts and great expenditures to catch murderers. Enforcing our laws against drug trafficking also results in many deaths and a host of other problems. Does that mean we should legalize murder and drug trafficking? Of course not. We should not legalize these because thyey are wrong and the hardship entailed in enforcing our laws is nothing compared to the greater evils that will befall our nation should these crimes be legalized.

In the same way, abortion is in itself a great evil, a crime against the unborn, and a violation of human rights. If indeed continued criminalization of abortion can lead to other hardships. these are little compared to the mass butchery and massive moral degradation that would occur should abortion be made legal.

We must also note that there are other ways to alleviate the alleged plight of women who find themsleves turning to abortion. There are alternatives such as adoption, pregnancy crisis centers, and even foster homes for expectant mothers. There are also other measures that can be implemented by the government that can help, as we shall see.

Poverty is the culprit

The CRR report notes that mant women turn to abortion are poor and often cite economic reasons as one reason for doing so. In one interview cited by the report, a respondent said “Only those who are better off, rich, can talk about abortion as illegal. They have no worries about raising their children. But for those who have to work daily to be able to feed their families, the poor women have limited options. They do not know what it is like to be poor and desperate,”

That fact, however, shows that the real culprit is poverty. Legalizing abortion does absolutely nothing to address this issue. If the CRR is really interested in saving women’s lives it should call for an end to indsicriminate and excessive foreign debt servicing, manimizing graft and corruption, and economic policies that promote self-sufficiency and benefit Filipinos instead of foreign interests. These will address poverty. But it seems that the CRR is more interested in eliminating persons who they see as “problems” instead of addressing the real causes.

Should difficulty of enforcement mean legalization?

The report also claims that the country’s strict abortion laws have not stopped hundreds of thousands of abortions every year. CBCP legal adviser Atty. Jo Imbong’s simple but eloquent response quoted in a story in GMANews, however, revealed the weak reasoning behind the claims of the pro-abortion group: “Kung maraming drug addicts, gawin na lang nating legal ang drug addiction? (If there are many drug addicts, does that mean we should make drug use legal?)”

Indeed, we can even be more to the point: Just because it is difficult to eliminate all cases of murder doesn’t mean we should legalize it. Abortion is, after all, the killing of the most innocent and defenseless members of our society. In case anyone misses the point, killing the innocent is murder.

Safe equals legal?

Underlying the CRR’s propaganda is an assumption that legal abortions are also safe for women who decide to have them. This ignores the fact that all abortions are unsafe for their primary victims: the unborn. It also overlooks the fact that legal abortions aren’t always medically safe for the mothers. Many “legal” in other countries abortions are actually carried out in unsanitary conditions and are every bit as dangerous to women as illegal ones.

We should also remember that women are also victims of abortion. More evidence is coming out that those who have had abortions have a higher risk of suffering miscarriages, cervical cancer, psychological problems, and even suicide.

Hard cases

The CRR wants to legalize abortion in cases where the life of the mother is in danger, where the fetus is impaired, where the pregancy is the result of rape or incest. But the Philippines does allow for measures necessary to save the mother’s life which may indirectly result in the death of the unborn baby. This is not a direct abortion and in some cases is even allowed by the Church.

As for fetal impairment, that involves a moral judgement which essentially says that a certain type of person should not be allowed to live. Following this “logic,” should we now start killing people with Down’s Syndrome? The reasoning is absurd and is not grounds for killing an innocent person.

Rape and incest are likewise not valid grounds for killing an innocent child. As Atty. Imbong pointed out, “Hindi naman kasalanan ng baby yun eh. Bakit siya papatayin? (The rape is not the baby’s fault. Why should the baby be killed?)”

By the way. although it is not emphasized in its new report, many pro-abortion groups want to allow abortion in cases where the pregnancy can cause “psychological distress.” That last term is really a catch-all phrase that can mean just about anything. It is used to disguise the real objective, which is abortion on demand, for any reason. Abortion is seen by these people as a right, not as the violation of human rights (of the unborn) that it really is.

