RH bill's coercive nature

MANILA, June 20, 2011―The absence of respect for freedom of conscience in House Bill 4244 is among the reasons for a one lawyer's opposing the P3 billion measure.
In a June 17 forum on the RH bill held at Sta. Isabel College, Atty. Marwil Llasos of Filipinos for Life cited the provision concerning refusal to extend reproductive health services (Sec. 28. Prohibited Acts), which states that while the conscientious objector's refusal due to ethical or religious beliefs is acceptable, he is required to "immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible who is willing to provide the requisite information and services."
In other words, if a doctor refuses to perform a vasectomy, for example, because he believes this to be unethical, the bill compels him to refer the patient to another doctor. The lawyer pointed out that this still goes against the first doctor's conscience "because what you are prohibited from doing directly, you are mandated to do indirectly."
"At mas imoral po 'yon. Bakit? Kasi kung siya lang ang gagawa ng paglabag sa kanyang konsensya―halimbawa, nagbigay siya ng condom o pills, nag-perform siya ng vasectomy o naglagay siya ng IUD sa isang tao, siya lang ang nagkasala. But if he is going to refer to another doctor, dalawa na silang nagkasala," Llasos pointed out.
He then appealed to the high school and college students as well as faculty in the audience to take a hard look at what the bill is leading Filipinos to do.
"My dear sisters and brothers, your faith that was taught to you by the Sisters here in this school tells you that there is such a thing known as the sin of scandal, and that is even worse. Leading people to sin," he lamented.
"Here we have a law that mandates a Filipino, a Catholic to violate his conscience, and if he goes by his conscience he will be imprisoned. Here is a law that commands you to commit the sin of scandal."
The lawyer, who is also an apologist at Defensores Fidei Foundation, continued:
"Lagi na lang sinasabi na ang Simbahan ay kontrabida. Hindi po tayo kontrabida, sinasabi natin ang katotohanan... Ano ang penalty [sa lalabag sa bill na ito]? The doctor or nurse...shall be penalized by imprisonment ranging from one month to six months or a fine of P10,000 to P50,000 or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the competent court. Ano ang kasalanan ng doktor? Ano ang kasalanan ng nars? Ang kasalanan niya, siya ay mananampalatayang Katoliko na naniniwala na imoral ang batas na ito. This is oppressive; this is penalizing us for being Catholic Christians." (Diana Uichanco)

An Open Letter to Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ, JSD

An Open Letter to Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ, JSD

Posted: 12 Jun 2011 07:59 PM PDT

Your Reverence:

Peace.

This is in reference to your article posted at the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) last Monday, May 23rd, 2011. But, first and foremost, I would like to sympathize with you if ever a high-ranking ecclesiastical authority labeled you as ‘Judas’ and that you were considered by others a heretic. I understand your position and from that understanding, I am addressing this open reaction letter to Your Reverence for the sake of those who have been listening to your discourses and/or reading your write-ups.

In the same article, you embodied your first position this way:

“First, let me start by saying that I adhere to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception even if I am aware that the teaching on the subject is not considered infallible doctrine by those who know more theology than I do. Moreover, I am still considered a Catholic and Jesuit in good standing by my superiors, critics notwithstanding!”

Your Reverence, how do you adhere to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception? When we adhere to certain teaching, we devote ourselves in the observance of such teaching. Moreover, said teaching is made manifest in our gestures, in our dealings, in our principles, and in our advocacy. If we say, we adhere but not observe it, then, adherence is devoid of what it truly means. We become like a “tingling cymbal”. And as a priest adhering to the teaching of the Church on contraception, even common sense dictates that you are one with the Church in teaching that contraception is evil and in enabling people to understand what makes it evil. Are you, truly, one with the Church in this crusade, Your Reverence?

The way I look at them, your positions do not do any good but rather do more harm than good for they aggravate the confusions and divisiveness so characteristic of our nation today along the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill concerns. Much worse, instead of bringing about enlightenment and unity, your articles and discourses exacerbate said confusions and divisiveness, not only among citizens but most significantly among Catholics who look up to you as “Alter Christus” over and above your being a top-caliber constitutionalist, renowned author, intellectual academician, and prolific lawyer. Consequently, confused Catholics and Catholics who have the tendency to use or are actually using contraceptive methods may find moral justification in your positions.

