Bobit S. Avila: A new RH bill angle exposed! It's about money!

OPINION

READ OTHER NEWS   READER COMMENTCENSORED_PS_READERwrote: RF13: Mr Borit Avila cannot tell the difference between truth and lie. In last May 2010 elections, he sang to high heavens the faked pscy report of PNoy as a gospel truth.  The man lacks credibility! Reply | Read Other Posts    SHARE facebook yahoo! buzz   ARTICLE TOOLS post a comment printer friendly email article Advertisements A new RH bill angle exposed! It's about money!  SHOOTING STRAIGHT By Bobit S. Avila (The Philippine Star) Updated May 20, 2011 12:00 AM Comments (150)  The debate on the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill resumed in Congress this week, where the pros and the antis debate once more on this highly-toxic issue, often with those supporting the RH bill (notice they have dropped their new name Responsible Parenthood and returned to using once again the term Reproductive Health) peddling lies in order to sell their proposed bill. I fully agree with pundits that this controversy has polarized the Filipino people. I would even dare say that something good has come out of this debate because it allowed the Filipino people to totally look at the RH bill from different angles... from the moral, the legal to the economic issue - whether our large population is the cause of our poverty. Yes, those supporting the RH Bill would dare, misinform, cajole or even lie to the Filipino so that they could have this bill passed, while those that are against the RH bill can only tell you one story... the truth! We've so often quoted the world's foremost liar, Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's Propaganda Minister (who at the end of the German Reich killed his own family and committed suicide) who made this most quoted quotation, "A lie repeated a thousand times, assumes the substance of truth." The RH bill has been peddled in Congress since the year 1999 in so many different House Bill numbers, selling us all sorts of lies, like for instance, contraceptives are not abortifacient. The latest that was revealed no less than by the former Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral is that contraceptives can cause breast cancer, though it reduces the risk of cervical cancer. But one good news out of this debate comes from Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile who expressed his opposition to the RH bill saying, "As far as we are concerned here, I don't think it is a priority. I'll be very frank with you. As far as I'm concerned, I am not ready to tinker with anything that is an act of God." Thank God for Sen. Enrile, but what about Sen. Ed Angara and Sen. Miriam Santiago, who recently attacked the Pacman? Ah, that's what we shall tackle in our column tomorrow. Meanwhile, there's that alleged anomaly that Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III exposed during his privilege speech concerning a P2.6 billion allocation for Family Health Programs during the time of Health Sec. Cabral dubbed the Maternal Neonatal and Child Health and Nutrition (MNCHN) program of the local government units (LGU) which some LGUs say they never got. Sen. Sotto is right in asking for an investigation into this potential mess before the Senate would tackle the RH Bill, which also earmarks a large amount of government funds. There's more to the corruption issue now plaguing the RH controversy and it's about money, money and more money from faceless pharmaceutical lobbyists who no doubt are funding Congressmen and women who support the RH Bill. Here's a letter that reveals this reality. "Dear Bobit, I have always wondered why the RH Bill is being pushed through even though with or without it, the consumer is free to purchase contraceptives in the counter. So I made some analysis. Based on National Census Statistics Board data 2000, about 24 percent of the Philippine population is above 20 years old. Based on the same statistics, about 50 percent of that are females.  "Considering we have a total population of about 90 million that means the total population of Filipinos above 20 years old is about 22 million. Half of that would be 11 million females. This is the present target market for contraceptives. If I am not mistaken, based on what I have found out from the internet, the cost of using birth control pills is about P1,000 a month.  "The total potential value of the market in the Philippines is therefore computed to be: 11 million x P1,000 per month x 12 months or a total of P132 billion per year. The problem for the contraceptive manufacturers is that 90 percent of the market belongs to the lower income who cannot afford to spend P1,000 per month. So in order to give this market purchasing power, the RH Bill is now being pushed to enable the government to use taxpayer's money to subsidize these contraceptives. "To further expand the market, the 10 to 15 years old will be given sex education in school and they will be allowed to purchase contraceptives even without the consent of their parents. That could mean another 4,000,000 potential users. The value of this additional market is calculated to be another P48 billion. Adding the two markets gives us a whooping valuation of P180 billion per year. Now I understand why the RH Bill is being pushed very hard. God bless! - Bobby Tordesillas." No bill in Congress has been so thoroughly debated, dissected and discussed by the pros and the cons of various sectors of society. I have read and heard most if not all the comments for and against the RH Bill, but this angle has never been presented in this manner. *      *      * For email responses to this article, write to vsbobita@mozcom.com or vsbobita@gmail.com. His columns can be accessed throughwww.philstar.com. View previous articles from this author | Subscribe to this author via RSS

