Responsible Parenthood

-------------------------------------------------
Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 | Congress of the Philippines | An Act providing for a national policy on Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health | Citation | Republic Act No. 10354 | Territorial extent | Philippines | Enacted by | House of Representatives of the Philippines | Date enacted | December 19, 2012 | Enacted by | Senate of the Philippines | Date enacted | December 19, 2012 | Date signed | December 21, 2012 | Legislative history | Bill introduced in the House of Representatives of the Philippines | An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development, and for Other Purposes | Bill citation | House Bill 4244 | Introduced by | Edcel Lagman | First reading | February 21, 2011 | Second reading | December 12, 2012 | Third reading | December 17, 2012 | Bill introduced in the Senate of the Philippines | An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health and Population and Development | Bill citation | Senate Bill 2865 | Introduced by | Pia Cayetano | First reading | June 6, 2011 | Second reading | December 17, 2012 | Third reading | December 17, 2012 | Keywords | Family planning, reproductive health | Status: In force |
The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10354), informally known as the Reproductive Health Law, is a law in the Philippines which guarantees universal access to methods on contraception, fertility control, sexual education, and maternal care.
While there is general agreement about its provisions on maternal and child health, there is great debate on its mandate that the Philippine government and the private sector will fund and undertake widespread distribution of family planning devices such as condoms, birth control pills andIUDs, as the government continues to disseminate information on their use through all health care centers.
Passage of the legislation was highly divisive and controversial, with experts, academics, religious institutions, and major political figures declaring their support or opposition it while it was pending in the legislature, often criticizing the government and each other in the process. Debates and rallies both supporting and opposing the "RH Bill," as it was known, happened nationwide.
-------------------------------------------------
Bill content[edit]
Sections[edit]