Furthermore, a part of your next argument goes this way:

“Second (very important for me as a student of the Constitution and of church-state relations), I am very much aware of the fact that we live in a pluralist society where various religious groups have differing beliefs about the morality of artificial contraception. But freedom of religion means more than just the freedom to believe. It also means the freedom to act or not to act according to what one believes.

I agree with Your Reverence, that the Philippine society has become pluralistic now. In fact, moral pluralism along contraception conspicuously exists not only among various religious groups but also among Catholics (among priests? Hmm… Hope not). That is why, not a few people adhere to moral subjectivism/relativism so that “what is good or true for you may not be good or true for me and vice versa”. Your being very much aware of the existence of our pluralistic society which is very important to you indicates your high regard and deep respect for religious freedom and individual conscience. Along this line, I am with you, Your Reverence. We have to respect the freedom of religion and conscience. Even erroneous conscience, as inculpably erroneous as it maybe, should be respected. It is a product of ignorance through no fault of one’s own and without any knowledge about being in error. (However, the case would be morally different should
conscience become erroneous due to consequential moral blindness stemming from misguided passions inadequately tamed and/or due to insufficient efforts exerted to dispel ignorance and obtain knowledge of what is truly good as distinct from what is truly evil. This does not exonerate the person from moral culpability).

But then, Your Reverence, respect for freedom of religion and conscience does not and should not hamper you from adhering to a much higher value which is to proclaim the truth that sets man truly free and from practicing your ministry which is to teach in accordance with the Church’s teaching. With all the more reasons, your being very much aware of moral pluralism calls and urges you to do something about it, to preach and witness that right is right no matter how many are wrong, and to teach the universality of truth (not conditioned by time and space, culture and individual opinions and beliefs) about the wrongness of contraception thereby informing human consciences (through teaching). And it is up to the people whether or not they will listen and obey. After all, teaching cannot be identical with imposing, with coercing and with forcing. Besides, you (and the Church) do not have police power to invoke and enforce particularly, against those who
will defy and disobey. What is important is that you teach no matter how few listen and obey.

I also have the impression that you are treating contraception, in your article, as a religious issue so that if a member of a certain religion believes that it is good, then, he/she can freely act according to that which he/she believes (that contraception is good). And if a Catholic believes it is wrong, then he/she can freely avoid it as it is evil.
I beg to disagree. The issue on whether contraception is wrong or not is not exclusively a religious concern. It is not a religious issue which may be good to a religion that regards it as such, while evil, to a religion that looks at it as such. It is not a Catholic issue that only concerns Catholics.

Contraception is, rather, a moral issue, not according to Christian/Catholic Morality but according to the measure of its relation to that which makes good or evil, to the norm of morality. And the relation of contraception to the norm of morality measures in terms of the disagreement of the former with the latter so that contraception is, indeed, wrong. For the sake of your fans, the norm, proximately refers to the dictates of right reason to which an act should be conformed in order to be right. And what makes reason right is its being anchored on the ultimate norm manifesting itself in the “order of existence of things”.

This “order of existence” stands a priori to any human positive establishment of “order and harmony of things”. It means that such order existed before man ever conceptualized and set any man-made order as in the promulgation of human positive laws. The existence of the entire universe and everything it contains is being maintained by such order without which disorder and unimaginable chaos occur. This order expresses itself in the way everything exists, in what it is and in its last end toward which its existence is directed. If a thing exists this or that way because of what it is and takes a given course according to its nature, it must be what its order of existence mandates. It is a given order. It is not designed by man. It has been there ever since. Hence, reason dictates that it be preserved and not be disturbed or destroyed. Otherwise, disorder and disharmony occur.

That is why, the growth of human existence starts at being a fertilized ovum, a zygote (this happens at the completion of fertilization), then it develops into a morula, then a blastocyst, then an embryo, then a fetus, and not the other way around. Upon birth, he/she starts being an infant, then a toddler, a child, a teen-ager, an adult, then an old man/woman. No human being starts existing by being an old man/woman, then an adult, a teen-ager, a child, then an infant, and so on. Plants and trees grow the way they tend to and not upside down, water seeks its own level, and so on and so forth. These are manifestations of the natural order of existence of things.

It indicates the truth which is necessarily immutable, the universal truth at which man is capable of arriving so that “what is true for you is also true for me while what is false for you is also false for me”. (Moral scientists and philosophers call the ultimate norm which sustains the “order of existence of things” as Eternal Law).

