Madonna and Child with Angels by Lorenzo Di Bicci, 1405-1410-
I've gone through both the senate and house versions of the RH bill. My comments:
1. Both clearly endorse both natural family planning and artificial contraception, as can be seen from the definition of "modern methods of family planning" and the constant reference to "a full range" of reproductive health services. In fact, the statement of policies in the house version of the bill explicitly states that state shall promote both natural and artificial methods without bias. The Senate version of the bill mentions both natural and artificial methods in the appropriations section.
2. The definition of reproductive health says that "This implies that people are able to enjoy responsible and safe sex," without mentioning whether this responsible and safe sex is to be between married couples or just between any two consenting adults. While it will be impractical to criminalize all forms of immoral sexual behavior, it's a totally different thing for the government itself to facilitate licentiousness by providing contraceptives at taxpayers' expense.
3. The bills require employers to provide a "full range" of reproductive health services to their employees, and require accredited health centers to do the same. What if providing artificial contraceptives is against the corporate philosophy of your company/hospital?
4. The bills require mandated sex education in schools. Again, what if the contents and methodology of the sex education program which the RH bill mandates is contrary to the mission/vision of your school?
5. The penal sanctions imposed on those who violate the proposed law, as well as the list of prohibited acts, violate religious freedom. The provision that conscientious objectors will be respected is useless since it requires those conscientious objectors to refer the patient to someone who will provide the "health care service" asked for.
There's a Supreme Court ruling saying that students cannot be forced to salute the flag if doing so would be against their religious beliefs. I submit that to require, for example, a hospital to provide contraceptive services even if it will go against the hospital owner's religious beliefs similarly offends religious freedom. Remember, religious freedom is a constitutional right.
6. The provision penalizing anyone who gives malicious disinformation on the proposed law is also problematic. What does it mean by "malicious disinformation"? The phrase is vague. Will it apply to any expression of one's opinion opposed to the RH bill? If yes, this will violate freedom of speech. Again, freedom of speech is a constitutional right.
Atty. Cristina Montes
Alumna, U.P. College of Law
No comments:
Post a Comment