Philippine Population Density Map. Darker areas mean more population.
The basic content of the Consolidated Reproductive Health Bill is divided into the following sections.[5]
SEC. 1. Title SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy SEC. 3. Guiding Principles SEC. 4. Definition of Terms SEC. 5. Midwives for Skilled Attendance SEC. 6. Emergency Obstetric Care SEC. 7. Access to Family Planning SEC. 8. Maternal and Newborn Health Care in Crisis Situations SEC. 9. Maternal Death Review SEC. 10. Role of the Food and Drug Administration SEC. 11. Procurement and Distribution of Family Planning Supplies SEC. 12. Integration of Family Planning and Responsible Parenthood Component in Anti-Poverty Programs SEC. 13. Roles of Local Government in Family Planning Programs SEC. 14. Benefits for Serious and Life-Threatening Reproductive Health Conditions SEC. 15. Mobile Health Care Service SEC. 16. Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education SEC. 17. Additional Duty of the Local Population Officer SEC. 18. Certificate of Compliance SEC. 19. Capability Building of Barangay Health Workers SEC. 20. Pro Bono Services for Indigent Women SEC. 21. Sexual And Reproductive Health Programs For Persons With Disabilities (PWDs) SEC. 22. Right to Reproductive Health Care Information SEC. 23. Implementing Mechanisms SEC. 24. Reporting Requirements SEC. 25. Congressional Oversight Committee SEC. 26. Prohibited Acts SEC. 27. Penalties SEC. 28. Appropriations SEC. 29. Implementing Rules and Regulations SEC. 30-32. Separability Clause, Repealing Clause, Effectivity
Summary of Major Provisions[edit]
The bill mandates the government to “promote, without bias, all effective natural and modern methods of family planning that are medically safe and legal.”[6]
Although abortion is recognized as illegal and punishable by law, the bill states that “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.”[6]
The bill calls for a “multi-dimensional approach” integrates a component of family planning and responsible parenthood into all government anti-poverty programs.[6]
Under the bill, age-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education is required from grade five to fourth year high school using “life-skills and other approaches.”[6]
The bill also mandates the Department of Labor and Employment to guarantee the reproductive health rights of its female employees. Companies with less than 200 workers are required to enter into partnership with health care providers in their area for the delivery of reproductive health services.[6]
Employers with more than 200 employees shall provide reproductive health services to all employees in their own respective health facilities. Those with less than 200 workers shall enter into partnerships with health professionals for the delivery of reproductive health services. Employers shall inform employees of the availability of family planning services. They are also obliged to monitor pregnant working employees among their workforce and ensure they are provided paid half-day prenatal medical leaves for each month of the pregnancy period that they are employed.[6]
The national government and local governments will ensure the availability of reproductive health care services, including family planning and prenatal care.[6]
Any person or public official who prohibits or restricts the delivery of legal and medically safe reproductive health care services will be meted penalty by imprisonment or a fine.[6]
-------------------------------------------------
Summary of support[edit]
Proponents argue: (1) Economic studies, especially the experience in Asia,[7] show that rapid population growth and high fertility rates, especially among the poor, exacerbate poverty and make it harder for the government to address it.[8][9] (2) Empirical studies show that poverty incidence is higher among big families.[8][10] Smaller families and wider birth intervals could allow families to invest more in each child’s education, health, nutrition and eventually reduce poverty and hunger at the household level.[3][7][8] (3) Ten to eleven maternal deaths daily could be reduced if they had access to basic healthcare and essential minerals like iron and calcium, according to the DOH; (4) Studies show that 44% of the pregnancies in the poorest quintile are unanticipated, and among the poorest women who would like to avoid pregnancy, at least 41% do not use any contraceptive method because of lack of information or access.[7][8] and "Among the poorest families, 22% of married women of reproductive age express a desire to avoid pregnancies but are still not using any family planning method,"[7] (5) use of contraception, which the World Health Organization has listed as essential medicines,[11][12] will lower the rate of abortions as it has done in other parts of the world, according to the Guttmacher Institute.[13] (6) An SWS survey of 2008 showed that 71% of the respondents are in favor of the bill,[14] (7) at the heart of the bill is the free choice given to people on the use of reproductive health, enabling the people, especially the poor to have the number of children they want and can care for.[citation needed]..
-------------------------------------------------