By the light of his intellect, man knows the natural order in the existence of things which he recognizes as that which has to be preserved. We call it natural law. Natural Law refers to the Eternal Law expressed in the natural order of existence and is knowable to man by the use of his intelligence. Acknowledged by man’s reason, the one which is in accordance with the said order is good while the other which runs counter to it is evil. The former is moral whereas, the latter is immoral. Thus, he has the natural capacity to distinguish what is right from what is wrong, to do good and avoid evil (Bonum est faciendum et malum est vitandum).

Now, human reproductive system has its own functions and operations proper to its nature. It operates according to what its nature designs and never according to what it is not (unless, it is arbitrarily interfered with). It is specially designed in the biological order to be the natural vehicle through which the generative power of the human person is exercised. This power is inherent in the very sexual structure of the human person and is able to generate new life when it is employed during sexual intercourse within fertility period.

Conception/fertilization of an egg, can only occur after ovulation. The egg stays alive for about 24 hours once released from the ovary. Sperm can stay alive inside a woman’s body for 3-4 days, but possibly as long as 6-7 days. If a couple has intercourse before or after ovulation occurs, the wife can get pregnant, since the live sperm is already inside the woman’s body when ovulation occurs. Thus a woman can become pregnant from intercourse for about 7-10 days in the middle of her cycle. All these functions of the sexual system proceed from its order of existence. No one can ever deny this reality as it is a ‘given’ configuration.

Now, what do contraceptive methods do? The use of any method of artificial contraception runs counter to and even destroys the “order of existence of things” particularly of human reproductive system. Some of them suppress ovulation when it is supposed to naturally occur as designed by its order of existence, others cause thickening of the cervical mucus making it difficult for the sperm to go through, and still others prevent implantation of the fertilized ovum by altering the normal functioning of the endometrium. All these are arbitrary and positive actions to distort the ‘order of existence of things’ – - of human reproductive system.

Contraception destroys such ‘order’ manifested in the course of its natural functions and operations according to what it is. It makes the reproductive system operate according to what it is not. That is why, contraception is evil as it is in itself. If the Church prohibits it, it is because contraception is intrinsically evil . Its evil proceeds from within itself, from what it is regardless of whether it is prohibited.

From this perspective, this sense of evil which ought to be avoided or this issue on contraception applies not only to Catholics but to all human persons of good will and of right reason regardless of religious denominations and affiliations.

Your last statement:

“Fourth, I have never held that the RH Bill is perfect. But if we have to have an RH law, I intend to contribute to its improvement as much as I can. Because of this, I and a number of my colleagues have offered ways of improving it and specifying areas that can be the subject of intelligent discussion. (Yes, there are intelligent people in our country.) For that purpose we jointly prepared and I published in my column what we called “talking points” on the bill.

Your Reverence, what do you mean by the term “improvement”? The dictionary may say, “improvement” means ‘making things better’. It implies that, that which is to undergo improvement is something already good only that it has to be improved to make it better. And nothing will be removed or erased from that which is to be improved. In fact, its status will just be made better. Now, what is it in the RH Bill (which may eventually become an RH law) that you will try to improve or make better? How can you make things better out of something which is, in itself, wrong?

I also found this statement contrary to the first argument you cited that you adhere to the teaching of the Church on contraception. Since, the Church teaches that contraception is not capable of being ordered to human nature and to God’s law, then, it should also be your stand as you said, you adhere to it. But how come, that you will improve or make better of the RH Bill/Law which boldly promotes that which the Church regards as evil?

Well, there are other meanings that can be attributed to “improvement”. But its use in your paragraph is vague. It can be misconstrued. That is why, I said earlier that confused Catholics and Catholics who have the tendency to use or are actually using contraceptive methods may find moral justification in your positions.

Your Reverence, these are all what make your article more confusing, more perplexing and more divisive than enlightening, illuminating and unifying. I don’t see any contradiction between your being a lawyer and a priest. The two disciplines can even be harmoniously employed to advocate the truth and goodness as opposed to falsity and evil.

Your Reverence, I hope and pray that you take a strong stand on the RH Bill by anchoring it on the order of existence of things. This way, you can effectively deal with and unify our pluralistic society whose sense of ‘truth’ and sense of ‘goodness’ are conditioned only by one’s beliefs, values, opinions, culture and the like, which may of course, vary and even contradict from one person or group to another. Please be a catalyst of unity and order, Your Reverence. Please.

