---------- Forwarded message ----------
Dear Friends,
I am forwarding to you 6 articles that may help you in deciding who to vote for on May 10. Feel free to forward them to your family members and friends.
1. Why Villar over Noynoy?
2. A section from the Catechism on Elections pertaining to this issue.
3. News article on RH bill advocates hopeful of Noynoy.
4. Montalvan's column at PDI contrasting pro and anti-RH bill candidates.
5. Position paper on why we do not need an RH bill.
6. Guide for the elections
Let us pray that we get the leaders whose passion is to do God's Will in their professional work: politics.
Cheers!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Why Villar over Noynoy?3. RH bill advocates hopeful of Noynoy
Why MANNY VILLAR is fit for the Presidency over Noynoy
As we approach May 10, the election fever is rising and together with it, so much mudslinging and propaganda. We may end up getting distracted with the real issues and so this paper is an attempt to help us decide wisely who to vote for.
Sorry to Gibo, Erap and the rest, it is now a battle between Villar and Noynoy. To vote for any other candidate will just be a waste. Between the two, Villar is the better bet or as some will say, the lesser evil, for the following reasons:
1. Villar is competent. His track record in Congress and the Senate is incomparable compared to Noynoy's. Even his fellow legislators criticize Noynoy for not having done much after having been in the Congress and Senate for 12 years.
2. Villar is an accomplished businessman. This may be one reason why some businessmen are pushing for a Noynoy presidency. Villar would know the intricacies of business and would know how to catch the crooks.
3. Villar is not indebted to many people because he admitted that he is paying for most of his political ads (if not all). How about Noynoy? Who are the ones paying for his political ads?
4. Villar is pro-life and he stated that clearly. Filipinos are lovers of life. Noynoy on the other hand was a co-author of the anti-life RH bill in the Senate.
5. Villar is respectful of the Church. He is a member of Couples for Christ. Whereas Noynoy said blatantly that he does not care about what the Catholic Church teaches about morality as regards contraception. The Church only talks about faith and morals--two areas which may harm the eternal salvation of our souls. The Church is against contraception because it is a moral issue. Noynoy does not care about that.
6. Villar knows the right facts about our population. Noynoy's premise that we have a soaring population is blatantly wrong. It is enough to study the UN Population data to see that although it may appear that we are growing in population, our total fertility rate (TFR) is going down. And an attack on our population that Noynoy is advocating will just worsen the situation in the long run. The reason why we have so many OFW's is that the population of other countries is going down. If ours go down, who will come here from those countries to work for us?
7. Villar is being attacked by known proponents of the RH bill while they endorse Noynoy like anything. Read Rina Jimenez David's columns. She is like the spokesperson of Planned Parenthood (the major pusher for contraception and abortion in the US) and she is dreaming of a Noynoy wedding in Malacanan. Look at Ang Ladlad's (the promoter of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender lifestyles) all out support for Noynoy. Even Time Magazine (which pushes for contraception and abortion) joined in by making Noynoy its cover. Do we not read these "signs of the times"? Watch out for more in the coming weeks...
Let us also join forces in promoting pro-life candidates in the Senate. The only sure ones are IT: Imbong & Tatad. Those who may also be considered pro-life are DELPSS: Drilon, Enrile, Lacson, Pimentel, Sison and Sotto. These are only 8 out of the 12 possible positions. There is no need to fill in four more. PLCPD (NGO promoting the RH bill) made a list of their candidates. Take note of them to make sure that you do NOT vote for them. They will be their representatives in Senate.
If your congressman was a co-author of the RH bill (HB 5043), please do not vote for him. Otherwise, you are voting for someone who will again promote the same anti-life propaganda in the coming congresses. Find out.
If you are from Quezon City, avoid the Sonny Belmonte (SB) Team, especially Edcel Lagman (the son of the RH bill proponent in Congress). They passed an RH bill in QC (yes, there is already one in QC). The only councilor who said no to that RH bill is Janet "Babes" Malaya and she is now running for Vice Mayor.