  SHARE:    facebook         yahoo! buzz    

Bobit S. Avila: Pro-RH Catholics are 'cafeteria Catholics'!

OPINION

READ OTHER NEWS   READER COMMENTrb_x wrote: mr. avila. what you term as cafeteria catholics are merely people who are exercising their free will, their right to choose without always being subjected to authoritarian structures. it's a characteristic common to intelligent and discerning individuals. these are people who make the choice to question everything and not to allow themselves to be unthinking religious zombies accepting anything simply because they're  told to do so. and regarding the applicability of the bible, i think that in this 21st century, governance and our way of life has gone far beyond the knowledge and experience of hebrew nomads who lived more than 3, 000 years ago.   Reply | Read Other Posts    SHARE facebook yahoo! buzz   ARTICLE TOOLS post a comment printer friendly email article Advertisements Pro-RH Catholics are 'cafeteria Catholics'!  SHOOTING STRAIGHT By Bobit S. Avila (The Philippine Star) Updated June 04, 2011 12:00 AM Comments (18)  For once, at least we got some good news directly from President Benigno "P-Noy" Aquino III who issued a statement about the recent proposal legalizing divorce in the Philippines. "I promised job generation, education, health, judicial reform, and we are doing all that already... Divorce, I think, is not a priority at this time. I'm not even married yet, and you want divorce? I don't want to make the divorce process so easy that it will be like divorce in Las Vegas wherein you are married in the morning and then divorced in the afternoon. Family is very important." With this news, then Kris will simply have to wait. But, of course, President P-Noy reiterated his stand that the Reproductive Health (RH) bill is his priority, which means the spiritual battle continues, but I guess President P-Noy realized quite early that if he supported both the RH and divorce bills, it would even offend some misguided Catholics who support the RH bill, but might be against divorce in this country. Incidentally, last week those pro-RH Catholics surfaced in Cebu with a few Cebuanos, one of whom I personally know. What I would like to know is who is funding these people? Certainly, they don't have the blessings of the Catholic Church. I call these people "cafeteria Catholics" – they are the kind who cannot obey all the Ten Commandments or perhaps think that they are not even commandments at all, but rather only Ten Suggestions! But since they still consider themselves as Catholics, and would like to believe that they do pray the Lord's Prayer or Our Father, hence may I suggest that these people should stop praying the Lord's Prayer because God, who hears our prayers in secret, will certainly catch them lying through their teeth when they recite, "Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven!" Supporting the RH bill is not exactly allowing God's will to be done here on earth or in heaven! Still on the RH bill, last May 16, the world's greatest boxing champ, Rep. Manny "Pacman" Pacquiao, and Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago had a very public verbal tussle on how the Scripture was written on the subject of how God told Adam and Eve that they should multiply. Pacman was quoted to have said, "Go forth and multiply." But the supposedly more "cerebral" Sen. Santiago corrected Pacman, saying, "The Bible does not say, 'Go out to the world.' It sounds very much like God is encouraging us to go out and copulate in public. God said in the Bible, 'Go forth and multiply.'" In trying to correct Pacman, Sen. Santiago revealed her ignorance of the Bible. She forgot that God made this statement to Adam and Eve while there were no other people on earth at that time. They didn't even have a house or any clothes in those days because they were in Paradise. So, yes, God encouraged them to copulate... even in public; after all, only God could see what they were doing as they were the first humans on earth! Secondly, they were both naked and saw no malice seeing their bodies. This is the problem when people who have not even studied the Bible try to interpret it their way. * * * I salute Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile for giving a word of caution to the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) against giving the only remaining radio frequency under its stewardship for free to any interested party. Indeed JPE is right; in Europe those frequencies cost a fortune as they are sold to the highest bidder. This was during the hearing by the Senate committee on public services chaired by Sen. Ramon "Bong" Revilla Jr. who was looking into serious concerns on the impact of the P69.2-billion share-swap arrangement or merger between the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. (PLDT)-Smart Communications and Digitel Telecommunications Philippines Inc., a.k.a. Sun Cellular. Of course, PLDT spokesman Ray Espinosa pointed out to the Senate committee that the share-swap arrangement was aboveboard and consistent with the provisions of their congressional franchises. He also cited that in 2001 Globe Telecom had a share-swap deal with Islacom, which was approved by the SEC and NTC. But then, Islacom wasn't that big as compared to Sun Cellular, so that was a totally different deal. I was a bit amused when Digitel's Lance Gokongwei told Sen. Enrile that earlier, they had initial talks with Globe Telecom about a share-swap deal, but nothing came out of it. Sen. Enrile then quipped, "So, this is a situation where a loser is complaining against the winner, isn't it? Now if there is a purchase by Globe, would there have been an anti-trust issue?" But Globe's Atty. Rodolfo Salalima's fears that this merger would run counter to the law that has deregulated the telecommunications industry. This kind of deal would never be allowed by the European Union (EU) because of their anti-trust laws, which the Philippines still doesn't have. * * * For e-mail responses to this article, write to vsbobita@mozcom.com orvsbobita@gmail.com. Avila's columns can be accessed throughwww.philstar.com. View previous articles from this author | Subscribe to this author via RSS