Summary of criticism[edit]
Opponents of the bill argue that: (1) "The world's leading scientific experts" have resolved the issues related to the bill and show that the "RH Bill is based on wrong economics" as the 2003 Rand Corporation study shows that "there is little cross-country evidence that population growth impedes or promotes economic growth".[15][16] (2) The bill takes away limited government funds from treating many high priority medical and food needs and transfers them to fund objectively harmful and deadly devices.[17] The latest studies in scientific journals and organizations show that the ordinary birth control pill,[18] and the IUD[19] are abortifacient to 100-celled human embryos: they kill the embryonic human, who as such are human beings equally worthy of respect,[20] making the bill unconstitutional.[21][22] (3) US National Defense Consultant, Lionel Tiger, has shown empirical evidence that contraceptives have deleterious social effects (abortion, premarital sex, female impoverishment, fatherless children, teenage pregnancies, and poverty).[23][24] Harvard School of Public Health scientist Edward Green observes that 'when people think they're made safe by using condoms at least some of the time, they actually engage in riskier sex', in the phenomenon called "risk compensation".[25] There is evidence for increased risk of cancer (breast, cervical, liver)[26][27] as well as significant increase of risk for heart attack and stroke for current users of oral contraceptives.[28][29] The increased usage of contraceptives, which implies that some babies are unwanted, will eventually lead to more abortion; the correlation was shown in a scientific journal and acknowledged by pro-RH leaders,[22] (4) People's freedom to access contraceptives is not restricted by any opposing law, being available in family planning NGOs, stores, etc. The country is not a welfare state: taxpayer's money should not be used for personal practices that are harmful and immoral; it can be used to inform people of the harm of BCPs. (5) The penal provisions constitute a violation of free choice and conscience, and establishes religious persecution.[30]
President Aquino stated he was not an author of the bill. He also stated that he gives full support to a firm population policy, educating parents to be responsible, providing contraceptives to those who ask for them, but he refuses to promote contraceptive use. He said that his position "is more aptly called responsible parenthood rather than reproductive health."[31][32]
-------------------------------------------------
Economic and demographic premises[edit]
The Philippines is the 39th most densely populated country, with a density over 335 per squared kilometer,[33] and the population growth rate is 1.9% (2010 Census),[34] 1.957% (2010 est. by CIA World Fact Book), or 1.85% (2005–2010 high variant estimate by the UN Population Division, World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision) coming from 3.1 in 1960.[citation needed]
The 2010 total fertility rate (TFR) is 3.23 births per woman, from a TFR of 7 in 1960.[35] In addition, the total fertility rate for the richest quintile of the population is 2.0, which is about one third the TFR of the poorest quintile (5.9 children per woman). The TFR for women with college education is 2.3, about half that of women with only an elementary education (4.5 children per woman).[36]
Congressman Lagman states that the bill "recognizes the verifiable link between a huge population and poverty. Unbridled population growth stunts socioeconomic development and aggravates poverty."[13]
The University of the Philippines' School of Economics presented two papers in support of the bill: Population and Poverty: the Real Score (2004), and Population, Poverty, Politics and the Reproductive Health Bill (2008). According to these economists, which include Solita Monsod, Gerardo Sicat, Cayetano Paderanga, Ernesto M. Pernia, and Stella Alabastro-Quimbo, "rapid population growth and high fertility rates, especially among the poor, do exacerbate poverty and make it harder for the government to address it," while at the same time clarifying that it would be "extreme" to view "population growth as the principal cause of poverty that would justify the government resorting to draconian and coercive measures to deal with the problem (e.g., denial of basic services and subsidies to families with more than two children)." They illustrate the connection between rapid population growth and poverty by comparing the economic growth and population growth rates of Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines, wherein the first two grew more rapidly than the Philippines due to lower population growth rates.[8] They stressed that "the experience from across Asia indicates that a population policy cum government-funded [family planning] program has been a critical complement to sound economic policy and poverty reduction."[7]
In Population and Poverty, Aniceto Orbeta, Jr, showed that poverty incidence is higher among big families: 57.3% of Filipino families with seven children are in poverty while only 23.8% of families who have two children live below the poverty threshold.[10]