Good day.

Very truly yours:

PROF. MARVIN JULIAN L. SAMBAJON, JR.

ANTI-LIFERS: Riza Hontiveros-Baraquiel

click for a larger image

Ang isa sa mapangit at maduming laban ni Riza Hontiveros: RH Bill. Anu kaya ang ibig nyang sabihin "One Battle at a time".
"The pro-RH advocates are pro-life," --according to Mrs. Baraquiel. A blatant LIE! There are a lot of Pro-RH groups and orgs supporting and calling for "safe & legal" ABORTION.

ANTI-LIFERS: Beth Angsioco

Click on the picture for Larger View

Beth Angsioco, of the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines and RHAN Reproductive Health Advocacy Network. The RHAN group and several local NGOs, including EnGender Rights and the Institute for Social Studies and Action, called on the Philippine Congress to make “safe and legal abortion" available to Filipino women.

WHY I OPPOSE THE RP/RH BILL of the PHILIPPINES

The following article perfectly reflects my vocal stand against the RH BILL so i decided to publish it here i my Blog. The credits at the end of the article.

1. The RH bill carries with it an oppressive punishment for people who will not comply with it, making disagreeing with it and teaching something contrary to it a crime. Section 21 of the RH bill says that:

"the ff. acts are prohibited: any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall knowingly withhold information or impede the dissemination thereof, and/or intentionally provide incorrect information regarding programs and services on reproductive health including the right to informed choice and access to a full range of legal, medically-safe and effective family planning methods"

BUT- who defines what is correct or incorrect here? The RH bill and its proponents of course! If the RH bill proponents says that an IUD is not abortifacient, and abortion is not wrong, and that life does not begin at conception, all of which are totally wrong and against Christian principles, so when Christian health workers will teach about the sanctity of life and that life begins at conception, and that sex should only be between married couples, we will be violating the RH bill and committing crimes once it becomes law.

2. The RH Bill undermines the institution of marriage. As Christians do not have any doctrine prohibiting ligation, you may think it may not be of concern to many Christians, but the RH bill considers a prohibited act (Sec 21) if a health worker " refuses to perform voluntary ligation and vasectomy and other legal and medically-safe reproductive health care services on any person of legal age on the ground of lack of spousal consent or authorization".

The Catholic nurses and doctors who refuse to perform ligation or vasectomy, will be committing a crime. Let us not malign or disdain Catholics on this matter! It is against their doctrine. BUT, look at how this terribly undermines marriage : the Bill puts into law that a woman or man does NOT have to have spousal consent or authorization to have a ligation or vasectomy! And if a health worker refuses to perform this procedure, on this particular ground of lack of spousal consent, he or she will be committing a crime! Christian, Catholic and Muslim marriages will be affected by this.

3. The RH bill undermines parental authority and undermines the family, which are against Christian principles. The RH Bill will punish those health workers (Sec. 21) who "refuse to provide reproductive health care services to an abused minor, whose abused condition is certified by the proper official or personnel of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) or to a duly DSWD-certified abused pregnant minor on whose case no parental consent is necessary".

What does it mean by “reproductive health care services to an abused pregnant minor”? Pregnant young women all the more need parental guidance and consent is necessary for whatever "reproductive health services" will be done on these young abused women! WHy doesn't the bill specify what "reproductive health services" will be done on such minors, who are already pregnant? Is this bill trying to hide the use of abortion or the use of abortifacient chemical contraceptives like the “emergency contraceptive” as "solutions" offered to an abused minor who is already pregnant? And all without a parent's consent!

4. The Rh bill has a conscientious objection provision, BUT, it negates it by REQUIRING by law "that the conscientious objector shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible". (Sec. 21) So even if a Catholic or Muslim doctor refuses to perform a ligation, they are required to refer. People who conscientiously object must NOT be required to refer. They are already objecting!

5. Christian churches and schools will be required to provide reproductive health care services to its employees. The RH Bill will require employers to provide “reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers, more particularly women workers.” The RH bill will punish employers for not following section 17, which states: “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. In establishments or enterprises where there are no CBAs or where the employees are unorganized, the employer shall have the same obligation.”