Reproductive health and abortion linked

The report and its accompanying call for legalization of abortion exposes the hidden agenda behind the “reproductive health” propaganda to which our people have been subjected lately. Contraception, population control, and contraceptive sex education are actually closely linled to abortion. They feed on each other and together make up a very profitable billion dollar industry!

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton clearly stated that, in the Obama administration’s view, reproductive health includes access to abortion. All the elements of the reproductive health agenda — abortion, population control, contraception, promotion of so-called sexaul freedom (meaning casual sex without responsibility) and sex education taught apart from values, form a single discriminatory, eugenics-based worldview that sees pregnancy, children, and population growth in the Third World as a threat that must be contained.

It is not coincidental that all this dovetails neatly with the declassified 1974 U.S. government document, National Security Study Memorandum 200. This document lists the Philippines as part of a group of countries whose growing population, which would eventually lead to  prosperity, would threaten U.S. overseas economic interests and security. The document recommended the imposition of radical population control using United Nations aid programs.

Garapalan na!

The cat is out of the bag. Not content with imposing dehumanizing forms of sex education, contraception, and population control, pro-RH groups now want to legalize the murder of the innocent.

I wonder what the proponents of the RH/Abortion Bill like Edcel Lagman, Risa Hontiveros, and Jannette Garin — who all claim to be anti-abortion — have to say to this. If they keep quiet then it’s pretty obvious that they too are part of this deadly agenda.

(Note: This article previously appeared on my blog at: http://mamador.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/abortion-reproductive-rights-hoax/)

This is false and obsolete thinking.

Numerous economic studies have shown that there is no causal link or correlation between poverty and population growth. In the paper “A Primer on the proposed Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood, and Population Development Consolidated Bill,” Dr. Roberto de Vera cites Nobel Prize winner Simon Kuznets’ 1966 book, Modern Economic Growth: Rate, Structure and Spread, which concluded: “no clear association appears to exist in the present sample of countries, or is likely to exist in other developed countries, between rates of growth of population and of product per capita.”

More recent studies have supported Kuznets’ original conclusion and applied it to all nations in general. De Vera cites five more:

“(1) the 1992 Ross Levine and David Renelt study of the relationship between growth and its determinants found no significant effect of population growth on economic growth;

(2) the 1994 Jeff King and Lant Pritchett study arrived at a similar finding where they allowed the effect of population on economic growth to vary according to the level of development and resource scarcity;

(3) in a 1996 review of the population-growth-poverty relationship, Dennis Ahlburg points out that studies have shown population growth has little or no effect on poverty;

(4) in a 2004 study examining the determinants of long-term growth, Gernot Dopelhoffer, Ronald Miller, and Xavier Sala-I-Martin, found that average annual population growth from 1960-1990 was not robustly correlated with economic growth;

(5) the 2007 Eric Hanushek and Ludger Wommann study found that total fertility rates, which can be seen as an alternative measure of population growth, did not have a statistically significant association with population growth.”

Dr. De Vera goes on to say:

Similar conclusions have been arrived at by the US National Research Council in 1986 and in the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) Consultative Meeting of Economists in 1992.

Moreover, these studies support Kuznets’s explanation of why no direct relationship could be expected between population growth and economic growth. Population growth and economic growth are linked through a “common set of political and social institutions.” Thus, any “direct causal relation” between them “may be quite limited.” Moreover, any relationship that is measured cannot be used as a basis for managing population to affect economic growth.

It is important to note that even if there are recent econometric studies that show that population growth is negatively correlated with per capita income growth in the Philippine case (i.e. an increase in the population growth rate leads to decrease in the per capita income growth rate), these studies cannot conclude that higher population growth rates causes lower per capita income growth rates. It is more probable that there are intervening factors such as those mentioned by Kuznets that may cause economic growth. This these studies cannot serve as bases for a policy that aims to reduce population growth to raise per capita income growth.

For the Sun Star to say that population growth causes poverty is unscientific. Overpopulation is clearly a myth.

The real causes of poverty in the Philippines are massive corruption, bad governance, economic mismanagement, indiscriminate debt servicing, greed, and war (in Mindanao). The so-called “reproductive health” bill and its population control measures will not address these issues; but the Church’s social teaching — if put into practice — certainly will.

