US study proves Church point vs RH bill – CBCP official

MANILA, Sept. 5, 2011— Pro-reproductive health (RH) bill lawmakers
should rethink their position on the measure if only to address maternal
deaths in the country, a Catholic Church official said.

Fr. Melvin Castro of the Commission on Family and Life of the
Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines recent study in the US
only shows that RH bill is not the answer to maternal mortality.

“Sana e makita ito ng ating leaders sa pamahalaan na sana huwag nang
ipagpilitan ang bagong batas na gagastusan pa ng buwis ng mamamayan,”
said Castro.

Over the weekend, reports came out saying researchers from the
University of Washington in Seattle studying maternal deaths in 181
countries showed that the maternal mortality rate in the Philippines has
dropped by 81 percent from 1980 to 2008.

Separately, the 2010 report “Trends in Maternal Mortality: 1990 to
2008” by the World Health Organization, the United Nations Children’s
Fund, the UN Population Fund, and the World Bank, placed the
Philippines’ maternal mortality ratio or MMR at 94 per 100,000 live
births in 2008, which is equivalent to 4.6 deaths a day.

This is way lower than the 2004 report placing maternal deaths in the
country during the year 2000 at 4,100, or equal to 11.2 a day.

The improvements come while RH bill, which seeks to promote the use
of contraceptives in family planning, is pending in Congress and
abortion remains illegal in the country.

The study, Castro said, only shows that the problem can be resolved
if only the government dedicates its service in serving women,
especially pregnant mothers.

“Kung talagang ang pamahalaan ay seryoso na tulungan ang ating mga
kababaihan na maging malusog at mapayapa at secure ang pagbubuntis at
panganganak ay magagawa yun e kahit walang batas sapagkat iyan e natural
na dapat ginagawa ng pamahalaan,” he said.

“Mapapakita talaga dito sa study na ang kailangan ay hindi panibagong
batas kundi ang mahalaga ay ang pamahalaan at pribadong sector ay
tutukan ito,” Castro added.

To note, RH bill proponents and supporters have been claiming the
need to address maternal deaths in the country as a reason to
immediately pass the measure. [CBCPNews]

Exposed: Three pro-RH groups backing legalized abortionR

MANILA, September 5, 2011–At least three non-government organizations
have been found to be espousing the legalization of abortion in the
Philippines, as senators resumed floor debates on the controversial
“reproductive health” (RH) bill Monday.

 

One of the sponsors of Senate Bill No. 2865, Sen. Pia Cayetano, did
not deny that groups such as the Family Planning Organization of the
Philippines (FPOP), the Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights
(WGNRR), and Likhaan have been campaigning for legalized abortion, under
interpellation by Sen. Vicente Sotto III.

Sotto pointed out that FPOP got US$617,000 (P26 million) in funding
from the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) – the
world’s largest abortion provider – last year.

FPOP’s website carries a document titled “Medical and Service
Delivery Guidelines for Sexual and Reproductive Health Services,” which
describes medical and surgical methods for inducing abortion.

“[E]fforts should be made to inform the public that abortion is
safest when performed early, and women who seek abortion should be
encouraged to attend as early in the pregnancy as possible,” the
document on the FPOP website states.

FPOP is also on the listing of “Sexual Health Services and abortion
clinics Worldwide” by the Dutch abortion group Women on Waves (WoW). WoW
takes women aboard hired ships to undergo abortions in international
waters, to escape national laws banning abortion.

WoW states on its website: “If you live in a country where there is
no access to safe abortion services and you would like to obtain a
medical abortion with Mifepristone and Misoprostol, please go to Women
on Web. This is an online medical abortion help service that refers to a
doctor who can provide you with a medical abortion.”

Mifepristone and Misoprostol are abortion drugs, and both are not legal in the Philippines.

Providing how-to instructions for abortion

Likhaan, meanwhile, published last year a Filipino translation of the
book “Where Women Have No Doctor,” Chapter 15 of which has a section
titled “Mga Ligtas na Paraan ng Pagpapalaglag.” The book is available to
the public on the Likhaan website.

“Tinatanggal ang binubuntis sa pamamagitan ng paghigop, gamit ang ispesyal na tubo (cannula) na pinapadaan sa puwerta at cervix pa-pasok sa matris. Puwedeng gawin ito na hindi pinapatulog ang babae, pero minsan, iniiniksyunan ng gamot sa cervix para makatulong sa sakit. Sa manu-manong proseso (manual vacuum aspiration o MVA), tinatanggal ang binubuntis sa pamamagitan ng ispesyal na heringgilya (syringe). Kung hindi, gumagamit ng maliit na makinang de-kuryente,” the book states.

“Mayroon na ngayong mga gamot na nagagamit ang mga doktor at health worker para
magpalaglag. Pinapaimpis ng mga gamot ang matris at pinipiga palabas
ang binubuntis. Ang ilang gamot ay nilalagay sa loob ng puwerta … ang
ilan ay iniinom, at ang ilan ay iniiniksyon. Kung tama ang gagamiting
gamot o kumbinasyon ng mga gamot, ligtas at mabisang paraan ito,” it adds.

Pushing abortion acceptance despite being unlawful

The Manila- and Amsterdam-based WGNRR, headed by UP professor Dr.
Sylvia Claudio, talks about its “Abortion Rights Advocacy” on its
website:

“Throughout its almost 30 year history, WGNRR has made abortion advocacy a priority.”

The Claudio-led group’s “specific goals” include the investigation of
“ways to improve access despite the law,” sharing of “experiences and
strategies about how to confront religious fundamentalists,” and finding
the “best practices for linking abortion rights to other social justice
and human rights campaigns.”

Sotto
pointed out that the RH bill provides an “open door” to abortion –
Section 3 paragraph i. The provision states: “While this Act does not
amend the penal law on abortion, the government shall ensure that all
women needing care for post-abortion complications shall be treated and
counseled in a humane, non-judgmental and compassionate manner.”