So employers are required to provide reproductive health care to its employees! Remember, this will become a law. There is a certificate of compliance that will be required of all employers. This will affect Christian, Catholic and Muslim employers, even Christian churches and schools, because our churches and schools have employees! Remember, intrauterine devices and some birth control pills are abortifacient, meaning they prevent implantation of an already-conceived embryo. Life begins at conception, therefore anything that kills an embryo or prevents it from implanting causes an abortion or death of the human embryo. As Christians, we know that life begins at conception. We reject any form of any birth control that kills a conceived life.

6. Contrary to claims by RH bill proponents in Congress that abortion is not mentioned, the bill specifically mentions abortion in Sec. 4 in its definition of terms: It lists as the fourth element of reproductive health care the "prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications". You may say, but it prevents abortion, what's wrong? But why must "management of post-abortion complications" be part of reproductive health? Abortion is a crime! Why must the RH bill specifically mention management of post-abortion complications? It specifies "abortion" as the cause of the complication. What this does is that it sets apart induced, illegal, morally wrong, criminal abortion as a procedure or cause necessitating management. Why not just make it a more general "provision of emergency obstetric care to everyone who needs it"? The very fact that abortion is specified as the cause of the complication means that the RH bill condones abortion and gives it special treatment. Abortion is murder and a grievous sin before God. It is the shedding of innocent blood. It is a crime under Philippine laws.

7. The RH bill will teach the entire nation, especially the young people, its definitions of human sexuality, sex, sexual identity, interpersonal relationships, affection, intimacy and gender roles. They will also define contraception and abortion. In Section 4, the RH bill defines “Reproductive health education” as “the process of acquiring complete, accurate and relevant information on all matters relating to the reproductive system, its functions and processes and human sexuality; and forming attitudes and beliefs about sex, sexual identity, interpersonal relationships, affection, intimacy and gender roles. It also includes developing the necessary skills to be able to distinguish between facts and myths on sex and sexuality; and critically evaluate. and discuss the moral, religious, social and cultural dimensions of related sensitive issues such as contraception and abortion.” Once again, who decides what is correct and What are facts? The Bill and its proponents determine that. And once it is a law, whatever they (the proponents and the Population Commission) define these things to be, will be what is correct and anyone who teaches otherwise will be committing crimes. And once again, abortion is mentioned. Abortion has nothing to do with “responsible parenthood” and “family planning”.

8. It will teach our children and the entire country a sex education curriculum which its proponents have formulated. The RH Bill says in Sec. 12, “Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health Education.”– “Reproductive Health Education in an age-appropriate manner shall be taught by adequately trained teachers starting from Grade 5 up to Fourth Year High School….The POPCOM, in coordination with the Department of Education, shall formulate the Reproductive Health Education curriculum, which shall be common to both public and private schools and shall include related population and development concepts in addition to the following subjects and standards : Reproductive health and sexual rights; Reproductive health care and services; Attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development, sexual behavior and sexual health; Proscription of the hazards of abortion and management of post-abortion complications; Responsible parenthood.. Use and application of natural and modern family planning methods to promote reproductive health, achieve desired family size and prevent unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies; Abstinence before marriage; Prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other, STIs/STDs, prostate cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer and other gynecological disorders; Responsible sexuality; and Maternal, peri-natal and post-natal education, care and services.”

While prevention of AIDS and STDs, abstinence before marriage and responsible parenthood are good, there is nothing good with the government teaching “Attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development, sexual behavior and sexual health” to our children! Plus, once again they have managed to insert “abortion” again. What will be taught about the “hazards of abortion” ? Abortion is 100% fatal and hazardous to the unborn baby who has been aborted! Why must “management of post-abortion complications” be taught in sex education?

9. We reject the RH bill because it’s really about money for contraceptive manufacturers and suppliers. The RH bill puts into law that contraceptives will be made into essential medicines ! Sec. 10 says “Hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other allied reproductive health products and supplies shall be considered under the category of essential medicines and supplies which shall form 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.” The RH bill only lays the groundwork for government purchases of contraceptives, including contraceptives that are abortifacient, which we reject. When we say government, it means “nationwide”. The RH Bill will become national policy.