(NOTE: This post also appeared in my blog at http://mamador.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/obsolete-thinking-again/)

Barbie sets up

“True Love Waits.” That line might sound corny, but it’s an important truth our youth need to hear.

Consider this: Everyday they are bombarded with trendy messages telling them that if something feels good then it must be morally good. They are told that sex is fun, and that you don’t have to face its consequences as long as you have “safe” sex. No wonder then that so many of them engage in it before they are ready and — when contraceptives fail as they eventually will — they have to grow up quickly because of new, unexpected responsibilities.

Or, worse, they may end up murdering the innocent, unborn fruit of their indiscretion through abortion.

Is sex education the answer, as the proponents of the RH Bill say? Not if it just encourages more promiscuous behavior and even more health and social problems.

Fortunately, there is a viable, truly life-saving and life-changing alternative: education in purity and life values.

That is exactly what True Love Waits (TLW) Philippines (http://wagmuna.com and http://www.tlw.ph) is trying to do. The movement, which is affiliated with LifeWay Student Ministry, has a four-fold purpose (taken from the TLW Philippines website):

• GUIDE young people to make a commitment to sexual abstinence until marriage.
• GIVE young people who have made a commitment to abstinence a chance to reaffirm that promise and challenge other young people to do so.
• GUIDE parents of young people to make or reaffirm a commitment to Godly standards of sexual behavior and model a life committed to sexual purity.
• GIVE adults a tangible way to affirm and encourage young people who make a commitment to sexual abstinence until marriage.

Now that’s a whole lot better than teaching kids how to use condoms!

This month, on May 15, TLW will be conducting a Purity Conference Strategic Planning Session. The event will be held at the Waterfront Hotel in Lahug, Cebu City, from 9:00AM to 12:00 noon, and is for teachers, guidance counselors, leaders of youth organizations, and just about anyone else who wants to help organize the upcoming Purity Mega Event to be held on September 19, 2009, called UNASHAMED Cebu. Entrance is FREE.

Derek Ross, the group’s national Director, will be in Cebu to meet with interested parties at the planning conference and even afterwards. Derek’s a Texan, married with five kids, and likes to refer to himself as “Zaido, Pulis Pangkalokohan!” Yeah, I know. Don’t ask me where he got that one.

Barbie gives her testimony

I attended the UNASHAMED Purity Conference held at the Mega Tent in Pasig last February. It was meaty, straightforward, and did not beat around the bush. It gave the participants straight talk on issues that matter in their lives, and did it all with a good dose of fun and humor. At the end we were treated to some good live music. I had the privilege and pleasure to see Barbie (of Barbie’s Cradle) perform again. She’s such a beautiful, blessed, and talented lady. Her testimony touched me as I’m sure it touched so many others. This is something your kids (and even you) shouldn’t miss.

See you at UNASHAMED Cebu on September 19!

For more information, contact Ree Soria, TLW’s national Media Coordinator, at 0926-6102514

http://www.phnix.net/Position_Paper_Against_HB_5043.pdf

We, concerned alumni of Catholic Universities, have united to express our stand against the anti-life, abortion-promoting Reproductive Health Bill authored by Edcel Lagman et al, now also known as HB (House Bill) 5043.

As graduates of Catholic universities well-known for their spiritual and moral values and academic excellence, we are also deeply dismayed that certain faculty members in some of our own respective alma maters have aired support for the said Bill despite the clear guidelines of our Catholic Faith.

We have therefore chosen to release this position paper in response to the confusion and scandal caused by the actions of those who have made the false claim that one can support HB 5043 and still be consistent with the teachings of our Faith.

HB 5043 uses wrong means to achieve questionable ends

Not all means to an end are justified. HB 5043′s supporters may think it has admirable, good ends, such as lowering the incidence of “unwanted” pregnancies, abortion, maternal death, and poverty, but they are mistaken. HB 5043 will not achieve these; and even if it could, there are more acceptable — and more effective — means of achieving these ends.

HB 5043 has provisions that will have morally questionable consequences. Some of these are as follows.

