House Bill 5043: Rants and Claims

Reproductive Health Bill continues to stand as most talk about proposal. When I wrote, Pass the Reproductive Health Bill (House Bill 5043), I got mixed reactions from online readers. Some even personally email me their views.

Recently, I got a lengthy but very interesting comments which push me again to read the full text of House Bill No. 5043 (Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008).

The comments came from Ipe Espinosa of Bacolod City. Espinosa pointed potential consequences when House Bill 5043 is enacted into law.

If Reproductive Health bill becomes law, the government, according to Espinosa, will be mandated to distribute free condoms to 4.9 million youth aged 15-27. This will give condom suppliers a very attractive sales – about 2.548 billion every year.

Here’s the formula: 4.9 million youth times 1 sex act per week times 52 weeks per year times condom usage of 1 piece per sex act times supplier’s price of P10 per piece of condom.

It was not mentioned by Espinosa if free condoms will also be distributed to Filipinos aged 28 and above.

Such bloated figures and claim startled me. Why do some assume that youth engage in sex at least once a week when there are free condoms? Will there be significant effect on sexual engagement frequency among the youth if condoms are not available?

Are condoms really distributed like candies by the government with Reproductive Health law? I doubt. I think there is misinterpretation here.

Espinosa wrote further:

These 4.9 million youth who are recipients of the government’s free supply of condoms may naturally crave for sex like animals (considering the additional enticement from the immodest mass media and the internet pornography). The young male may act like boar while the young female behaves like gilt that is in heat.

I beg to disagree to this claim. Is there any basis for this very alarming claim? Is there any study that support the claim that when people recieve free condoms will get sexually active and crave for sex like animals?

On the goal of House Bill 5043, Espinosa wrote:

The ultimate aim of RH Bill, I understand, is achieving economic prosperity (particularly for the poor) however through population reduction approach. So there will be a future need to support for the passage into law of Pro-abortion Bills as well as of Pro-euthanasia Bills.

But House Bill 5043 is not about population control. It even says, the State upholds and promotes responsible parenthood, informed choice, birth spacing and respect for life in conformity with internationally recognized human rights standards.

I am very grateful to Ipe Espinosa of Bacolod City for sharing his ideas about House Bill 5043. After all, sharing of ideas will help us process our own opinions.

6 thoughts on “House Bill 5043: Rants and Claims

  1. Sex is a sacred gift from God. If people do it just for pleasure, whether they may be married or not, then it is a sin.

    Sex is for pro-creation, by giving out condoms you lose the essence of the beauty of sex. It merely becomes the act of gaining carnal pleasures.

    Espinosa has a point. Giving out free condoms makes act of PMS more accessible to the youth. Some of the teenagers are afraid to make purchases of condoms..

    Any form of contraceptives is against the teachings of God which is procreation..

    Batang Buotan says:
    I am not just sure if condoms are really freely given. It may be available but may not be distributed as if its a basic need.

  2. even if there is no statement of giving free condoms. it is shown that contraception is still involved here. The church is strong to show that encouraging contraception is one way to encourage PMS. Contraceptives are not welcomed in the teachings of Christ. We are pro creation.

    If STD’s are in concern here, contraceptives are still not the best solution as they do not guarantee 100% assurance of health safety. Abstinence is still the best solution.

    Batang Buotan says: I hear you 100%. let me share to you some of my humble thoughts. The emphasis of the bill is promotion of responsible parenthood through different family planning methods. It is just like giving building blocks where an individual or couple are enlightened to responsibly shape envisioned goals. There is and there will be no single way imposed.There will be no bias among traditional, natural, and scientific family planning method. Although the country is predominantly Christian nation, there are different interpretation on Christian teachings. In a democratic society like ours, the role of the government is to promote the welfare of the whole rather than a segmented part of the society. The government must not lean on certain dogma. Otherwise the government is not worthy to be called as such.

