In Section 3, where the “Guiding Principles” of the RH Bill are listed, it is stated that:
- In the promotion of reproductive health there should be no bias for either modern or natural methods of family planning;
However, the text of the Bill itself clearly prefers and encourages the use of artificial contraceptives, thus violating one of its own “Guiding Principles”
- In Section 5-f-(1), it is said that the proposed Reproductive Health Care Program will be implemented with the following components:
- Reproductive and sexual health education including but not limited to counseling on the full range of legal and medically-safe family planning methods including surgical methods;
It bears asking: if the Bill claims to establish equality between artificial and natural family planning, then why does it give special mention to “surgical methods”? Nowhere in the bill will we find NFP being given the same kind of special mention. It is obvious that the Bill has a bias for artificial methods (such as surgical ones).
- There is an entire Section – Section 9 – which requires all national and local government hospitals to make tubal ligation and vasectomy services available, with such services even qualifying for PhilHealth benefits. Why is there no similar proviso making natural family planning services required in all hospitals? Why are there no provisions for benefits for those who want to avail of NFP?
- In Section 10, contraceptives (in short, artificial – not natural – “family planning”) are declared to be “essential medicines”. All national and local hospital and other government health units are required to regularly purchase supplies of contraceptives. In contrast, there is no requirement for the same units to invest in purchasing educational and other materials necessary for the dissemination of information on Natural Family Planning (NFP).
Recently, more proof has come out that the supporters of the RH Bill are biased against Natural Family Planning.
The Iglesia Ni Cristo has, in recent days, upheld artificial contraception while condemning natural family planning. This, in effect, requires any member of the INC who wishes to practice family planning to use contraceptives.
If the supporters of the RH Bill are, as they say, not biased against NFP, then they should denounce the Iglesia Ni Cristo with equal fervor for condemning NFP, as they are now condemning the Roman Catholic Church for not accepting artificial contraception.
In fact, the supporters of the RH Bill are praising the INC to the high heavens for being so “enlightened” as to support artificial contraceptives while saying nothing about the INC’s condemnation of natural family planning. In the same way, the supporters of the RH Bill are crucifying the Catholic Church with their malicious propaganda even as they are giving no attention to its support for NFP.
THE FACTS ARE CLEAR:
The RH Bill is BIASED IN FAVOR OF ARTIFICIAL CONTRACEPTION.
The RH Bill’s supporters are BIASED IN FAVOR OR ARTIFICIAL CONTRACEPTION and AGAINST NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING.
All of these sections of the bill, and the behavior of this bill’s proponents, prove that this “Reproductive Health Bill” is dangerously full of lies and proposals that contradict its own principles.
A law as shabbily and deviously written as this does not deserve to pass.