“People and organizations behind it, as far as I’m concerned, are the
difficulties I am encountering [in this bill],” Sotto said.

“IPPF has lobbied worldwide for the legalization and repeal of all laws preventing legal access to abortion,” he added.

In reply, Cayetano said: “The fact that an organization has made
statements inconsistent with public policy does not prevent them from
making statements consistent [with public policy].”

Using a poor analogy, the pro-RH senator said that even if Osama bin
Laden supported policies against climate change, environmentalist Sen.
Loren Legarda wouldn’t want to be associated with the brains behind the
9/11 attacks.

Sotto, however, retorted: “Climate change – everybody will agree to that. Eh ito contraception and abortion eh!” (Dominic Francisco)

CBCP for Life.com

10 laws have the same provisions as RH bill - Senator Vicente Sotto

10 laws have the same provisions as RH bill - Sotto


By Marvin Sy
(The Philippine Star) Updated August 30, 2011 12:00 AM

MANILA, Philippines - In going all out against the
proposed Reproductive Health (RH) bill, Senate Majority Leader Vicente
Sotto III showed that there were at least 10 laws and executive
issuances that already contained all the objectives envisioned by the
measure.

For two straight days, Sotto took on the sponsors of the RH bill in
the Senate, Pia Cayetano and Miriam Defensor Santiago, both lawyers and
strong advocates of women’s rights and welfare.

While the initial arguments centered on the issue of contraceptives
and their supposed use as abortifacients, which the sponsors claimed was
practically an issue of religious beliefs, Sotto’s interpellation
focused on his claim that the bill merely repeats provisions already
found in existing laws.

Sotto has been arguing that the Department of Health (DOH) is already
implementing various programs on reproductive health and has the
funding necessary to fulfill this mandate, so coming up with yet another
law to do the same thing would be unnecessary.

He took up the six objectives of the RH bill and showed that there
were several laws that were enacted in the past to fulfill them.

The RH bill has the following objectives: to save the lives of
mothers and the unborn; provide Filipinos with information on
reproductive health so they can make informed and intelligent decisions;
provide access to health care facilities and skilled health
professionals before, during and after delivery; address HIV and other
sexually-transmitted diseases; provide access to different family
planning methods; and institutionalize age and development appropriate
reproductive health education.

According to Sotto, there are laws that go back to the Marcos
administration and some authored by the current sponsors that are meant
to address all those objectives of the RH bill.

The most prominent of these laws is Republic Act No. 9710 or the
Magna Carta of Women, which Sotto noted already addresses all six
objectives of the RH bill.

He also cited R.A. 8504 or the Philippine AIDS Prevention and
Control Act of 1998, R.A. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and
Children Act, R.A. 7875 or the National Health Insurance Act of 1995 and
R.A. 9501 or the Cheaper Medicines Act as containing various provisions
related to the objectives of the RH bill.

Presidential Decrees 603 or the Child and Youth Welfare Code and 965
which requires applicants for marriage licenses to receive instructions
on family planning and responsible parenthood were laws that have been
around since the Marcos administration.

Administrative Order 2008-0029 of the DOH provides the strategy to
rapidly reduce maternal and neonatal mortality and remains in place to
this day.

The current administration has continued its support for these
objectives by approving the appropriations in the national budget and
through the issuance of executive orders to ensure these are achieved.

Sotto noted that the 2011 General Appropriations Act contains
P153.978 million for health promotion, another P232.919 million for
health human resource development and P7.116 billion for the health
facilities enhancement program.

This is on top of the conditional cash transfer program of the
Department of Social Welfare and Development which requires its
recipients to get prenatal care, assisted childbirth by skilled or
professionals, attendance in family planning sessions and regular
preventive health check ups and vaccines for children zero to five years
of age.

President Aquino, who has thrown in his support behind the RH bill,
has also issued Administrative Orders 2010-0010 or the revised policy on
micronutrient supplementation to support achievement of 2015 Millennium
Development Goal targets to reduce under-five and maternal deaths and
address micronutrient needs of other population groups; and 2010-0036
also known as the Aquino health agenda, achieving universal health care
for all Filipinos.

Sotto added that there are other programs that exist for the purpose
of reproductive health such as the women’s health and safe motherhood
project and the family planning program of the DOH.

He said that even the Local Government Code contains a provision for
local government units to provide their own basic services and
facilities, including primary health care and maternal and child care.

The Labor Code provides incentives for family planning while R.A.
7883 or the Barangay Health Workers Benefits and Incentives Act of 1995
provides health education, training of barangay health workers,
community building and organizing.

Sotto admitted that there is much to be desired as far as the
enhancement of health facilities are concerned but the government is
getting there already.

“The DOH is the best argument against RH bill because they are
practically doing everything that the RH bill wants to do. This is
already in place, no debates, no problems, no additional funding needed
because it’s all there,” Sotto said.

“There is no need for the RH bill. Health Secretary (Enrique) Ona
said it clearly, with or without the bill, they are doing it
(reproductive health programs),” he added.

Santiago argued that there is no law prohibiting the repeat of what an existing law already states.

“There is no prohibition against redundant provisions in different
bills. Plus, it could be possible that one bill is general in nature
while the RH bill is specific in nature, and the rule of statutory
construction is when one bill is general in nature and another is
specific in nature, the courts will uphold the law that is specific in
nature,” Santiago said.

“So, in effect, even if there were similar or identical provisions,
that is simply an insurance that when the bill is brought to court, the
Supreme Court will be persuaded by the position because the bills
succeeding each other are repetitions of each other, meaning to say the
lawmakers have very strong opinions about a certain provisions in the
bill,” she added.

Pro-life group hits Akbayan for malicious tirade vs. Sotto

 

MANILA,
August 24, 2011–A pro-life organization on Wednesday criticized a
partylist group for waging a vicious social networking demolition job on
Sen. Vicente “Tito” Sotto III, saying its claims were “narrow-minded”
and “out of context.”