  SHARE:    facebook         yahoo! buzz    

Jose C. Sison: More questions

	OPINION READ OTHER NEWS   READER COMMENTnumanciaboy wrote: kitqay: You're right, extremist views do not have a lot of pursuading power in the market place of ideas, they just grate like nails run against a blackboard.  And you're right again that one is not forced to swallow indigestible logic based on dogmatic assertions.  However, when they are foist on readers because one could grandstand a couple of days in a week via a broadsheet, then one has to say something as pallative to exterme annoyance.  The situation becomes particularly galling when there is a pretense of fair-mindedness when In fact the extreme position has not budged an inch.  LOL.   Reply | Read Other Posts    SHARE facebook yahoo! buzz   ARTICLE TOOLS post a comment printer friendly email article Advertisements More questions  A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) Updated May 27, 2011 12:00 AM Comments (8)  In taking a stand on difficult issues, it is always advisable to have an open mind and to consider all angles. The better attitude is to think that there are wiser and more intelligent people who are experts on certain fields and whose views are much respected and often cited. One of them is of course Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ. His opinions are really persuasive and count a lot to us who are still learning and trying to grasp the correct meaning and answer to certain constitutional questions especially those arising from the highly controversial RH bill that is now being heatedly discussed. It is thus very fortunate that Fr. Bernas has categorically declared that he "adheres to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception" even if he is "aware that it is not considered an infallible doctrine by those who know more theology" than he does. This means therefore that to Fr. Bernas, contraception or "any action taken before, during or after the conjugal act which is aimed at impeding the process or the possible fruit of conception", is morally wrong. It is morally wrong because it "separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act." In other words it is like the spouses telling each other, "I love you as long as we do not give birth." (Catechism on Family and Life (CFL) December 27, 2009). Another very helpful clarification from Fr. Bernas is his unequivocal stand that "sacred life begins at fertilization and not at implantation" so that "there is already abortion any time a fertilized ovum is expelled" because the "Constitution commands that the life of the unborn be protected from conception". This is very important because the principal authors of the bill anchor its legality on an entirely different and contrasting concept that life begins at implantation. Following Fr. Bernas' pronouncement to which we adhere as we highly value his opinion on this issue, the consolidated bill (HB 4244) entitled "An Act for a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, Population and Development" is therefore inherently unconstitutional. It is inherently unconstitutional because its main purpose as reflected in its title is to depopulate our country by promoting, distributing and making available to the people especially the poor, a full menu of modern artificial methods of family planning that prevent the implantation of the fertilized ova based on the belief and concept espoused by its authors that life begins only at implantation. But in the light of Fr. Bernas' explanation that is diametrically opposed to the authors' concept of when life begins, the bill will in effect legalize the expelling of fertilized