10. We reject the RH bill because it encourages a two-child policy. In Sec. 16, “Ideal Family Size” it says: “The State shall assist couples, parents and individuals to achieve their desired family size within the context of responsible parenthood for sustainable development and encourage them to have two children as the ideal family size. Attaining the ideal family size is neither mandatory nor compulsory. No punitive action shall be imposed on parents having more than two children.”

While it says that it is not mandatory or compulsory, it will still become a law, meaning, the law will encourage this two-child policy. If it is written in the law, it will be part of legislated health policy. Previous versions of the RH Bill (the past HB 3773) even had a provision that government scholarships will only be extended to the first two children in a family. Surprisingly, it is no longer in the present bill. But what if this is put into the implementing rules and regulations? And people who will have large families will be stigmatized even if they are not punished.


Whatever is good in the bill is already legal and is being done. Yes, women who aborted/killed their children must not be refused emergency obstetric care. But RA 8344 already penalizes the refusal of hospitals and medical clinics to administer appropriate initial medical treatment and support in emergency and serious cases. Women who abort their babies are already given emergency obstetric care. HIV-AIDS programs are already in place. The RH bill tries to encompass so many health issues under it such that people who reject the RH bill are viewed as anti-women, anti-health and anti-development.

But now we have shown you what is definitely worth rejecting in the RH bill. It is the hidden agenda tucked into the RH bill, the oppressive nature of the bill toward those who reject it, the values it undermines and the questionable “values” it will try to teach.

Lissa Apolinario-Poblete, DMD, MHPEd
Christian Pro-life Resources for the Philippines

The Groups Supporting the RH BILL Part 3: Asia Safe Abortion Partnership ASAP

ASAP was created as a platform for advocacy, debate and dialogue for promoting access to medical abortion worldwide. Their goal is to promote, protect and advance women’s sexual and reproductive health rights in Asia by promoting access to comprehensive safe abortion services. This confirms what pro-lifers have been warning for so long: If the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill passes now, the fight in a few years will no longer be about providing contraception but rather providing abortion. That is why, despite all the flak from the media, we are not yielding an inch on the RH Bill. We know what “reproductive health” means when such people like from ASAP say it.

http://www.asap-asia.org/country-profile-philippines.html

PROLIFE POSTER #3

A provocative poster to touch men's ego. It is all about discipline

PROLIFE POSTER #2

A mother’s glowing kindness and selflessness is a call from God. A woman is cared and respected mainly due to her God-given gift to bear life. Child bearing is a no easy task for women. Giving birth is both painful and rewarding experiences for mothers.God instituted marriage so that men and women can fulfill their gender roles within a family. Ideally, marriage enhances the life of a man and a woman by providing them with a community of caring and sharing, of stability and support, of nurture and welfare. The kind of gift marriage brings forth to the society is incomparable and that is why there is much necessity to keep it standing strong.
A Bill that will remove parental authority over their minor children or would devalue a husband's leadership in homes is destructive of the family as a basic unit of the society.

For more information please visit:
www.prolife.org.ph
filipinosforlife.com

The Groups Supporting the RH BILL Part 2: Center for Reproductive Rights CCR

Sorry for this one

 “Funding for abortion services has increasingly been recognized as a necessary tool for ensuring access to a fundamental human right.”-CCR
"[Forsaken Lives] is the first report of its kind that links the abortion ban in the Philippines to a violation of women's rights."-- CRR Pres. Nancy Northup referring to their reports about abortion bans.

The Center for Reproductive Rights is a global women rights organization that uses constitutional and international law to secure women's reproductive freedom including rights for abortion. In their paper report entitled "Forsaken Lives", they blame the Philippines’ pro-life laws criminalizing abortion for endangering women. The group alleges that criminalizing abortions has  forced women to turn to illegal abortions that can result in complications and  even death. The report implies that the laws against abortion is a human right violation for women. It is noted that this very same deceptive tactic is used to get abortion legalized in the U.S. and still being used to legalize abortion in other countries including Philippines.
If this argument is acceptable, then we might as well legalize other criminal activities like illegal drugs to make it safe during "sessions" or the sex dens so that sex workers will be given workers' rights too!
The idea of legalizing abortion is like a poison hiding in the guise of women empowerment, gender equality, maternal health, women's health, and women rights that is why feminists legislators are easily fooled and deceived in passing immoral bills like the RH BILL.
Right now, this pending RH BILL has little or no provisions for abortions but its contents will surely pave the way for more acts of baby killing.