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.