HB 5043 promotes abortion through abortifacients

The proponents of HB 5043 have ignored the fact that it promotes abortifacient contraceptives. The Position Paper of the 14 Ateneo faculty members, for example, dismisses this possibility, assuming that health authorities have declared modern contraceptives as non-abortifacient. Yet many studies show that such a dismissal is unjustified, and that these contraceptives can prevent the implantation of a newly- conceived human being.[1]

We also note that other contraceptives, like the IUD, are even more abortifacient than oral contraceptives, especially when used as “emergency” contraceptives. Their abortifacient mechanism of action is well-known and documented.[2]

Any contraceptive that prevents the fertilized egg from implanting, or otherwise causing it to be eventually destroyed, is an abortifacient. HB 5043, however, explicitly promotes and funds such abortifacients.[3]

It may be argued that the abortifacient mechanism of some oral contraceptives has not been conclusively proven to occur in human beings, or that if it does occur then this occurrence is very rare. To the first argument we would reply that even if there really were any doubt that a contraceptive is abortifacient, the grave stakes involved (the death of a human being) means that the burden of proof is on those who would deny that these are abortifacients. In other words, they must prove that these contraceptives are in fact non-abortifacient. Until such a conclusive determination is achieved we must err on the side of caution and not place the lives of the unborn at risk.

We also note that this imperative to avoid the questionable methods promoted by HB 5043 becomes especially more compelling since there is a safe, modern, and effective alternative: Natural Family Planning.

HB 5043 violates explicit Catholic teaching

Catholic doctrine has always held human life begins at conception. The Catholic Church has also taught that artificial contraception is a grave evil for as far back as can be historically traced. The early Church Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Hippolytus, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, and many others all condemned contraception. The Catechism of the Catholic Church prohibits it. In the 20th century, Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae in 1968 affirmed this teaching, as did Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii decades before, in 1930. The Pontifical Council for the Family reiterated this teaching in 1997, through the document Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life.[4]

HB 5043, however explicitly promotes the use of artificial and abortifacient contraceptive methods and devices, and provides funding for their procurement and distribution. In fact, HB 5043 mandates that contraceptives shall be classified as “essential medicine”. The claim, therefore, that the Bill is pro-life and is consistent with Catholic doctrine is totally false. No Catholic can support HB 5043 without violating the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.

HB 5043 violates the Philippine Constitution

The Philippine Constitution, in Article II, Section 12, recognizes that human life must be protected from the moment of conception. It states:

“The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.”

An abortifacient, however, causes the eventual destruction of the fertilized egg — of newly-conceived life. HB 5043, as stated earlier, promotes and funds such abortifacients. It therefore violates the Philippine Constitution.

HB 5043 is anti-women and anti-poor

While HB 5043 claims to prevent maternal death, its supporters fail to grasp that the great majority of such deaths are caused by the lack of proper medical facilities and care. Instead of using resources on controversial contraceptive methods and services, more good will be done by using such funds for basic health care, eliminating the real cause of maternal deaths. The Bill, however, does not address this lack of basic health care services, and will allow the problem to persist while it wastes funds on abortifacients and other ineffective reproductive health measures.

HB 5043 is coercive and violates freedom of speech

Section 21 (e) of the proposed bill lists the following as a prohibited act: “Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.” This provision is overly broad and “disinformation” could (and most probably will) be construed as prohibiting the expression of objections to the Bill, such as what we are presently doing. This provision is is obviously going to be used to suppress dissent, and is an undue restriction of freedom of speech.[5] It has no place in any of the laws of a democratic nation.

Section 17, on the other hand, mandates employers must provide such abortifacients and other contraceptives to employees. It states that, “All Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) shall provide for the free delivery by the employer of reasonable quantity of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers, more particularly women workers.” Employers, therefore, are not given any choice despite the fact that distribution of these abortifacients and contraceptives may be against their conscience.