In a statement on the group’s website, Filipinos For Life (F4L)
said, “Sotto was merely questioning the basis of the oft-repeated
statistic of 11 maternal deaths a day, in the context of a legislative
debate on a bill that seeks to establish a wide-ranging national
policy.”

“It is therefore fair to examine the basis of this bill. There is nothing to apologize for,” the F4L statement said.

“In the first place, there was no derogatory statement on women, and
the sarcasm, if at all, is directed at pro-RH lobby groups, some of them
pro-abortion, that routinely peddle this statistic. The supposed
offense is in the creative, nay, malicious imagination of Akbayan’s
propagandists,” the group said.

It also criticized former Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel for maligning Sotto.

“May we remind former Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel to elevate the
level of the debate on RH. Her repeated references in social networks to
an incident decades ago involving a dead movie starlet are uncalled for
and below the belt,” it said.

F4L said that based on its own estimates, the correct figure is 4.8
maternal deaths a day, based on 2008 data from the National Statistics
Office and the National Statistical Coordination Board.

“This assumes a maternal mortality ratio (MMR) of 99 per 100,000 live
births and 1.784 million live births in 2008. Assuming a high MMR of
169 per 100,000 live births, the figure is 8.3,” the group said.

F4L clarified that it does not downplay the problem of maternal
deaths, stating that “it is a problem that needs concrete solutions,
like more birthing centers and midwives. But we should guard against the
excessive emotional use of the outdated statistic to influence
Philippine government policy.”

The group chided Akbayan for covering up the dangerous side effects of contraceptives.

“If Akbayan is really pro-women, it should tell its women
constituents that contraceptive pills that would be distributed for free
under the RH bill are considered by a WHO agency as a Level 1
carcinogen. Pills, according to reputable literature produced by
entities such as the US National Cancer Institute and the Mayo Clinic
increase the risk of breast and other cancers.”

“If Akbayan really is pro-women, it should tell mothers that the
pills it wants them to ingest daily could expel a fertilized ovum, which
is already a human being. It should inform women that pills don’t
always prevent ovulation,” it continued. “In case the pills do not
prevent ovulation and fertilization occurs, the pills have been proven
to create an environment that is hostile to the beginning of life.
Akbayan’s lawmakers should be reminded of what the Constitution says
about the protection of the unborn.” (CBCP for Life)

ATTY. MARWIL LLASOS AND FILIPINOS 4 LIFE CONTINUE DRIVE AGAINST RH BILL

MANILA,
August 30, 2011–As news reports on inconsistencies in statistical
numbers and in the agenda of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill and its
proponents continue to come out, hundreds of parishioners in Paranaque
City got the lowdown on the controversial bill through informative talks
delivered by members of Filipinos for Life (F4L).

Following a multi-media presentation on pro-life issues, Anthony
James Perez, Anna Cosio and Atty. Marwil Llasos tackled different
aspects of House Bill 4244 at an afternoon activity organized by Mary,
Mother of Good Counsel Parish and attended by some 300 parishioners,
most of them students.

Perez, F4L founder, discussed the reasons for the group’s opposition
to the bill, explaining why the legislative measure was not the solution
to the country’s problems.

Citing incontestable statistics, Perez debunked the overpopulation
myth on which population control advocates have based their claims.

Nurse instructor Cosio tackled the medical and health-related issues
surrounding the bill. Armed with science-based research and findings,
she proved that human life starts at fertilization–or the meeting of the
egg and sperm cells.

As part of the RH bill is the taxpayer-funded procurement and
distribution of artificial contraceptives, Cosio also went into a
discussion of the harmful–and sometimes fatal–effects of birth control
drugs and devices on women.

Tackling the moral, constitutional and legal aspects was Llasos, who
declared that the bill was anti-God, anti-human and anti-Filipino.
Included in the lawyer’s presentation were explanations as to the
constitutional infirmities of portions of the bill.

As
the talks concluded, a woman among the participants brought up the
situation of an unmarried friend who had considered getting rid of her
unborn baby, given that the child’s father refused to acknowledge his
responsibility to the mother and child.

Llasos’ advice to the woman was to tell her friend to inform her
parents about the situation. Abortion is not an option, he added, and
there are government, private and religious institutions that can help
women in such situations.

The lawyer also offered F4L’s help in facilitating adoption placement for the baby.

Meanwhile, members of the Speakers’ Bureau of the Vicariate of Real
Infanta and General Nakar,  Prelature of Infanta, Quezon province
boosted their understanding of the issues pertaining to the culture of
life through a recent seminar about the RH bill.

As part of the family and life ministry’s series of trainors’
training seminars, Buhay Partylist pro-life advocacy staff Jose
Descallar delivered a day-long talk on issues pertaining to the
legislative measure to 45 participants–including school principals,
teachers and city councilors–upon the invitation of the prelature’s
Vicar-General Fr. Mario Establecida.

According to Descallar, the open forum was quite interesting due to
questions about the “fine-tuned” version of the bill, supposedly an
initiative of Malacanang.

“Hindi pa din okey sa inyo ‘yung amendments na ginagawa dun sa bill?” queried one of the participants.

Descallar explained that such amendments changed nothing because
“it’s the bill’s framework that’s the problem. Even if you amend it and
all that’s left are four sections–declaration of policy, guiding
principles, appropriations, and the penal provisions–hindi pa din okey ‘yan. It is still within the same framework.”

H.B. 4244, authored by Albay Representative Edcel Lagman, continues
to face a growing opposition due to its mandate of taxpayer-funded
procurement and distribution of a “full range” of birth control drugs
and devices including abortifacients, six-year sex education program
from Grade 5 to 4th year high school in all schools as well as among
out-of-school youth, provision of birth control drugs, devices and
services by employers to their employees, and punitive measures for
those who speak out against the bill. (CBCP for Life)

Multiple studies show declining number of maternal deaths; ‘11 a day’ an outdated statistic

MANILA, August 30, 2011–Indeed, maternal deaths are a problem
requiring a real solution. But is it true that 11 women die each day due
to childbirth? Based on hard statistics from the Philippine government,
international agencies, and experts abroad, the answer is no.