ova which is nothing but mass murder of innocent babies. On this specific point alone, the RH bill should be junked. It is not necessary anymore to go into other constitutionally objectionable features of the bill like the provision on the mandatory sexual education in public schools without the consent of parents which is clearly against the constitutional provision recognizing the sanctity of human family and the natural and primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character as Fr. Bernas said. We really look up to Fr. Bernas for guidance on this controversy but perhaps because of our limited understanding and intelligence, several questions still came up as we try to discern his stand on the RH bill, more specifically the following: 1. Can the RH bill nevertheless be enacted into law even if its underlying premise – that life begins at implantation – is clearly contrary to the Constitution mandating the State to protect the life of the unborn from conception or, as he said, from fertilization not implantation? This question still cropped up because of his statement that "if we have to have an RH law", he intends "to contribute to its improvement as much as (he) can". 2. Is it alright to have an RH law initiated by and originating from foreign countries and International organizations trying to impose a population control ("development") policy designed to protect their own interest? This question also crops up because up to now the alleged foreign connection and intervention has not been denied or rebutted. 3. Since the bill prohibits abortion because it is an assault against the right to life, should the "question of scientific fact" on what are the abortifacient pills and devices be settled first so that the bill could already specify them or at least set guidelines in determining them before delegating this function to the Food and Drug Administration? How does the bill define abortion? Is it expulsion of fertilized ova at any time or only after implantation? 4. Are not the bill's "valuable points in its Declaration of Principles and Policies that can serve the welfare of the nation and especially of the poor women who cannot afford the cost of medical service" already part and parcel of existing laws promoting public health and welfare which are, or should be, given by the various departments and government agencies particularly the Department of Health and the Department of Social Welfare and Development? 5. Is it in accordance with the Constitution to spend public money for the promotion of "reproductive health" that entails the use of contraceptives just to have "a safe and satisfying sex" even if it runs counter to the religious beliefs of some sects like the Catholic Church? Can Congress appropriate public money to enforce the use of birth control pills and other contraceptives which is against the religious beliefs and moral convictions of some religious groups? 6. Is the Church or the people of God who merely voice their objection to the RH bill particularly to President Aquino in the exercise of their freedom to act on their religious belief really "compelling the President to prevent people from acting according to their own religious belief"? Are not other sects favoring the bill also doing this? Indeed this RH bill has only caused deep division and serious rift among our people including some clerics. Our country will be better off without it. It is not so necessary after all. There are more effective and less divisive ways of licking poverty here. Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445. *      *      * E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net