Percentage of population living below poverty line (2003). Darker areas mean more poverty.
Proponents argue that smaller families and wider birth intervals resulting from the use of contraceptives allow families to invest more in each child’s education, health, nutrition and eventually reduce poverty and hunger at the household level.[7] At the national level, fertility reduction cuts the cost of social services with fewer people attending school or seeking medical care and as demand eases for housing, transportation, jobs, water, food and other natural resources.[3][8][37] The Asian Development Bank in 2004 also listed a large population as one of the major causes of poverty in the country, together with weak macroeconomic management, employment issues, an underperforming agricultural sector and an unfinished land reform agenda, governance issues including corruption.[9]
Criticism of premises[edit]
Opponents refer to a 2003 study of Rand Corporation, which concluded that "there is little cross-country evidence that population growth impedes or promotes economic growth...population neutralism has in fact been the predominant school in thinking among academics about population growth for the last half-century." For example, the 1992 study of Ross Levine and David Renelt, which covered 119 countries over 30 years (vs UP study of 3 countries over a few years). The RAND study also said that a large population can promote growth given the right fundamentals.[15] Thus, they refer to the HSBC 2012 projection for 2050 that the Philippines will be 16th largest economy due to its large growing population, and those whose populations are decreasing will suffer decline.[38]
In his Primer which critiques the bill, Economist Roberto de Vera refers to Nobel prize winner Simon Kuznets's study which concludes that “no clear association appears to exist in the present sample of countries, or is likely to exist in other developed countries, between rates of growth of population and of product per capita." Julian Simon compared parallel countries such as North and South Korea, East and West Germany whose birthrates were practically the same but whose economic growth was entirely different due to different governance factors. De Vera says that "similar conclusions have been arrived at by the US National Research Council in 1986 and in the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) Consultative Meeting of Economists in 1992" and the studies of Hanushek and Wommann (2007), Doppelhoffer, Miller, Sala-I-Martin (2004), Ahlburg (1996), etc.[39] The other Nobel Prize winner who expressed the same view is Gary Becker.[40][41]
De Vera also states that from 1961 to 2000, as Philippine population increased almost three times, poverty decreased from 59% to 34%. He stressed that the more probable cause of poor families is not family size but the limited schooling of the household head: 78% to 90% of the poor households had heads with no high school diploma, preventing them from getting good paying jobs. He refers to studies which show that 90% of the time the poor want the children they have: as helpers in the farm and investment for a secure old age.[39]
Instead of aiming at population decrease, De Vera stressed that the country should focus through education on cashing in on a possible “demographic dividend”, a period of rapid economic growth that can happens when the labor force is growing faster than the dependents (children and elderly), thus reducing poverty significantly.[39]
In a recent development, two authors of the Reproductive Health Bill changed their stand on the provisions of the bill regarding population and development. Reps. Emerciana de Jesus and Luzviminda Ilagan wanted to delete three provisions which state that "gender equality and women empowerment are central elements of reproductive health and population and development," which integrate responsible parenthood and family planning programs into anti-poverty initiatives, and which name the Population Commission as a coordinating body. The two party-list representatives strongly state that poverty is not due to over-population but because of inequality and corruption.[42]
Opponents also refer to the statement of the Federation of Free Farmers that history teaches about the economic advantages of a large population, and the disadvantages of a smaller population.[43] The Wall Street Journal in July 2012 said that Aquino's "promotion of a 'reproductive health' bill is jarring" since it could lead to "a demographic trap of too few workers. The Philippines doesn't have too many people, it has too few pro-growth policies."[44]
Opposing the bill, Former Finance Secretary Roberto de Ocampo wrote that it is "truly disingenuous for anyone to proceed on the premise that the poor are to blame for the nation’s poverty." He emphasized that the government should apply the principle of first things first and focus on the root causes of the poverty (e.g. poor governance, corruption) and apply many other alternatives to solve the problem (e.g. giving up pork barrel, raising tax collection efficiency).[30] They also point to the five factors for high economic growth and reduction of poverty shown by the 2008 Commission on Growth and Development headed by Nobel prize winner Michael Spence, which does not include population control.[16]
Natural family planning[edit]
Different groups within the pro-life and anti-abortion movement, as well as the Catholic Church are in favor of NFP or natural family planning or fertility awareness as a moral way of regulating child births.[citation needed] They say that NFP, which consists in abstinence during period of fertility and having sex during period of infertility, does not abuse nor trivialize the natural processes wherein sex is intrinsically linked with procreation of new babies. By respecting sexuality, it does not "use" the spouse as an object for mere pleasure, nor is there a directly willed prevention of human life, since there is no new human life linked to abstention nor to sex during infertile periods.[citation needed]
On the other hand, proponents contend that "natural family planning methods have not proven to be as reliable as artificial means of birth control."[54] Pro-life groups counter this by saying that high-level scientific studies show that when fertility awareness is used correctly and consistently with ongoing coaching, it is 99% effective.[55][56][57][58]
Thus, as Dr. Larimore and Dr. Stanford stated: "given that there are highly effective, inexpensive, totally natural, and non-abortifacient methods of birth control (the methods of modern natural family planning), it appears that most arguments for using birth-control pills can be said to be advocating convenience for mothers and fathers at the potential expense of innocent and invaluable human life."[59] * Responsible Parenthood is not equivalent to the Reproductive Health Bill, it is not birth control, it is not population control. * "If we consider the relevant physical, economic, psychological and social conditions,responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have a large family or by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect for the moral law, choose not to have children for the time being or even for an indeterminate period (Humane vitae). * If we examine the innate drives and emotions of man, responsible parenthood expresses the dominion which reason and will must exert over them. * Everything directly related to the transmission of life participates in the creative power of God; consequently, it should be treated with respect and responsibility. * It is important for spouses (according to their respective capacities) to know the mechanism of the female cycle, not to interfere, but to respect these natural processes because they are dealing with "biological laws which involve the person" (Humane vitae) . * Knowledge of biological mechanisms "must lead to education in self-control": hence, the absolute necessity of the virtue of chastity and of permanent education in this virtue. (Pope John Paul II) * Decision to limit the number of children will depend on:

