RH provisions explained, myths blasted at sympo for 1,000 students

 

MANILA, September 15, 2011–A lawyer, a nurse instructor, and a business and strategic management professor threshed out the issues surrounding House Bill 4244, or The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development Act of 2011, in a three-hour symposium Wednesday at Siena College, Quezon City

Speaking to a 1,000-strong crowd of 3^rd and 4^th year high school students, the speakers of Filipinos for Life (F4L) – Atty. Marwil Llasos, Prof. Aliza Racelis and Anna Cosio, RN – tackled the salient points of the controversial measure, thereby giving the students a deeper understanding of the issues involved.

According to the teachers, the Reproductive Health (RH) bill had been taken up by the juniors and seniors in class, and the day’s activity was meant to concretize their knowledge and understanding of the piece of legislation as well as the RH issue.

Llasos got the activity off to a dynamic start, with Llasos explaining the concept of conscientious objection, which becomes relevant to health care service providers as regards the bill.

The lawyer explained that a doctor, nurse or any health care practitioner who objects to providing birth control supplies to patients on account of his/her religious convictions will be required to refer the patient to another practitioner who will render the service.

According to the RH bill, health care service providers who refuse to refer patients to another who will provide family planning services shall be subject to punitive measures – either payment of a fine, imprisonment, or both.

“Imagine a Catholic doctor refusing to give pills – some of which are known abortifacients – is required to refer to another doctor. This is even worse because this is the sin of scandal. What is the sin of scandal? It is making another [person] commit sin,” Llasos pointed out.

Cosio presented the medical aspects of why the P3 billion-RH bill – which seeks to mandate taxpayer-funded procurement and distribution of the full range of contraceptive drugs and devices –  should be rejected.

“According to the World Health Organization – IARC last May 17, 2011, combined estrogen and progestin contraceptives are group 1 carcinogens. Studies have shown that they do cause breast cancer, and not simply breast cancer but triple negative breast cancer. What is the difference? This is the type that easily affects other parts of the body and has low survival rate,” the nurse instructor said.

 

Racelis, who took part in a highly publicized and widely viewed live television debate  several months ago, threshed out population and demographic issues pertaining to the piece of legislation. She likewise tackled the economic aspect of the bill, which was the concern of one student who regarded RH as a positive thing and who raised a question after the talks.

“Paano po lalago ang ating ekonomiya kung hindi maipapasa ang RH?” he asked.

The professor reiterated that the RH bill, on the contrary, does not and will not help the economy.

“Dapat tingnan bilang  asset imbis na liability ang populasyon. Ayon sa Nobel Laureate sa Ekonomiya na si Simon Kuznets, hindi sanhi ng kahirapan ang malaking populasyon. Sinegundahan ito ni Gary Becker, isa ring Nobel Laureate sa Ekonomiya, na nagsabing ang Human Capital ang pangunahing resource. Sa payak na pananalita, ang tao ang pinaka-yaman ng isang bayan (The population should be regarded as an asset rather than a liability. According to Simon Kuznets, Nobel Laureate in Economics, a huge population is not the cause of poverty. Another Nobel Laureate in Economics, Gary Becker, reiterated the same idea, saying that human capital is the primary resource. In other words, people are a country’s greatest riches),” Racelis said. (CBCP for Life)