Jose C. Sison: Suggested provisions

	OPINION READ OTHER NEWS   READER COMMENTrey quijada wrote: sa.akin.lang:If you really want to know the truth Kaibigan, kindly refer to one of the issues of obsrevatore romano which explains what you have qouted as said by the Pope. Youu have your own interpretation about the said qoute but it is not what the Pope meant. If you insist on your own interpretation, am sorry to say it again that it is not accurate. Reply | Read Other Posts    SHARE facebook yahoo! buzz   ARTICLE TOOLS post a comment printer friendly email article Advertisements Suggested provisions  A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) Updated May 16, 2011 12:00 AM Comments (29)  Based on the statements originating from the different Malacañang spokespersons and from P-Noy himself, the only things clear at this stage about their stand on the RH bill are: that the government wants to give "complete and accurate information" on the natural and artificial methods of family planning but would not prefer one over the other because the "parents themselves need to be the ones to decide and look after the welfare of their families"; that P-Noy is against abortion; and that "the government would have to consider what would benefit the majority even if it would be unpopular and earn criticism from some groups". Admittedly, it is necessary to have a complete and accurate information before deciding and making a choice, more so a "wise" choice. Hence the administration and P-Noy himself should ensure that the RH bill must contain a provision requiring the government agencies concerned, particularly the DOH and the DSWD: to inform the couples or the parents about the adverse effects of artificial contraceptives or modern methods of family planning including condoms; to embark on a massive information drive warning the people that these artificial contraceptives are dangerous to their health and welfare; that certain chemical and mechanical contraceptive devices cause abortion, or have side effects specifically breast cancer, cervical cancer, hardening of the arteries, heart disease/stroke and other serious sexually transmissible diseases. On the other hand, since the government would not prefer one over the other method, the bill should also have a provision requiring government agencies to equally support the information campaign on natural family planning (NFP). There should be a provision in the bill training the DOH and the DSWD personnel on how (NFP) works and mobilizing them to conduct a program explaining the NFP methods to couples or parents especially the poor ones in the same manner they are required to give the reproductive health care services promoting artificial contraceptives as the modern method of family planning. The bill must require government personnel to inform the people that unlike the modern methods, the NFP does not force them to take anything or undergo any procedure that is dangerous to the life and health of the mother and child because it only entails some form of self control and self sacrifice on their part by abstaining from sex for certain periods. The bill supposedly gives couples, especially women the "freedom of informed choice" while at the same time declaring that it does not legalize abortion. In fact P-Noy himself said he is against abortion but would also like to give the couples or parents that freedom. Hence the bill should also have a provision requiring the government agencies concerned to issue stern warnings on couples or parents who choose the modern methods of family planning that some of the contraceptives they may pick may render them liable for abortion under Article 257-259 of the Revised Penal Code. Indeed the bill should already specify these abortion causing contraceptives based on well researched medical studies so that couples and parents will really have an "informed choice" and would be ready to suffer the consequences of their choice because "freedom of choice" does not certainly include the freedom to choose something that will result in the murder of an innocent, helpless and defenseless child in the womb of the mother. The bill should also remove the provisions on sex education for children from grade five up because based on the examples of other countries particularly the US such kind of sex education teaches the wrong values that results in premarital sex and unwanted teen pregnancies that eventually ends in abortion and its legalization. While the bill gives parents the option of allowing or not allowing their children to take such sex education, parents are not well informed of the dire consequences of such sex education, hence they may not really be exercising the freedom of "an informed choice". Since the bill repeatedly talks of the freedom of choice, the coercive provisions against those who criticize or attack it, or who do not want to observe some of the practices and procedures it requires, should be removed. These provisions clearly contradict the very freedom that the bill supposedly espouses. More importantly, they actually infringe on the bill of rights enshrined in our Constitution particularly the freedom of speech and the freedom of religious belief and worship (Sections 4 and 5, Article III). Actually, the bill is not necessary. It is not the solution to the many ills besetting our country especially the problem of poverty allegedly due to overpopulation and the increasing number of maternal death and infant mortality while giving births. In the first place the identified root causes of the problem are wrong hence the solutions are not the proper and effective solutions. Poverty is not due to overpopulation but to the "flawed philosophies of development, misguided economic policies, greed, corruption, social inequities, lack of access to education, poor economic and social services etc.". Maternal death and infant mortality are not due to increasing number of pregnancies that should be prevented through contraceptives. The bill indeed has several other good provisions addressing this particular problem, but the same could already be implemented even without its passage like upgrading of the facilities and equipment for obstetric care and for prevention of illnesses connected with reproduction or birth. But if the bill should be passed, it should at least incorporate the above suggestions. This is the only way to prove that the bill is original and not actually a creation of international groups and foreign countries out to implement a hidden agenda of controlling our population for their own selfish interest. Perhaps this is the kind of bill P-Noy should support because it is closer to his description of a bill for the benefit of the majority even if it is unpopular and earn the criticism of some groups".