    The big part of the bill is on education, or let us say, awareness. Sometimes the things we assume we know are the things we don’t know. We may have several assumptions about sex, about family planning, about responsible parenthood but such assumptions may not always be logical. Even the RH bill do not assure anything nor promise to solve something. The difference will always depend on us. When RH bill is enacted, it will be laid upon us. It is our judgment call that makes difference, not the law. It is just like the sun, it shines, it gives light – but it’s up for us to make use of it. We may till the land with the sun’s light or we may sleep in dark caves while the sun is up.

  3. February 22, 2009

    For : Batang Buotan
    https://gervacio.wordpress.com
    I could not help but post my second set of ideas in your blog, for two reasons: firstly, I wish to thank you for reacting to my February 1, 2009 comments regarding potential consequences if the Reproductive Health bill becomes a law. By dignifying my 02/01/09 posting, you proved to me that democracy is very much alive in our country Philippines – for now. Secondly, I would like to take advantage of the situation that the RH Bill is still not yet a law. It is creepy to note that in case House Bill 5043 passes into a law, I will no longer be free to share my ideas because of the Bill’s specific prohibition in Sec. 21 (e) which penalizes,
    Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.
    Since the bill is silent as to what constitutes “malicious disinformation”, any one who expresses ideas against the bill after it becomes a law, makes one person legally liable. If Reproductive Health Bill becomes a law, this statement of prohibition will most likely be included and replicated in the future legislation like bill on same-sex and divorce, pro-abortion bills (the physical type since the indirect abortion – by abortifacient drugs and devices – is already covered by the RH Bill), pro-euthanasia bills, etc. Then we have the beginning of the end of the freedom of speech, of expression, of the Supreme Court (a Supreme Court judge may be penalized for engaging “malicious disinformation” if he makes dissenting opinions about the RH Law), of the Constitution and of Philippine Democracy.

    Also, this is the first time (I hope I am wrong) that I have encountered a bill with this kind of provision which makes it untouchable or next to impossible to be amended. Is RH Bill hiding something fishy that has to be protected legally by this provision? Like what? Well, I encountered this unverified report that supports and funds from foreign sources were distributed to Philippine local governments which were able to meet the quota of the number of women being sterilized or inserted with intrauterine device or IUD; please see below.
    No other options besides the IUD or sterilization are offered to women, Garcia said, “because these are once-and-done procedures. They do not require the continuing voluntary participation of the women in question.”
    Then there’s the quota system, which also shows up in countries such as the Philippines–where it was introduced by none other than the U.S. government itself.
    “In conjunction with the Philippine Department of Health, USAID identifies certain local governments whose family-planning activities are to be ‘accelerated,’ ” said Bernadette Ocampo, a Filipino nurse. “Yearly performance benchmarks for family-planning acceptors [i.e., the number of people who accept contraception] are then set for those areas. If local governments meet those quotas, USAID releases funds to them.”
    That’s standard procedure around the world for the American government, even though it violates a United Nations agreement–signed by U.S. representatives–forbidding population-control quotas.
    “USAID evaluates its programs by the numbers,” Morrison said. “If you’re somebody whose job depends on the program and the people who fund it want to see results . . . you’re going to do it that way.”
    Source: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils in Government/AIDS and Population Elimination/depopulation_bomb.htm
    I hope that this abovementioned report is not true. Otherwise, if RH Bill becomes a law, then the alleged IUD quota will surely be satisfied however at taxpayers’ expense while the so called foreign aid will be awarded directly to the pocket of the concerned government officials.
    To your question, “Are condoms really distributed like candies by the government with Reproductive Health law?” my answer is a definite Yes. Please examine the following:

    a) According to the document, Essential Medicines for Reproductive Health:
    Guiding Principles for Their Inclusion on National Medicines Lists. (by PATH, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations Population Fund. Seattle: PATH; 2006) Condoms as barrier contraceptive devices have been on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines since 1988 (Page 72). Condoms, an important method in preventing pregnancy and the primary method for preventing transmission of STIs (sexually transmitted infections) , including HIV, were listed on only 35 percent of the (Essential Medicine Lists or) EMLs (Page 3)

    b) SEC. 10 of the RH Bill. Contraceptives as Essential Medicines. – 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.