1) The existence of a serious motive for avoiding the birth of another child; and
2) Respect for the moral law while searching for the most adequate means of avoiding birth. * The characteristic sign of a Christian couple is their generous openness to life, to acceptance from God children as gift of love" (Pope John Paul II) as opposed to having a "contraceptive mentality." * However, this does not mean that we should have the attitude of "natalism" at all cost, as if the "number" of children, in itself, were the unmistakable sign of authentic Christian matrimonial life. What matters is the integrity and honesty of married life. (J. Escriva) * Responsible parenthood' * A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) | Updated July 27, 2012 - 12:00am * 1 5 googleplus0 6 * Legislators sponsoring the RH bill and their foreign-backed supporters including some members of media, are now jumping up and down urging Congress to put said bill into a vote, obviously emboldened by P-Noy’s alleged endorsement of the proposed law in his latest SONA. But did P-Noy really endorse the RH bill or even mentioned it in his SONA? Definitely not; not even once did he mention the bill or directly and explicitly urge Congress to approve it. What may have some relevance to the issue and which the sponsors and backers are using and interpreting as an outright and absolute endorsement is his statement that: “we are ending the backlog in the education sector but the potential for shortages remains as our student population continues to increase. Perhaps responsible parenthood can help address this.” * Obviously, the backers are using the phrase “responsible parenthood” to show that P-Noy is giving his all out support for the RH bill because said bill is allegedly also about responsible parenthood. But it is quite clear from the above quoted statement that P-Noy used the phrase only once and in passing as he laid out his plans for solving classroom shortages. He even sounds so tentative and unsure because he used the word “perhaps” in claiming that “responsible parenthood” can help address the growing student population. And he did not even explain the meaning of the phrase. Such statement cannot really be considered as clear and straightforward presentation of the problem and its solution, contrary to the overall assessment of the SONA. * But in all fairness and with due respect, it can also be said that when P-Noy used “responsible parenthood” in his SONA, he knows that the phrase is contained in the Constitution itself and he is thus using it to carry out the Charter’s mandate in this regard which provides that: “The State shall defend the right of the spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood” (Article XV Section 3[1]). * If P-Noy used the phrase within the contemplation of the above quoted Constitutional provision, then P-Noy is not referring and endorsing the RH bill here. And the reason is obvious. The “demands of responsible parenthood” contemplated by this particular provision necessarily includes the protection of “the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from the moment of conception” as mandated in Article II Section 12 of the Charter. All the provisions of the Constitution must be read together and must be reconciled. Hence “responsible parenthood” under our Constitution means that the spouses shall plan the size of their family by spacing the birth of their children in order to raise them properly and well without however endangering the life of the mother and the unborn from the moment of conception. * But the proposed RH bill provides for universal access to all sorts of artificial contraceptives that have already been medically proven to cause abortion or to force couples to resort to abortion because of unwanted pregnancies. These contraceptives have also been shown to cause cancer or other serious illness on the mother and the children they may subsequently beget. “Responsible parenthood” and the RH bill are therefore absolutely incompatible simply because the phrase excludes the use of artificial contraceptives which the RH bill is precisely making available to women especially the impoverished ones. * To be sure, “responsible parenthood” is not an original concept of our constitutional framers. The phrase and its real concept first appeared in the Papal encyclical Gaudium et Spes later explained more profoundly by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae. These encyclicals explain the meaning of responsible parenthood and how it is exercised. Thus: * Opinion ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1 * “Responsible parenthood is an attitude toward parenthood — not separated from the practice of virtue — that encompasses God’s plan for marriage and family. It also involves the recognition of duties of the spouses toward themselves, the family and society, while, at the same time, recognizing that they are not free to proceed completely at will, as if they could determine in a wholly autonomous manner the honest path to follow. It is the same as family planning. * Responsible parenthood is exercised either by the mature and generous decision to raise a large family, or by the decision, made for grave motives, and with respect for the moral law, to avoid a new birth for the time being and for an indeterminate period. * In deciding to have a large family, “each couple has to see before God how many children He wants them to have and be open to his will. They must conform their activity to the creative intention of God. In the task of transmitting life therefore they are not free to proceed completely at will. * “If the couple decides to avoid new births in the meantime they must have grave reasons for doing so, bearing in mind the purpose of marriage and that one day, they have to render an account before God of the children they did or did not have. Furthermore they should conform to the moral teaching that the licit way of spacing birth is to have marital relations at a time “when conception cannot take place” or during “the infertile periods within the female sexual cycle.” The artificial methods are illicit because “in them, the spouses act as arbiters of the divine plan and they manipulate and degrade human sexuality.” * Clearly the RH bill is not about “responsible parenthood” because it provides access to artificial contraceptives that endangers the life and health of the mother and the unborn from the moment of conception and because it impairs the right of couples to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions. P-Noy should issue a clarification that his statement on responsible parenthood in his SONA is not an endorsement of the RH bill. Otherwise his reputation as an “honest” leader will be severely damaged.
Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development Bill

National Situation

A quick glance at the national health situation of Filipino women reveals the following information:

Philippine maternal mortality rate (MMR) remains high at 162 deaths for every 100,000 live births. The National Statistics Office fears that the slow decline in MMR may cause the Philippines to miss its MDG target of bringing down the MMR to 53 by the year 2015. (Family Planning Survey 2006).
Maternal deaths account for 14% of deaths among women. According to the Commission on Population, ten (10) women die every 24 hours from pregnancy or childbirth-related complications (Popcom 2000).
29 infants of every 1,000 live births die before reaching one year of age; 40 young children die before reaching five years of age. (NSO, NDHS 2003)29 infants of every 1,000 live births die before reaching one year of age; 40 young children die before reaching five years of age. (NSO, NDHS 2003)
Close birth spacing and high-risk pregnancies have been shown to be closely related to childhood mortality. (NSO, NDHS 2003)
The Filipino woman's desired number of children is 2.5. However, the actual fertility rate is 3.5 children or a difference of one child. This difference is due mainly to the lack of information on and access to family planning services. (NSO, NDHS 2003)
Only 49.3% of women use any method of contraception, with the use of the pill as the leading contraceptive method, followed by female sterilization, and the calendar rhythm. Condoms, even though widely distributed, accounted for only 1.9% of the total usage. (NSO-FPS 2005)
The unmet need for family planning averages 17.3%. Those belonging to the poorest class have the highest unmet need for family planning at 26.7%, consisting of those who want to space their pregnancies (10.9%), and those who want to limit the number of their children (15.8%). The current unmet need for contraceptives is 23.15% for poor women and 13.6% for women who are not poor. (NSO, NDHS 2003)
The use of modern family planning methods increases with the increase in the level of education of women. (NSO, 2003 NDHS)
97% of all Filipinos believe it is important to have the ability to control one's fertility or to plan one's family. It is significant to note that 87% of the total respondents are Roman Catholics. (Pulse Asia Survey, Feb 2004)

Legislative Herstory

Past government administrations have attempted to address these population and reproductive health concerns. However, their approaches differed and changed, depending on the views of whoever holds the leadership.
From the 9th to the 11th Congress, Population Development bills have been filed, focusing mainly on controlling population growth. It was only in the 12th Congress that the reproductive health of women figured into the discussions on population development, so that population-related bills filed in the 12th and 13th Congress already considered reproductive health issues.
At the close of the 13th Congress, the substitute bill HB 3773 or the "Responsible Parenthood and Population Management" bill reached the 2nd Reading.
As of this writing, four bills pertaining to reproductive health and/or population management have been filed for the 14th Congress in both houses: HB No. 17 authored by Rep. Edcel Lagman, HB No. 812 authored by Rep. Janette Garin, SB No. 40 authored by Sen. Rodolfo Biazon and SB No. 43 authored by Sen. Panfilo Lacson.

Salient Features

The Philippines is duty-bound to implement the provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), specifically the UN CEDAW Committee's Concluding Comments, which among others, urges the government to enhance women's access to health care, including reproductive health services, to address high maternal mortality rates, high fertility rates, and inadequate family planning services.

The NCRFW is advocating for a national legislation that addresses the reproductive health needs of women and other population development issues which, among others;

Upholds and promotes the four pillars of the present government's population policy as enunciated in President Arroyo's statement of support to the International.

Conference on Population and Development in January 2005, namely (1) responsible parenthood, (2) informed choice, (3) birth spacing, and (4) respect for life;

Recognizes that human resource is a principal asset, hence the needs for effective reproductive health care services to be given primacy and ensure the birth of healthy children and promote responsible parenting;
Promotes gender equality and women's rights as essential to the fulfillment of reproductive health rights;
Defines reproductive health as the state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes;
Provides the framework for implementing the ten elements of a comprehensive reproductive health program as follows: (1) maternal, infant and child health and nutrition, including the promotion of breastfeeding; (2) family planning and information services; (3) adolescent and youth health; (4) prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications; (5) prevention and management of reproductive tract infections, HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmittable infections; (6) elimination of violence against women; (7) education and counseling on sexuality and sexual health; (8) treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers and other gynecological conditions; (9) male involvement and participation in reproductive health; and (10) prevention and treatment of infertility and sexual dysfunction;
Leaves the number and spacing of children to the sound and informed judgment of couples based on their personal conviction and religious beliefs, while assuring that they are afforded free and full access to relevant, adequate and enlightening information on reproductive health;
Provides for a mandatory reproductive health and sexuality education, that is medically correct and developmentally appropriate, to be taught by adequately trained teachers;
Appropriates funds for the initial implementation of the proposed law and mandates Congress to include subsequent appropriations in the General Appropriations Act.
Someone mentioned the phrase “responsible parenthood” with pride and gusto. He said it decidedly and clearly. He invoked it before an elite crowd — with the general public hearing it. He got a loud and long applause from his direct audience — most of whom are interested in getting not only his political but also his administration’s financial support. He thus immediately moved and inspired his comrades to meet, plan and strategize for the passage of the famous as well as infamous RH bill — depending on whether the bill is simply about lobby money, business profit, PPP enterprises or the issue is basically about ethical considerations and/or moral principles.
That is why the following sceneries immediately came to fore: On the one hand, those in favor of the bill are flexing their muscles, planning their strategies and programming their moves for its eventual approval.
On the other hand, those categorically against the bill are meeting, planning, and moving silently at first and loudly sooner or later. There are even those who expressly and clearly said that “the battle is joined” — or something along the line.
Translation: The ruling Administration and the Catholic Church in the Philippines are on a head-on collision course.
This is why some clarifications and/or explanations are in order, even if only to clarify one and for all, the meaning and implications of “responsible parenthood.”
But before that, there are certain key questions begging for true and proper answers: Why is a big number of the people in the Philippines poor if not also hungry? Why is there no real socio-economic development in the country up to these times? Where are the direct and indirect taxes paid by all Filipinos from birth to death?
In the event that these key questions could be answered satisfactorily by the administration, the same should thereafter answer this clear and direct question: What is responsible parenthood?
The hallowed phrase “responsible parenthood” is official Church language very long since. It means: Husbands and wives should only have the number of children they can afford to support and educate. It means: They should not therefore have more children than they can thus care for and form. It means: They should observe natural family planning specifically for that purpose. This is “responsible parenthood.” Period.
Question: When that someone mentioned the phrase, does he know what it really means? Or did he simply intend to mislead his listeners?
Answer: Considering that it is not good to say that he deliberately wanted to deceive them, it is more kind to say instead that he did not really know the meaning of what he said. One thing is very certain: Responsible parenthood is the direct exact contradiction of the RH bill promoting artificial contraception in line with the observance of government population control.