Section 21, number 5, requires doctors and health workers to dispense such abortifacients and other artificial contraceptive devices and methods. If they refuse to do so on religious grounds, they must still refer those who want to use such abortifacients to another person who will dispense them. Conscientious objectors are thereby required to cooperate in such acts, and if they refuse, they are slapped penalties ranging from one to six months imprisonment and a fine of P10,000-P50,000! HB 5043 eliminates any choice for conscientious objectors and makes no room for their legitimate concerns.

A call for Catholic unity and fidelity to Christ

No Catholic can support HB 5043 and remain faithful to the teachings of Christ, given to the Apostles and handed down through the centuries by the Church. To claim otherwise is deceptive and involves distortions of authentic Catholic teaching and flawed reasoning, if not outright falsehood.

For these reasons, we vigorously oppose HB 5043 and call on our respective alma mater — respected Catholic institutions — to unambiguously, unequivocally and publicly take a stand against HB 5043.

We also call on all Catholic educational institutions to rigorously examine their own different situations to determine whether the education they impart to Catholic students in their charge is faithful to the Magisterium, and to take steps to correct any contradictions being taught in the name of the Church.

December 2008
In Christ,

The Signatories

Emmanuel R. Amador
Ateneo de Manila University
AB Communication Arts (1984)
AB Philosophy (1985)

Marietta M. Aguado
Xavier University (1958)
Maryknoll College (1960)
De La Salle University (2006)

Bernard Bagaman
Ateneo de Manila University
AB Communication Arts (1984)

Philip V. Beley
Ateneo de Manila University
High School (1976)

Ricardo B. Boncan
Ateneo de Manila University
Grade School (1979)
High School (1983)

Tomas Borromeo
De La Salle University (Taft)
High School (1968)

Anna Filomena V. Generoso
School of the Holy Spirit (Q.C.)
High School (1986)

Jose Miguel R. Gomez
Ateneo de Manila University
AB Interdisciplinary Studies (1983)

Antonio Carlos Palad
Angelicum School (GS)
Holy Trinity Academy
High School (1998)

Atty. Jan Ralph Y. Perez, CPA
University of San Carlos
High School (1995)
BS-Accountancy (2000)
Bachelor of Laws Batch (2005)

Endnotes

1. One such study, “Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent,”
   (http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126) came to the following conclusion:

   “It seems likely that for perfect use of COCs, postfertilization mechanisms would be likely to have a small but not negligible role. For POPs, COCs with lower doses of estrogen, and imperfect use of any OCs, postfertilization effects are likely to have an increased role. In any case, the medical literature does not support the hypothesis that postfertilization effects of OCs do not exist.”

2. CVS/Pharmacy (www.cvs.com), described the functions of IUDs in this manner:
   

   “IUDs are thought to prevent pregnancy by making the womb ‘unfriendly’ to sperm and eggs. Sperm is either killed, or kept from reaching and fertilizing an egg. An IUD also may keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb and growing into a baby.”

   Another study by Stanford JB, Mikolajczyk RT, “Mechanisms of action of intrauterine devices: update and estimation of postfertilization effects,” which appeared in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, notes:

   “There are many potential mechanisms of action for the intrauterine device (IUD), which vary by type of IUD (inert, copper, or hormonal). This paper reviews the evidence for each potential mechanism of action. On the basis of available data for fertilization rates and clinical pregnancy rates, the relative contribution of mechanisms acting before or after fertilization were quantitatively estimated. These estimates indicate that, although prefertilization effects are more prominent for the copper IUD, both prefertilization and postfertilization mechanisms of action contribute significantly to the effectiveness of all types of intrauterine devices.”

3. Section 9 of the Bill subsidizes IUD insertion, among other things. Section 10 classifies hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, and injectables as “essential medicines” and subsidizes their procurement.
4. A short listing of some of these early Church Fathers, along with quotations from their writings, can be found in the January 1996 issue of This Rock magazine, published by Catholic Answers. This article may also be found online at: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FKBCONTR.HTM The relevant sections of The Catechism of the Catholic Church are Part Three: Life in Christ, Section Two: The Ten Commandments, Chapter Two: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”, Article six: The Sixth Commandment, #2351, 2352, 2363, 2366, 2369, 2370. These sections are online at: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm An english version of Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii may be found online at the Holy See’s website:
   http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

   An english version of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae may be found online at the Holy See’s website:
   http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

   An english version of the Vademecum may be found online at the Holy See’s website:
   http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html

5. As Cong. Pablo John Garcia said: “Section 21 (e) is plainly stupid, placed there, I believe, by a ‘pikon’ author. RH bill proponents complain of the ‘religious pressure’ brought to bear. Section 21 (e) seeks to elevate the RH bill into a state-mandated religion.”

The rights of the unborn and freedom of religion are under grave attack. Congressman Lagman’s anti-life Bill pending in Congress, now known as consolidated House Bill 5043, has been gaining support.If we don’t do something about it, Congress may just make the Bill into law.

The so-called “reproductive health” Bill contains provisions that promote abortion and will force people to act against their conscience.

Section 9 of the Bill, for example, subsidizes IUD insertion, among other things. Section 10 classifies hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, and injectables as “essential medicines” and subsidizes their procurement. Hormonal contraceptives and the IUD, however, are known abortifacients. They prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum (which is already a human being whose rights are recognized and protected by the Philippine Constitution), eventually leading to its destruction. This is an early chemical abortion.

Section 17, on the other hand, mandates employers must provide such abortifacients to employees. It states that, “All Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) shall provide for the free delivery by the employer of reasonably quantity of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers, more particularly women workers.”

Section 21, number 5, requires doctors and health workers to dispense such abortifacients and other artificial contraceptive devices and methods. If they refuse to do so on religious grounds, they must still refer those who want to use such abortifacients to another person who will dispense them. Conscientious objectors are thereby required to cooperate in such acts, trampling on their religious rights. Those who refuse are subject penalties ranging from 1-6 months imprisonment and a fine of P10,000-P50,000!

Stand Up and Be Counted

Couples for Christ has launched an online campaign against this monstrosity posing as a “health” Bill. Check out the following URL:

Kill Bill 5043
http://www.prolife.cfcinternationalmissions.com/

There’s another petition against HB 5043, this time created by an individual. Please sign this too!

No to Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)
http://www.petitiononline.com/xxhb5043/petition.html

Be counted and kill this murderous Bill! We have to stand and protect the rights of unborn children and the right of each of person to follow his conscience, free of government coercion. Online petitions may not have the force of written petitions with real signatures, but they do have some moral force. If you wish to register your opposition to this Bill online, you may do so using those petitions.

If you have time, you may also wish to write a letter to your favorite newspaper, your local government officials, and to your Congressman and any Senator. Let them know you are against this coercive and dangerous Bill.

And in 2010, make sure you DON’T vote for Lagman and his accomplices in Congress.

(Warning: this post mentions some mature — even sickening — concepts. It is not intended for young readers)

The proponents of same-sex marriage want to change a revered institution to accommodate the sexual preferences of certain groups. These groups often include lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transexuals (sometimes referred to as the LGBT sector). Now while that may sound very inclusive and tolerant, their advocacy is actually based on faulty logic that will eventually lead to disaster.

Many people assume that because the institution marriage involves a relationship between a man and a woman (with God as Witness and Judge), then it must also be based on sexual preference: the distinctly heterosexual preference of the majority. That is not exactly the case.

God’s created reality as the basis of marriage

It is true that marriage — especially Christian marriage — is a monogamous heterosexual union. But the sexual preference of the human participants alone is NOT its basis. If it were, then it would be subject to change at any time, subject to the whims of any of the contracting parties. But marriage is supposed to be far more stable and permanent than that.

The truth of the matter is that the heterosexual orientation of marriage comes about because of something far more basic: the natural, biological reality that God created.

The purpose of marriage is to bring about the union of persons in a relationship that allows them to beget children and to raise them in a loving, nurturing environment: the family. Marriage, therefore, recognizes the simple biological reality in God’s design: that natural reproduction is essential for the continued survival of the human race.

This reality cannot be changed. Non-heterosexual unions cannot beget children. Even science, for all its advances, still cannot effectively replace natural reproduction (if it tried to, the world would de-populate very quickly). And even if it could, this does not change the original basis of marriage nor nullify its validity. It is still an institution based upon a biolgical imperative that is part of God’s created reality.

Argumentum ad absurdum.

Well, so what if marriage recognizes this biological reality? Why not change marriage to accommodate a different set of sexual preferences anyway, since these are held by a minority group? What would be the consequences of this logic?

Well, obviously if the sexual preferences of the LGBT groups are to be accommodated, then what do we do about the sexual preferences of other groups? If we allow same-sex marriages, then what about catering to the desires of pedophiles, necrophiliacs, and those who practice bestiality? What about incestuous marriages? What about casual marriages for those who prefer temporary relationships? What about polygamy for those who want more than one partner? What about making room for those who prefer sickening sadomasochism? What about forced marriages for those who are into extreme domination? What about…?

At this point the problem should be evident. If we tinker with marriage to accommodate the sexual preferences of one group, then why not modify it to accommodate the sexual preferences of all (or most) of the other groups as well? Why not make it cater to every gross sexual perversion under the sun?

The logic that allows same-sex marriage is the same logic that allows any and every kind of “marriage”. It is absurd on the face of it. The proponents of same-sex marriage simply do not have a rational leg to stand on.

Marriage is not simply a human institution. It is a divinely ordained institution. As such, it logically respects the natural design of God’s creation. The “modified” versions of marriage that other groups want to implement do not respect that design and will rapidly lead to moral, biological, medical, and economic disaster.

God did it right the first time. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Why in the world did some people make such a big fuss about the guidelines issued by the Archdiocese of Manila for proper attire at Mass? Other churches and many secular organizations have dress codes too. Why can’t there be one for something as holy and important as the Mass?The Mass is not a trivial or casual activity like shopping at the mall or hanging out at a coffee shop. It is supposed to be the highest formal worship event of the Catholic Church. It is where we re-enter into the sacrifice that Christ made on Calvary, and where we partake of his real Body and Blood.

Doesn’t that deserve a little more respect and solemnity from believers?

We wear special clothes to show respect for our hosts and peers on other occasions such as weddings, board meetings, and civic club inductions, don’t we? Most professionals also wear proper office attire when they go to work or meet clients. Judges, lawyers, and even the general public have to wear decent clothes in court too. Even politicians (many of whom may not even deserve to be in their respective positions) have to be properly dressed in Congress and at the Senate.

Why is the Mass — and its real host: God Himself — not to be given as much respect?

We can, of course, show our respect in various ways, the most important of which is our inner attitude of love and obedience to God. But since the Mass is a public gathering, we must give some attention to how we present ourselves to others who are there. This is because we are actually part of the environment in the Church during the Mass, and we can enhance or detract from the worship experience of others. Just think: how exactly do we contribute to the solemnity of the activity if our outward appearance is distracting or even downright salacious?

It’s simply a matter of being considerate to others, and the new guidelines help us to do just that.

Now I have heard some objections to the effect that the guidelines will make it difficult for the poor since they don’t have nice clothes. That, however, betrays the fact those who make such objections probably haven’t seen the guidelines at all, which is available as a poster (which you can download) to be displayed in public.

Take a look at the guidelines. It allow t-shirts, slacks, and jeans. There aren’t even any specifications on proper footwear! The poor can easily comply. And I seriously doubt if most of the parishes will turn away a man who is so poor that he doesn’t have a shirt on his back. Some might even give him a shirt!

Besides, I have noticed that many of those who wear improper attire are often the rich and well-to-do. I often see them attending mass wearing expensive, racy, expose-what-you-can outfits (which are probably better classified as lingerie). Should we expect the Church to just ignore this?

Something tells me that those who are trying to stir up some controversy over the issue are just looking for another excuse — no matter how flimsy — to attack the Catholic Church. And they would probably love to see the Holy Mass profaned in any way possible.

The malicious prejudice of these Church-haters knows no bounds, and they will stoop to the lowest means just to lash out at Christ’s Church. Fortunately, some people can see through their thinly-veiled hypocrisy and will point it out.

(Click on the image above to view a larger version)

Note: This article was originally posted on my personal advocacy blog: http://mamador.wordpress.com