Let us spread this message to as many VOTERS as possible. Malakas po ang anti-life forces. Di natin alam saan galing ang mga pera nila. Sabi nila galing sa America. Kung tutoo man yun, sana naman ang mga kapwa Pinoy natin na tumatangap ng mga pera na iyon ay magising sa katutuhanan at huwag pagamit sa kanila. Ano ba ang pakay nila at bakit ganyan na lamang kalaki ang investment nila para ipasok sa isip natin ang contraceptive mentality? Let us pray very hard for this.
This article is not paid for nor pushed by Villar or any politician. It is also not meant to destroy the reputation of Noynoy or other politicians. We just have to state the facts. We cannot use the same mudslinging tactics of those who attack pro-life politicians. It is mainly written for Catholics and men and women of goodwill. Catholics because they will be the ones who will be greatly affected by a Noynoy pro-RH bill presidency. This is not about separation of Church and State. It is about basic human decency and protection of the family, the basic unity of the society. Remember that Cory Aquino was pro-life and faithful to her marriage to Ninoy. Hindi po totoo na kung ano ang sanga, yun din ang bunga dahil si Noynoy ay hindi pro-life at si Kris ay (alam nyo na)...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Section 15 of the Catechism on Elections
Catechism on Family and Life of the CBCP
http://www.cbcpnews.com/?q=node/12037
- 14. Is it morally acceptable to vote for an anti-family candidate?
With the foregoing considerations, it would not be morally permissible to vote for candidates who support anti-family policies, including reproductive health (in the particular understanding being presented in the recent debates, which includes, among others, promotion of abortifacients, penalties on parents who do not allow their adolescent children to engage in sexual acts, etc.), or any other moral evil such as abortion, divorce, assisted suicide and euthanasia. Otherwise one becomes an accomplice to the moral evil in question.
The gravity of these questions allows for no political maneuvering. They strike at the heart of the human person and the family and are non-negotiable. Supporting them renders a candidate unacceptable regardless of his position on other matters. The right to life is a paramount issue and hence cannot be placed on the same plane of discernment as the candidate's positions on the environment, unemployment, health care, or others. This is because, as Pope John Paul II says, the right to life is "the first right, on which all the others are based, and which cannot be recuperated once it is lost." It is also because the family is the basic unit of society. A candidate lays down the ground for refusing solidarity with anyone if he refuses solidarity with the unborn in the first few days or months of life, or with the dying. Why should anyone vote for such a candidate?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RH advocates hopeful of Noynoy
By Lilita Balane, Newsbreak | 02/18/2010 8:14 PM
http://beta.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/02/18/10/rh-advocates-hopeful-noynoy
Say comprehensive family planning law possible if LP bet wins
MANILA, Philippines - Reproductive rights' advocates see the chance of having a comprehensive family planning law in the Philippines if Liberal Party's Benigno Aquino III becomes president.
Comparing the position that major presidential candidates have taken on the reproductive health bill, the Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD) said Monday that only Aquino had been consistent in supporting the bill, which had been pending in Congress for a decade.
"The RH bill has a better chance to be passed into law. With a president supportive of it, Congress will have a different atmosphere. Lawmakers who were against it might change their minds, and sponsors of the bill would have a firm stand," PLCPD head Ramon San Pascual said during a forum.
In a presidential forum sponsored last Monday by Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines (FOCAP), only Aquino endorsed government funding on contraceptives.
Aquino's closest rival in presidential surveys, Nacionalista Party's Manuel Villar, has said in various leadership fora that the RH bill is a "divisive matter" and it doesn't need to be passed into law. Pascual said Villar does not consider the RH bill a priority. Villar and his wife are members of the conservative Catholic group Couples for Christ.