    In other words, condom, unless categorically and specifically excluded in the bill/law, forms part of the National Drug Formulary which has to be made available and dispense with (or distribute like candies) free in any government hospital, health center/unit, under the RH Law. Then, the Filipino youth, ages 15 to 27, (unless categorically and specifically excluded in the bill/law) has the legal right as an individual to demand a condom for his or her “decisions concerning reproduction” as indicated by RH Bill’s Section 4 (d). Furthermore, no ascendancy or no one particularly government personnel can refuse to accommodate this legal demand of a condom of a Filipino citizen (including the youth), other wise that health care service provider, whether public or private, will be violating Section 21 (a.1).

    As to the question “ Is there any study that support the claim that when people receive free condoms will get sexually active and crave for sex like animals?” , let me borrow few lines from the Philippine Star feature article Mind Your Body written by Willie T. Ong, MD, dated February 3, 2009, Page D-3:

    a) Dr. Eduardo Gatchalian, an urologist and past president of the Philippine College of
    Surgeons, candidly says (regarding sex drive), “At 20, you have sex three times a day. At 30, you have sex three times a night. At 40, you have sex three times a week. AT 60, you have sex only thrice a month. At 70, he tries and tries. And at 80, he tries to remember”.
    (Column 1)

    b) The apparent shyness of Filipinos is due to our conservative cultural values. But make no mistake, the sex drive is there – it is just repressed by the environment. (Column 2)

    The abovementioned point that human sex drive or craving is a medical fact (so no need for a
    study) but its intensity depends on how repressive or conducive the environment is, for casual
    sex. Availability of free condom (complemented by the formal sex education being
    mandated by RH Bill), at the top of the present sensuous/provocative mass media and
    advertisements plus internet pornography, will literally and figuratively open the flood gate of free
    expression of sexual activities – eventually. RH Law will therefore accelerate the liberation of
    Filipinos from its conservative cultural values about sex up to the end point of open craving-for-
    sex-like-animals.

    Are you now enjoying the thought that your fellow Filipinos (who patronize your blog) are losing
    their freedom of speech and expression because of a totalitarian prohibition of the RH Law? Are
    you now enjoying the thought that your kid sisters, teenage daughters, grand daughters, great
    grand daughters, teenage nieces, grand nieces or great grand nieces are being deflowered even
    before graduating high school because they are sexually liberated by the RH Law. Are you now
    enjoying the thought that your kid brothers, teenage sons, grand sons, great grand sons, teenage
    nephews, grand nephews or great grand nephews practice safe sex complement by the RH Law
    thus have turned to be oversexed, then homosexual and “sugar mommy”? If you answer NO to all
    these questions, then resign as a RH Bill advocate and push harder for our legislators to vote
    against the passage of the RH Bill into law. May God bless you!

    JUST FOR THE RECORD, I HAVE INVOKED THE INTERCESSION OF ST. JOSEPH, THE
    DEFENDER OF THE CHURCH, FOR THE NON-PASSAGE INTO LAW OF THE RH BILL.

  4. The thing is, we live in a democracy and as such, the opinions of each one of us regarding the purpose of sex in our lives must be respected. The idea that sex is only for procreation and that pleasure is only a by-product — is valid as far as personal ideas are concerned. But not everyone believes that to be true for himself or herself and our laws should respect those people too.

    I think “malicious disinformation” is a term that is applicable to health providers who who will give misinformation regarding family planning to their clients. Misinformation being health information that is not backed by good scientific studies. For example, some health providers may tell couples that they will go to hell if they use artificial contraception. Is that a bvalid scientific statement?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s