In fact, data from the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB)
show that the real figure ranges from just 4.8 to 8.3 based on 2008
figures, the latest available. That year, the maternal mortality ratio
was estimated at 99-169 per 100,000 live births.

A total of 1,784,316 live births were recorded in the country in 2008.

The NSCB defines maternal mortality ratio or MMR as the “ratio
between the number of women who died (for reasons of pregnancy,
childbirth and puerperium) to the number of reported live births in a
given year, expressed as the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live
births.”

The period 1990 to 2010 showed a marked decline in maternal
mortality, government data showed. MMR declined by 21% from 121 in
1990, to just 95 in 2010, even in the absence of a “reproductive
health” (RH) law.

What other studies show

For those who prefer not to rely solely on government statistics, two
separate studies released in 2010 provide even lower estimates of MMR
for the Philippines.

“Trends in Maternal Mortality: 1990 to 2008,” with estimates
developed by the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations
Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), and the World
Bank, estimated the Philippines’ MMR at 94 per 100,000 live births in
2008, equivalent to 4.6 a day.

The same report estimated maternal deaths at 2,100 in 2008, and based on this figure, there were 5.75 deaths a day.

The Philippines is in fact “making progress” in reducing maternal
mortality, with the estimated MMR plunging by 48% – nearly half – from
1990 to 2008, the report by five international agencies showed.

The Philippines also did a better job of reducing maternal deaths –
in terms of the percentage drop in MMR – than Russia, Malaysia, Hungary,
Israel, and even Germany, the report indicated.

Maternal death is defined by the WHO as the “death of a woman while
pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, irrespective of
the duration and site of the pregnancy, from any cause related to or
aggravated by the pregnancy or its management but not from accidental or
incidental causes.”

Meanwhile the study “Maternal mortality for 181 countries, 1980–2008:
a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium Development Goal
5,” published in the respected journal The Lancet and funded by
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, placed the Philippines’ maternal
mortality ratio at just 84 per 100,000 live births.

This is equivalent to 4.1 deaths per day – a far cry from the 11 a
day that RH lobbyists are using in their bid to push for the
controversial and divisive RH bill.

The Lancet article was written by Margaret Hogan, Kyle Foreman,
Mohsen Naghavi, Stephanie Ahn, Mengru Wang, Susanna Makela, Alan Lopez,
Rafael Lozano, and Christopher J. L. Murray. Most of the researchers
came from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation of the
University of Washington in Seattle.

Based on their data, the Philippines, even without an RH law, reduced
its MMR by 81% between 1980 and 2008, and 52% between 1990 and 2008.

“Our analysis of all available data for maternal mortality from 1980
to 2008 for 181 countries has shown a substantial decline in maternal
death,” the researchers concluded.

“Compared with previous assessments of maternal mortality, we have
narrowed the uncertainty around global and national estimates of the
MMR. This improved accuracy is a result of an extensive database and the
use of analytical methods with increased explanatory power and improved
out-of-sample predictive validity,” they added.

The source of  ‘11 maternal deaths a day’

Now, where did the “11 a day” figure come from? It is from the
outdated report “Maternal Mortality in 2000: Estimates developed by WHO,
UNICEF and UNFPA.”

It estimated the Philippines’ MMR at 200 in the year 2000, equivalent
to 9.8 a day. It placed the number of maternal deaths that year at
4,100, or 11.2 a day.

The report, however, is seven years old, published way back in 2004.

The outdated report carried an important caveat: “The 2000 estimates
cannot be used to analyze trends because of the wide margins of
uncertainty associated with the estimates.”

“The margins of uncertainty associated with the estimated MMRs are
very large, and the estimates should not, therefore, be used to monitor
trends in the short term. In addition, cross country comparisons should
be treated with considerable circumspection because different strategies
have been used to derive the estimates for different countries, making
it difficult to draw comparisons,” the 2004 report said.

The same international agencies, in their 2010 report, pointed out that the latest (2008) estimates are more reliable.

“[I]t should be noted that the data and methods have improved over
time. The 2008 estimates should not be compared with those from the
previous exercises to assess changes in time. Trends in maternal
mortality calculated using the same improved methodology and presented
for years 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2008 in this report show the
changes over time.” (Dominic Francisco)

MIRRIAM INVOKES U.S. LAWS IN SUPPORT OF RH BILL, THE SAME LAWS THAT SUPPORTED ABORTION by Zoe Vidal

Quo vadis?  Where are you going, Miriam?

Miriam
cites US jurisprudence to argue for the passage of the RH Bill,
revealing that it is her intention to put us along the
contraception-to-abortion track followed by America.  How crazy is
that?  Here's the irony:  backed by her own authority as an expert in
the interpretation of law, she herself demonstrates that the RH Bill is
in fact what the pro-lfie movement has always suspected: a gateway to
abortion.  Perhaps unwittingly, she is showing the public where the
Philippine society will end up if the RH Bill is passed.



Miriam quotes Griswold v. Connecticut,
381 U.S. 479 (1965).  The case involved a Connecticut law that
prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme
Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to
marital privacy".  What Miriam did not mention was how Griswold was followed-up eight years later with Roe v. Wade,
410 U.S. 113 (1973), which provided the legal basis for
abortion-on-demand in America.  In Roe, the Court ruled that a woman's
choice to have an abortion  was protected as a private decision between
her and her doctor.  The Supreme Court effectively overturned
individual states' laws against abortion by ruling them
unconstitutional.  Since Griswold, the US Supreme Court has cited the right to privacy in other rulings.  The Griswold line of cases remains controversial, and has drawn accusations of "judicial activism".



The Griswold to Roe sequence
demonstrates how even at the highest levels of jurisprudence, abortion
follows contraception as night follows day.  Moreover, you may notice in
the same sequence, a movement from the destruction of marriage to the
destruction of human life.  The evidence for these two consequences is
historical.  Contraception and abortion are related as cause is to
effect.  You cannot accept contraception and pretend abortion will not
happen.



The opinion on Roe was written by Justice Harry Blackmun,
who declared that abortion is a "fundamental right" under the U.S.
Constitution and substantive due process under the Fourteenth
Amendment.  Writing for the 7-2 Court, Justice Blackmun held that abortion is a fundamental right because it falls under the "penumbra" of the right to privacy.  Roe v. Wade provided reinforcement for cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut and Lawrence v. Texas,
all of which set up spheres of personal activity which states cannot
regulate without "good cause."   It was thus, that the deaths of
millions of unborn Americans was based not on legislation by by judicial
action, and that judicial action was based on a "penumbra" -- a partial and vague shadow! -- of the constitutional right to privacy.  Justice Blackmun had forced the issue by conjuring a "ghost" of the right to privacy.



Against the error of placing privacy as the supreme right, we should invoke the doctrine that there exists a hierarchy of rights, and that the Right to Life is prior and superior to the Right to Privacy. 
All other rights are subject and subsequent to the Right to Life.  This
argument was recognized and accepted by the Philippine Constitutional
Commission of 1986, and it is the sense in which the Philippine
Constitution enshrines the equal protection of mother and unborn (Ref.
Article II, Sec.12).  The US Constitution is NOT the Philippine
Constitution.  The Philippine Constitution is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, and pro-poor --
this was the tag-line during the 1987 referendum by which the Filipino
people overwhelmingly approved what was then known as the "Cory"
Constitution.  Using Miriam's US jurisprudential arguments, the
implication is that the protection of the unborn in the Philippine
Constitution should be aborted, presumably via charter change.



When
legislation is divorced from sociology and historical facts, the
ensuing laws can lead -- as they have led -- entire nations to suffer
the very same pitfalls that other nations have experienced.  Miriam is
living inside her head and inside her law books, narrowing down her
vision into the arguments presented by the cabal of foreign interest
groups and dummy NGOs (PLCPD, FFPD,
etc) supported by USAID and UNFPA, and the big pharmaceuticals lurking
behind the controversy.  They have co-opted the academe, medical
professionals, the DOH, and the presidency itself, turning the RH
machinery into a kind of Goliath that now challenges what could be the
last nation with an actively Christian/Catholic majority.



Here's another irony:
Those who advocate "absolute freedom" will be


absolutely blinded by the kind of freedom they espouse.

CBCP sec-gen puzzled by P-noy’s sudden RH prioritization, enjoins faithful to act

MANILA,
August 18, 2011–After the president’s noted silence on the Reproductive
Health (RH) bill during the July 25 State of the Nation Address (SONA),
and the measure’s absence from this year’s first Legislative-Executive
Development Advisory Council (LEDAC) meeting agenda, President Benigno
S. Aquino III’s directive to include the bill among 13 priority measures
has elicited more questions than assertions from another Catholic
Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) official.

When asked to comment on the president’s recent endorsement of the RH
bill, CBCP Secretary-General Msgr. Juanito Figura replied with
questions instead.

“No mention of the bill was made in his SONA–was it or was it not a
priority when he was preparing his SONA? Why is it a priority now all of
a sudden?” he asked, noting that it had been over three weeks since the
SONA and the president remained quiet about the matter until
yesterday’s LEDAC meeting.

“I am a bit worried about possible reactions which may range from confusion, dismay, mistrust,” Figura added.

The secretary-general said he is praying very hard as he anticipates
“more serious discussions and study on this ‘fine-tuned’ version of the
bill. Does it still carry the characteristic contraceptive pro-abortion
agenda? Will it still advance a new rendering of ‘conscience,’
‘freedom,’ ‘rights,’ ‘responsible parenthood’ and ‘family’?”

“Will it still use a lot of taxpayers’ money? And very importantly,
has the penalty clause on violations been truly omitted?” Figura
continued.

Citing Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma’s statements following the recent
development, the secretary-general said that he “sympathizes with
Archbishop Palma’s dismay over the prioritization that P-noy has given
to the RH bill, now being called RP bill.”

The CBCP official ended by sounding off a call to the lay people to stand up to protect and preserve the culture of life.

“I enjoin the lay people especially the youth to initiate actions, to
reach out to everyone who believes in the sanctity of human life and
family, to use your skills. We are in coordination with a number of lay
groups that are working along this line and would be willing to help
those who would like to start getting involved,” Figura said. (Diana
Uichanco)

CONTINUATION NG PAGSAWATA KAY RENANTE NATE by Franz Luigi Lugena

[Note: Ang diskusyon pong eto ay orihinal na makikita sa link na eto: http://www.facebook.com/umagangkayganda2/posts/259106150769234]

Renante Nate:

All of you must understand that art is very
subjective. Appreciation varies from person to person. Art is not only to
convey beauty of good things. It can portray cruelty, dark realities (such as
spoliarium).

The problem with you all people is that you dont
discern the very obvious message of the artist. Feelings ninyo lang kasi ang
pinapagana ninyo. Wala kayong pinagkaiba sa mga pulitiko na kapag nagigipit sa
anomalya ay sasabihin na lang na "demolition job yan" na hindi man
lang pinag-uusapan ang merit ng kaso.



Sa tanong na kung picture ng mahal ko sa buhay ang
idikit dyan ay papayag ba ako? Siyempre hindi. Those are private properties not
for public consumption. Pero ano naman magagawa ninyo kung pumayag nga sila? Sa
katunayan niyan ay wala naman kayong kibo sa mga live nude paintings na mismong
sila na ang nakabuyangyang.



That piece of art in CCP is an ironic parallelism
of Catholic culture. Catholics are mainly object-oriented. They cant worship
and pray to God without these idolatrous materials and visual aids. Similarly,
the Catholic stance on RH bill is equally object-oriented. They dont understand
the essence of the bill. They just look into the trivial materials included in
the bill such as condoms and other materials.



ILAN BA SA INYO ANG HANGGANG NGAYON HINDI PA RIN
ALAM NA PILIT TINANGGAL NG KATOLIKO ANG NAKASULAT SA EXODUS 20:4-5 ng TEN
COMMANDMENTS AT HINATI ANG PANGSAMPU SA DALAWA PARA MABUO NA SAMPU PA RIN.
TINANGGAL NILA ANG NAKASULAT NA "You shall not make for yourself an image in
the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters
below. You shall not bow.." ANO PA BA ANG KAILANGANG IPALIWANAG SA INYO NA
HARAP HARAPAN KAYONG NILOLOKO!

Franz Lugena

Naku naman Renante wag ka namang magkalat ng kamangmangan dito. Sinong
demonyo naman nagsabi sayo na may tinanggal ang mga katoliko sa utos ng Diyos
eh kahit bali-baliktarin mo mga bibliyang sinalin ng mga katoliko, nandun pa
rin yung exodus 20:4-5. I challenge you to show an
official catholic bible translation na nagtanggal ng Exodus 20:4-5. Puro ka
propaganda eh. Umangal ka kung tinanggal mismo yung talata sa teksto ng
bibliya. Tsaka masama ba isummarized yung kautusan ng Diyos? Si San Pablo nga
sinamarized yung buong Kautusan eh.



“All that the Law says can be summed up in the
command to love others as much as you love yourself. “ [Gal5:14]



Bakit di ka umangal sa ginawa ni San Pablo. Biro
mo, buong Kautusan eh sinummarized. Tinularan lang naman namin yung halimbawang
pinakita ni San Pablo eh. Sinummarized ng Simbahan ang utos ng Diyos. Pero
walang tinanggal dahil nandun pa rin ang utos sa mga catholic bibles namin.
Yang pagtulad na yan sa halimbawa ni San Pablo eh pagtupad sa aral ng bibliya:



“Maging taga tulad kayo sa akin, na gaya ko naman
kay Cristo.” [1 Cor11:1]



Kayong mga nauto ni Manalo ang hindi sumusunod sa
bibliya. Hindi ninyo tinularan si San Pablo. Kami, tinularan namin si San
Pablo. Ano masama ngayon dun? Yung mga uri mo yung tinutukoy sa bibliya na
ginagawang masama yung mga bagay na mabuti. [Is5:20] Sa “aba ninyo” sabi ng
bibliya.

Agosto 09 nang 11:03 PM · Gustuhin· 2 katao

Franz Lugena

Sabi ni Renante:
"That piece of art in CCP is an ironic parallelism of Catholic culture.
Catholics are mainly object-oriented. They cant worship and pray to God without
these idolatrous materials and visual aids.”



Hindi ata alam ni Renante na yung mga Israelita eh sumasamba sa templo na hitik
sa mga icons o sagradong imahe [1 Hari 7Z:25, 29, 9:3; 1 Kronica 28:11-19;
Eze41:19-20], na may basbas ng Diyos [1 Hari9:3] At yung mga apostoles eh
sumasamba sa templo:



“At palaging sila'y nasa templo, na nangagpupuri sa Dios.” [Lukas 24:53]



Eh ano bang templo ang may mga icons? Catholic Church. Hindi yung mga sungayang
bahay-sambahan ng Iglesia ni Manalo. Ano bang simbahan ang merong altar o
dambana kung saan ang mga tao eh nakaharap habang nakaluhod na nagdadasal sa
Diyos? Catholic Church. Hindi Iglesia ni Manalo.



1 Hari8:54

At nangyari, na pagkatapos ni Salomon na makapanalangin nitong lahat na
dalangin at pamanhik sa Panginoon, SIYA’Y TUMINDIG MULA SA HARAP NG DAMBANA NG
PANGINOON, SA PAGKALUHOD NG KANIYANG MGA TUHOD na ang kaniyang mga kamay ay
nakagawad sa dakong langit.



Katolikong-katoliko eh. Ganyan magdasal ang mga katoliko sa Diyos. Nakaluhod at
nakaharap sa altar o dambana. Ginagawa nyo ba yan? Hindi. Kaya maliwanag hindi
nyo tinutupad aral ng bibliya. Sa inyo kung sumasamba kayo, may paiyak-iyak pa
kayo. Puro threatrics at histrionics. Saan mababasa sa bibliya na yung mga
apostoles nung sumamba sa Diyos eh nagsiiyakan? Yan ang traditions of men na
maliwanag. Wala yan sa bibliya.

Agosto 09 nang 11:29 PM · Gustuhin ·
2
katao

Franz Lugena

1 Hari 7:25,29; 9:3; 1 Kronica 28:11-19;
Eze41:19-20

Agosto 09 nang 11:30 PM · Gustuhin

Franz Lugena

Sabi pa ni Renante:
"Similarly, the Catholic stance on RH bill is equally object-oriented.
They dont understand the essence of the bill. They just look into the trivial
materials included in the bill such as condoms and other materials."



Anong do not understand na dinadaldal mo eh ikaw etong di nakakaunawa. Biro mo,
trivial things lang daw paglustay ng milyong piso mula sa buwis ng mga
mamamayan para sa condoms ng mga magkatipang walang control sa sexual appetite
nila? Kung trivial lang sayo milyon-milyong piso, samin hindi. Malaki ang
maitutulong nyan sa pagpo-pondo ng mas kapaki-pakinanabang na mga programa ng
gobyerno. Bakit di gamitin yan para ipambili ng vitamins para samga mahihirap,
upang malayo sila sa mga sakit at maging produktibo? Bakit di gamitin ang pondo
na yan sa pagpapagawa ng mga water system sa mga liblib na nayon? Bakit condom
pa? Ha?



Tsaka malay ba namin kung yung buwis namin na ginamit pambili ng condom eh
gamitin ng mga bakla? Ng mga may kabit? Ng mga di kasal? Ng mga prostitute? No
discrimination daw sa access sa contraceptives eh ayon sa RH Bill. Lalabas pang
gatasan kami ng mga immoral na yan. Natural aangal kami. Hindi pwede yan. Kung
gusto nyo ng condom, sariling pera nyo gamitin nyo. Wag taxes namin. Kung ayaw
nyo magkaanak, mag abstain sa sex. Nasan bibliya naman yan eh.

Agosto 09 nang 11:43 PM · Gustuhin ·
2
katao

Franz Lugena

Ani Renante, "All of
you must understand that art is very subjective. Appreciation varies from
person to person. Art is not only to convey beauty of good things. It can
portray cruelty, dark realities (such as spoliarium)."



But ART must not be used as an excuse to insult and malign other’s belief.
Granting that the appreciation of art is subjective, still there are moral
absolutes that even art itself is subject into. You yourself admitted that you
are not ok if your parent’s photo will be plastered with a figure of male
genital. Can we invoke in this case your lame excuse that “art is very
subjective” so let’s just allow it?



Nanahimik kaming mga katoliko babastusin faith namin. Ano ba ginawa namin kay
Mideo at sinasalaula nya faith namin? Ke dami-daming pwedeng gawing subject
bakit yung faith namin pinagdiskitahan nya? Kung ginawa nya yan sa kara ng sugo
nyo, ok lang sayo? Obvious na gusto lang sumikat nitong taong eto at our
expense. Tsaka ART ba tawag sa pagpaplaster ng ari ng lalaki sa isang larawan?
Kahit sino namang wala sa katinuan eh kayang gawin yan. Na ginawa nga ng
Mideong yan para sumikat. Hindi yan ART. Yan ay FART.

Agosto 10 nang 12:01 AM · Gustuhin ·
1
tao

CBCP NEWS - CEBU PASSES ANTI-RH BILL RESOLUTION

CEBU
CITY, August 10, 2011—The Cebu Provincial Board unanimously passed on
August 8 a resolution opposing the Reproductive Health (RH) bill pending
in Congress after being briefed on the pros and cons of the
controversial piece of legislation.

The resolution was introduced by Board Member Sergio Restauro,
chairman of the Provincial Board (PB) Committee on Health, but
co-sponsored by all members on a 16-0 vote.

The PB action supported the stand of Cebu Governor Gwendolyn Garcia
and the nine Cebuano solons who are against the proposed bill.

Restauro cited economic, health and legal perspectives in explaining
why there is neither wisdom in nor legal support for the RH bill.

He said the government will be spending billions of pesos through the
years in procuring condoms and other contraceptives instead of
allocating the money for more essential and suitable projects, such as
housing, medicines and education, if such measure were to be enacted
into law.

A five percent failure rate means that five percent of the couples
using a particular contraceptive method will be pregnant at the end of
the year, Restauro said.

He added that birth control drugs and devices also give a false sense
of security, leading to risky sexual behavior and thereby resulting in
more unplanned pregnancies and, inadvertently, more abortions.

Restauro explained that improved access to basic health care,
nutrition, medicines and technology—not contraceptives—are the key to
reducing and eliminating maternal mortality and morbidity.

The bill will result in the death of thousands of Filipino babies
from abortifacient contraceptives and pave the way for the acceptance of
other methods of abortion, he added.

“The RH Bill contains provisions which are contrary to the teachings
of the Church on faith and morals and even of pertinent provisions of
the 1987 Philippine Constitution,” he pointed out.

Restauro also cited that the measure violates most of the Ten Commandments because it promotes greed and lust.

The PB earlier invited speakers who explained to the members both sides of the issue before coming out with an official stand.

Two weeks ago, during its regular session, the Board invited two
speakers to present opposing views on the controversial bill. The group
Catholics 4RH, which also filled the session gallery with its
supporters, presented its views.

On the anti-RH side, the sole presentor was Dr. Rene Josef Bullecer,
Country Director of Human Life International (HLI)  Pilipinas, who made a
thorough discussion especially on the history of the RH bill, the
population control agenda, and the untold evils of the legislative
measure. (John Luke Evangelista)

CBCP NEWS - Laiko wants organizers of CCP exhibit sued

The CCP and Mideo Cruz have blasphemed and sacrileged the Lord Jesus and His beloved Mother the Virgin Mary - the King and Queen-Mother of our Nation. What Mideo Cruz has done is not only improper but evil... it is Satanic at best. The entire CCP officers must resign. Their concept of Art is not based on what is True, Good and Beautiful but based on distortions, lies and deception. Shame on the Aquino Government for this insult hurled against the Lord and the Blessed Mother.

MANILA, August 9, 2011―With reports about the
closure of the so-called offensive and obscene art exhibit at the
Cultural Center of the Philippines, the executive secretary of
Sangguniang Layko ng Pilipinas Edgardo J. Tria Tirona said he
appreciates the decision of the authorities at the government-owned
institution.

However, he said there is a need to continue the prosecution of
people involved in the exhibit because “a lot of damage” has been done
to the Catholic and other Christian churches.

“Prosecuting those behind the exhibit will teach them a lesson so
that no such ugly episode will be repeated,” he told CBCPNews Tuesday
morning.

Tria Tirona said the approach to create a come-on to exhibits has
already been used time and again, adding that “kumita na ang
pa-kontrobersyal na approach sa exhibits.”

He said it is imperative that the organizers be made to pay for their offensive behavior. 

Meanwhile, the University of Sto Tomas has issued a statement
condemning the art exhibit of Mideo Cruz, an alumnus of the pontifical
university.

“We (Theology professors) strongly denounce the work [of Mideo Cruz]
as spiritually outrageous and demeaning, blasphemous and sacrilegious,
offensive, educationally confusing, misleading, and even scandalous,
particularly to the Catholic faithful and the Thomasian community,” said
Allan Basas, secretary of the Institute of Religion, in a news report
from the Varsitarian.

UST Rector Rolando de la Rosa also said Mideo's interpretation of freedom of artistic expression has gone overboard.

Whether inside or outside the University, Thomasians should “behave
according to the Catholic values imbibed [as] students, and one of these
values is the sense of decency,” de la Rosa said. (Melo Acuna)

Medical expert leads panel of speakers in RH sympo

MANILA,
August 9, 2011 ̶  The doctor who led the 1990s investigation of a
vaccination program—targeted at Filipinos—that secretly administered the
anti-pregnancy chemical HCG to thousands of women of reproductive age,
was among the speakers from Filipinos for Life in a symposium on House
Bill 4244 or the Reproductive Health (RH) bill in a Manila parish.

Reynaldo
J. Echavez, M.D., FPCC, provided the medical perspective in the
three-hour activity which tackled the various aspects of the bill for
the parishioners of the Holy Face of Jesus Shrine in Quiapo, Manila.

Speaking to some 100 members of the Crusaders of the Holy Face of
Jesus, the cardiologist shed more light on the side effects of
contraceptives, showing studies that establish the link between heart
disease, cancer and other serious—and sometimes fatal—physical
conditions, and contraceptive use, specifically the Pill.

The P3-billion RH bill seeks to mandate taxpayer-funded procurement
and distribution of the “full range” of birth control drugs, devices and
services, among other provisions, generating widespread opposition from
family advocates, child development experts and faith-based groups
nationwide.

Echavez also pointed out the dubious nature of the legislative
measure, citing the absence of the principle of ethics in the bill’s
text.

Jose
Descallar, Buhay Party-list pro-life advocacy staff, gave the
participants an overview of the process undergone by a proposed
legislative measure in the Lower House.

Descallar urged participants to make their presence felt and join
pro-lifers in filling the halls of the Congress plenary hall when asked
by a participant, “Ano po ang magagawa naming ngayon na alam na namin ang kahalagahan ng labanan ang RH Bill?”

Anthony James Perez, Filipinos for Life founder, delved on population
issues, showing the repercussions of a reproductive health law on
demographics.

The symposium ended with a Mass celebrated by Fr. Hans D. Magduralang.

The priest emphasized that now is the time to protect life.  (Raymond Bandril)

Doctors for Life Targets Controversial Philippine RH Bill

By Adam Cassandra – June 23, 2011

A new organization of doctors from across the Philippines dedicated
to defending the sanctity of human life is targeting the “anti-life”
Reproductive Health (RH) bill currently under consideration by Filipino
lawmakers.

“Right now, Doctors for Life is active in the congressional hearings
on anti-life bills, especially the RH bill, and in giving talks on
related issues all over the country,” said Dr. Ligaya Acosta, a Doctors
for Life board member, and Regional Coordinator for Asia and Oceania at
Human Life International (HLI).

According to their mission statement, Doctors for Life’s primary
purpose is, “[T]o teach by presenting factual information about human
embryonic development, abortion, fetal vaccines and its moral
alternatives, birth control pills, euthanasia and related issues;
information which will allow the general public to make informed
decisions about these issues.”

Dr. Ligaya Acosta

“We declare that we are totally against contraception, sterilization,
abortion, human embryo-destructive research, human cloning, euthanasia,
assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, divorce and other offenses that
contradict life and the family,” the statement reads.

Twenty-five Filipino medical doctors and professionals holding
doctoral degrees in jurisprudence, philosophy, and theology formally
launched Doctors for life on June 17, 2011.

Dr. Acosta, along with many others, including the Philippines’ Catholic bishops, believes
that the RH bill will devastate the Filipino culture and family, and is
ultimately aimed at defining “governmental roles, relationships and
structures needed to fully implement the draconian population control
program that is being pushed so aggressively by Western elites.”

There is also concern about the bill’s effect on medical and business professionals.

“It has provisions to force medical professionals and businesses to
promote and perform a full range of “reproductive health services,”
regardless of conscientious objection,” said Dr. Acosta. “It promises to
fine and jail opponents who spread as-yet-undefined “malicious”
falsehoods about the bill.”

Doctors for Life was first conceived during discussions held at an HLI conference in Manila late last year.

“For a long time I have wanted to form a group like Doctors for
Life,” said Dr. Acosta. “After discussing the idea with colleagues, the
HLI 17th Asia-Pacific Congress on Faith, Life and Family became its
birthplace.”

Doctors for Life in the Philippines is not affiliated with any other
organization in other countries, but Dr. Acosta said plans are in place
to expanded the organization across Asia.

“Soon it will grow because there are many other pro-life
professionals who are interested in joining,” said Dr. Acosta. “We also
have plans to conduct a pro-life training program soon for all the
members and prospective members so that everyone will be fully
knowledgeable of the issues.”

DOCTORS FOR LIFE MISSION STATEMENT:

We, members of Doctors for Life (DFL), have come together to commit
ourselves to defend and promote the sanctity of human life from
conception to natural death.

DFL is a non-profit public service organization, composed of
professionals who hold doctoral degrees in fields that include, but are
necessarily not limited to, doctors of medicine, doctors of
jurisprudence, doctors of philosophy and doctors of theology.

Etymologically, the word “doctor” in Latin means “teacher” and is
derived from “docere” meaning “to teach.”  Thus, DFL’s primary purpose
is to teach by presenting factual information about human embryonic
development, abortion, fetal vaccines and its moral alternatives, birth
control pills, euthanasia and related issues; information which will
allow the general public to make informed decisions about these issues.

We are bound together by a common commitment to protect human life by
collaborating with existing organizations that foster the sanctity of
human life, a culture of life, and respect towards those who hold
different beliefs.

Our cause is to support women as they carry their pregnancies to
their natural conclusion; and we support natural family planning, adult
stem cell or non-destructive embryonic research, natural death,
chastity, marriage between one man and one woman, and freedom of
conscience..

We declare that we are totally against contraception, sterilization,
abortion, human embryo-destructive research, human cloning, euthanasia,
assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, divorce and other offenses that
contradict life and the family.

Because all human beings regardless of their size, age or dependency
deserve full protection of the law, we promote and protect the human
rights of the unborn, the defenseless, the aged, the disadvantaged and
all persons.