Lakas-Kampi-CMD standard bearer Gilbert Teodoro, along with his wife Tarlac City 1st District Rep. Nikki Prieto-Teodoro, abandoned the bill, saying that the controversial measure does not directly address poverty in the country.
Other candidates are either totally against it or want to change some of bill's provisions.
House Bill 5043, more popularly known as RH bill, is a population development measure that seeks to provide Filipinos access to reproductive health services, including natural and artificial birth control methods.
Last year, Speaker Prospero Nograles wanted to fast track the debates on the measure, so the House could finally put it to a vote. However, the bill has not progressed before Congress adjourned for the campaign period this month.
PLCPD said the bill was killed when Malacañang intervened and asked the Speaker to" slow down."
The Catholic Church has been opposing the bill, saying that the bill legalizes abortion because some of the contraceptives cited in it induces abortion. Pascual defended that the bill considers abortion a crime and punishable under the law.
Last December, the Catholics Bishops Conference of the Philippines issued Catechism on Family and Life for the 2010 Elections, a set of guidelines discouraging Catholic voters from choosing candidates who are in favor of the RH bill.
"We are going to face serious challenges in the 2010 elections that are not only political but also clearly and profoundly moral. We are a nation that values family and life and yet for years our elected leaders have been attempting to make laws that pose a grave threat to these values. So once again we find the opportune occasion for the Church to exercise its teaching authority to guide us in carrying out their political responsibilities in a faithful citizenship," the CBCP's guidelines said.
Earlier, Aquino was reported to have softened his position on the bill before presidential debates, after the Catholic Church launched a campaign against him.
While the Catholic Church intensifies its drive against pro-RH bill politicians, the PLCPD said that they would encourage voters to pick candidates with a clear platform on reproductive health and the required budget to implement it.
Although the PLCPD will not endorse a presidential candidate for the May 10 polls, Pascual said it evaluates the consistency of the candidates' statement on the RH bill. (Newsbreak)
as of 02/18/2010 8:14 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Pro and anti RH bill politicians.
INQUIRER OPINION - COLUMNS
Junking Noynoy
Antonio J. Montalvan II
Philippine Daily InquirerApril 25, 2010
THERE may be no such thing as a Catholic vote, but not for long. Notice, for example, how presidential candidates who used to be uncompromising in their stand on reproductive health have suddenly turned nuanced in their language, suddenly sounding neither here nor there whether they truly are for or against reproductive health.
The most nuanced stand on reproductive health is Noynoy Aquino's. From his "I don't care if the Catholic Church will abandon me because of my support for the reproductive health bill," his last pronouncement tried very hard to please pro-lifers. "I am against legislating the use of artificial contraception; however, contraceptives must be provided for those who ask"—meaning, he will commit public funds for its promotion.
Watching Ramon San Pascual and Sylvia Estrada Claudio, both prominent anti-life advocates (and media talk show favorites, on Cheche Lazaro's ANC talk show "The Platform"), expressing disappointment at Noynoy's nuanced stand, it was not surprising that Noynoy got low marks from them. Well, for his nuanced stand, he is also getting low marks from pro-lifers. And for a very good reason.
It is not farfetched to think that a Noynoy presidency will open the floodgates to artificial contraception. Noynoy is surrounded by senatorial candidates who hold the most radical views on reproductive health. They are Neric Acosta, Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, Ruffy Biazon and Teofisto Guingona III. Noynoy's stand may be nuanced for now—we know that is just for election posturing—but not when he assumes the presidency. It is just all glib-tongue, campaign lingo. These days, he no longer admits that he was advised by Jesuit friends to support reproductive health. No, that would not be a vote-getting line.
But Noynoy's reproductive health stand has the liberal media and poll survey organizations on his side. Media, especially television, are mostly anti-life. In measuring the candidates' stand on reproductive health, "The Platform" never had anyone from the pro-life side on board.
Media personalities, especially those who mix inane editorial commentaries with the news, gloat over the fact that surveys have shown that the Filipino electorate will vote for a candidate who will legislate for artificial contraception.
Surveys, however, have nothing to do with measuring political correctness. Morality is not measured by popularity. Anti-life advocates obfuscate many aspects of the reproductive health issue. Survey respondents are not expected to be fully knowledgeable of the pros and cons. Much of the statistics, especially from the experience of countries that have opted for full contraceptive availability, are not being made known. That is not pro-choice.
It is absolutely not pro-choice when anti-lifers are silent on the fact that many of these contraceptives are actually abortifacients. It is not pro-choice when they give mute testimony to the fact that abortion has actually risen in countries that have made contraception the norm. Because they purposely keep quiet on the fact that contraception promotes sexual promiscuity among the young, they proclaim early on that they are against abortion. But that is a lie of the nth magnitude. Contraception and abortion, as the statistics say, are actually Siamese twins.
Survey respondents also are unaware of the demographic winter. It is only candidate Ruffy Biazon who has so far expressed publicly that he fears, however, that we may go the way of Singapore: an aging population where government has to spend exorbitantly on social welfare but is now expressing mea culpa by asking its citizens to reproduce more children. It goes without saying, of course, that basketcase Philippines can ill afford to support an aging population. But survey respondents are nowhere near those data.
The most serious charade, however, is mouthing the line of overpopulation. That is definitely a bogey. Humans are resources that governments only fail to develop because of graft and corruption and misgovernance. There is no such thing as overpopulation.
Early this month, Task Force Family and Life (TFFL), a national advocacy group that counts lay members in parishes all over Luzon, the Visayas and Mindanao, has come up with a list of candidates who have remained consistently pro-life. No, there may not be a Catholic vote but even reproductive health advocates consider it as an electoral issue. And so who is to stop TFFL from endorsing Franklin Drilon (Liberal Party), Juan Ponce Enrile (Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino), Jo Imbong (Ang Kapatiran), Alex Lacson (Liberal Party), Gwen Pimentel (Nacionalista Party), Adrian Sison (Ang Kapatiran), Vicente Sotto (Nationalist People's Coalition) and Francisco Tatad (Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino) as the pro-life candidates to vote for? TFFL also endorses the pro-life party-list group ABA. After all, it was the pro-life legislators who were responsible for killing the reproductive health bill in Congress.
And Noynoy? He is a danger to watch for, unless we fill Congress with legislators who believe that reproductive health is consistent with abortion and with the destruction of our youth and our families. But the presidency is pivotal. Noynoy, for all his traditional political antics, does not deserve it, not even if we have a St. Cory. Why, he might even derail her canonization.
* * *
Comments to montalvan_antonio@g.cu.edu.ph
©2010 www.inquirer.net all rights reserved
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Position paper: Why we do not need an RH bill
For the past few years, the controversial reproductive health (RH) bill has been very strongly advocated by certain lawmakers and lobby groups. At first glance, the bill appears to be of great benefit to the Filipino people. Many support the bill because it apparently will alleviate poverty through provisions empowering people to have less children and consequently less immediate financial burden. The bill is also supposedly helpful in stemming the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) due to its promotion of condoms and other means of artificial birth control. A sex education campaign that starts at grade 5 is also in the bill, which is supposed to better inform people of safe and healthy sexual practices.
These are assumptions that the proponents of the RH bill take for granted, and are largely taken as gospel truth by those who support the measures. However, recent studies suggest that, far from alleviating poverty and promoting public health, these measures will only worsen the conditions that we are currently experiencing.
It is immediately obvious to anyone that bigger families are definitely a bigger burden to parents. More children means more mouths to feed, more bodies to clothe, more minds to educate, and a bigger roof to house them all. What is not immediately obvious is that population decline has very catastrophic long term consequences nations as a whole, far outweighing the immediate financial relief of families having fewer children. In Europe, governments are desperate to get the fertility rate back up using various measures, even paying couples for each child being born.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment