WHAT IS RH BILL?

The Reproductive Health (RH) bill promotes information on and access to both natural and modern family planning
methods, which are medically safe and legally permissible.
It assures an enabling environment where women and couples have the freedom of informed choice on the mode of
family planning they want to adopt based on their needs, personal convictions and religious beliefs. The bill does not
have any bias for or against either natural or modern family planning. Both modes are contraceptive methods. Their
common purpose is to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
It proposes that the Philippine government and the private sector will fund and undertake widespread distribution of
family planning devices such as condoms, birth control pills (BCPs) and IUDs.

COVERAGE OF THE RH BILL:

1. Information and access to natural and modern family planning.
2. Maternal, infant and child health and nutrition.
3. Promotion of breast feeding.
4. Prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications.
5. Adolescent and youth health.
6. Prevention and management of reproductive tract infections, HIV/AIDS and STDs.
7. Elimination of violence against women.
8. Counseling on sexuality and sexual and reproductive health.
9. Treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers.
10. Male involvement and participation in RH.
11. Prevention and treatment of infertility.
12. Age-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education from fifth grade to high school.

HIV cases would increase! There is no such thing in this world as Safe condoms (they might advertise
it as safe, then why they dont have COMMERCIALS of using their condoms with an AIDS VICTIM). In
Thailand, when they started to have a bill regarding sex education and birth control, their HIV cases increasing
and so with other countries.
Response to statement above: Better to say that HIV cases might increase. In regards to the usage of condoms,
we could argue that while informed use of a condom is good, unfortunately the lack of sex education in schools
causes more consistently uninformed use of condoms which is just as harmful as unprotected sex or using the pull-out
method. So in effect, necessitating that the bill should sponsor distribution of condoms but limited sex education is
bad. Add: misinformation from government and influence of largely Catholic figureheads that lean more towards
conservativism

Defending this statement:

Other STIs
- STIs can be transmitted in two ways. Gonorrhea, chlamydia and trichomoniasis are primarily
transmitted through contact with infected fluids, such as semen, vaginal fluid and rectal fluid. Genital herpes
(herpes simplex Type 2 or HSV-2), syphilis and genital warts (human papillomavirus or HPV) are primarily
transmitted through contact with infected skin.
- Several studies suggest male condoms can reduce, but not eliminate, the oral, vaginal and anal
transmission of genital warts, genital herpes, syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea and trichomoniasis. However,
other studies have found that condom use did not reduce the risk of STI transmission. These results were
likely due to inconsistent and incorrect use of condoms among study participants.
- Also, the effectiveness of condoms may depend on how the STI is transmitted. Condoms do not
completely cover all parts of the body that can become infected, or are infected, by STIs that are primarily
transmitted through skinskin contact (such as herpes, syphilis and genital warts). Therefore, condoms may
be less protective against these STIs compared to those that are transmitted through contact with infected
fluids.
- An example of a manufactured product is the latex condom which has pores of five to seventy
microns. A human sperm cell has a diameter of five microns and the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome or
AIDS has a diameter of 0.1 microns. Through the presentation of this numerical data, it can be seen that the
use of condoms does not completely prevent the transfer of STIs like AIDS. People tend to think that with the
use of contraceptives they are protecting themselves from STIs. This is not true because AIDS is not even the
top STI but it is Human papillomavirus or HPV. HPV is acquired or transmitted through skin contact. Its spread
cannot be prevented with the use of contraceptives. Because people lack awareness about this kind of
information, a false sense of security is established by having the wide distribution of contraceptives. Filipinos
are made to think that since these condoms are part of the RH law and it is part of our constitution to protect
the well-being of a person, these condoms will not bring any harm to them. Contraceptives will harm people
through making them more susceptible to STIs which may even lead to death.(Position Paper by Mary Minette
M. Georga (University of the Philippines))

There has never been a direct link connecting high population with high poverty rates.
- Correlation is not causation. It is short-sighted to think of declining population growth as a goal in of
itself. Population control, as an economic policy, has proven to be unsustainable. Across Europe and Asia,
countries that saw steep declines in fertility in the past generation are now bracing themselves for the future
consequences of an aging population, when a large number of elderly can no longer be supported by the
smaller and younger working class. During the 1970s and 1980s, Singapore instituted an aggressive two-child
policy, which led to a situation of labor shortages and the difficulty of supporting an aging population. In an
effort to recover, Singapore now pursues a pro-fertility policy.
- In the case of Hong Kong, the countrys dense population has had no debilitating effects on its
economic development. Hong Kong has experienced a great economic boom and high levels of economic
prosperity largely due to a sound banking system, no public debt, a strong legal system, and a rigorously
enforced anti-corruption regime. This case provides a clear example that economic development is not
synonymous with small population size, and that a large population is not only sustainable but an asset to
development. (CBCP for Life, 2011)
- The worlds 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.
- An article on cbcpforlife.com states that There is no clear correlation between population growth and
economic development, according to Simon Kuznets, Nobel Prize winner in the science of economics (qtd. in
7 Point). It has been presented in anti-RH arguments that population control is not a factor that is needed for
a high economic growth unlike governance, openness to knowledge, stable finances, market allocation,
investment and savings. (Position Paper by Mary Minette M. Georga (University of the Philippines))
Strategies that seek to increase contraceptive use rapidly by improving services and access in
convenient or well-resourced areas are likely to increase observed inequities in contraceptive use. Maternal
mortality and general reproductive health problems also remain high because the unique issues facing poor
populations are not addressed. (Nuriye Ortayli and Shawn Malarcher, Equity Analysis: Identifying Who
Benefits from Family Planning Programs.) In this way family planning programs, by focusing on contraceptive
use rather than an integrated, comprehensive approach to population development, fail to address the needs
of the poor.
We reject the RH bill because its really about money for contraceptive manufacturers and suppliers.
The RH bill puts into law that contraceptives will be made into essential medicines . Sec. 10 says 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. The RH bill only lays the
groundwork for government purchases of contraceptives, including some contraceptives that are abortifacient,
which we reject. (Lissa Poblete posted in Filipinos for Life.)
- 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. The latest studies in scientific journals and
organizations show that the ordinary birth control pills and the IUD kill the embryonic human, who as such are
human beings equally worthy of respect, making the bill unconstitutional.
Contrary to claims by RH bill proponents in Congress that abortion is not mentioned, the bill
specifically mentions abortion in Sec. 4 in its definition of terms: It lists as the fourth element of reproductive
health care the prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications. You may say, but it
prevents abortion, whats wrong? But why must management of post-abortion complications be part of
reproductive health? Abortion is a crime. Why must the RH bill specifically mention management of post-
abortion complications? It specifies abortion as the cause of the complication. What this does is that it sets
apart induced, illegal, morally wrong, criminal abortion as a procedure or cause necessitating management.
Why not just make it a more general provision of emergency obstetric care to everyone who needs it? The
very fact that abortion is specified as the cause of the complication means that the RH bill condones abortion
and gives it special treatment.
The Government is not yet ready to fully implement the RH Bill/Law. Section 5 of The Reproductive
Health Act of 2012 states that DOH shall employ an adequate number of health professionals.(It is suggested
 in 2011 version to achieve a minimum ratio of (1) fulltime skilled health professional for every one hundred fifty
(150) deliveries per year). UN estimates that the Philippines has 2.3 million live birth every year. This means
that the government needs to dedicate around 15000 health professionals just for the RH law. However, in an
interview by CNN, DOH Secretary Paulyn Ubial said that the country is still short of 15000 doctors. The fact
that the country still needs more doctors means that it still not ready to implement the RH Law.

-> Passing a bill with this specific provision can also create a safety net to encourage unsafe or shady abortions so the
bill catches them afterwards; in other words there is also a possibility that by mitigating harms and showing leniency,
they encourage people into falling into abortions as a means of reproductive health
Despite its current claims to the contrary, the abortion industry was never in doubt that more
contraception would lead to more, not fewer, abortions. In 1973, abortionist Dr. Malcolm Potts, past medical
director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, said that As people turn to contraception, there
will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate.1 Dr. Judith Bury of the Brook Advisory Center chimed in a few
years later that There is overwhelming evidence that, contrary to what you might expect, the provision of
contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate.2
The reason for this is twofold: First, contraceptives fail a certain percentage of the time. A 5% failure
rate means that 5% of the couples using a certain method will be pregnant at the end of the year.
Second, the use of contraceptives gives a false sense of security that leads to risky sexual behavior.
The result is more unplanned pregnancies and hence more abortions.

- US National Defense has shown empirical evidence that contraceptives have deleterious social
effects (abortion, premarital sex, female impoverishment, fatherless children, teenage pregnancies, and
poverty). Harvard School of Public Health observes that when people think theyre made safe by using
condoms at least some of the time, they actually engage in riskier sex, in the phenomenon called risk
compensation(Risk compensation is a theory which suggests that people typically adjust their behavior in
response to the perceived level of risk, becoming more careful where they sense greater risk and less careful
if they feel more protected.). There is evidence for increased risk of cancer (breast, cervical, liver) as well as
significant increase of risk for heart attack and stroke for current users of oral contraceptives. 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.
- According to the studies of Nobel prize winner, George Akerlof, a contraceptive lifestyle paves the way
for more premarital sex, more fatherless children, more single mothers, more poverty, more abortions, a
decline of marriage, more crimes, more social pathology and poverty.(Position Paper by Mary Minette M.
Georga (University of the Philippines)
- One can also argue that the RH Bill may impinge on those whose beliefs will be affected, as the RH
bill will require employers to provide reproductive health care to their employees- many proponents of the RH
law goes against principles of Catholic, Christian, Muslim employees (Lissa Poblete; Filipinos for Life)
Melissa A. Apolinario-Poblete, DMD, MHPEd(Masters in Health Professions Education)
Member, Board of Trustees, Pro-life Philippines Foundation Inc., 2011-2013 and
Director,Christian Pro-life Resources for the Philippines

1.The RH bill carries with it an oppressive punishment for people who will not comply with it, making disagreeing with
it and teaching something contrary to it a crime. Section 21 of the RH bill says that the ff. acts are prohibited: any
health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall knowingly withhold information or impede the
dissemination thereof, and/or intentionally provide incorrect information regarding programs and services on
reproductive health including the right to informed choice and access to a full range of legal, medically-safe and
effective family planning methods BUT- who defines what is correct or incorrect here? (It is ambiguous)
The RH bill and its proponents. If the RH bill proponents says that an IUD is not abortifacient, and abortion is not
wrong, and that life does not begin at conception, all of which are totally wrong and against Christian principles, so
when Christian health workers will teach about the sanctity of life and that life begins at conception, and that sex
should only be between married couples, we will be violating the RH bill and committing crimes once it becomes law.

False sense of security

This same link with premarital sex was also suggested by the studies by JE Potter in Brazil, and clearly seen by the
work of Dr. Edward Green in Africa. Green, former director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard
University, affirmed that condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of
Africa, citing studies at the Lancet, Science and British Medical Journal and explaining that the availability of
condoms led to earlier and riskier sex by creating a false sense of security.
As the contraceptive mentality sets in (contra = against; conception = beginning of human beings), a negative view of
human beings is promoted. A 2011 study in the scientific journal Contraception showed that the rise in contraceptive
use in Spain also saw a jump in abortion rate. This linkboth logical and empiricalhas been acknowledged by
leaders of the abortion industry, such as Malcolm Potts, the first medical director of International Planned Parenthood.
Only five nations in the world still prohibit abortion. A hundred years ago all nations did. It was acceptance of
contraception that changed their minds. This will happen here, too, if we accept contraception.

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/36828/no-need-for-an-rh-bill-now-or-ever#ixzz4YlgotiB9

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Might be a good guide: http://www.adnu.edu.ph/images/A%20Guide%20to%20Arguments%20For%20and%20Against

%20the%20Reproductive%20Health%20Bill.pdf

Main points (aside from main idea of opposition to 100% UP student support)
1. The issues in the bill can create more harm than good
2. Being able to support said issues with quotes from the bill and Philippine/Asia gathered statistics and
data
3. The bill is not entirely specific and can be vague; this is another thing we can problematize and turn
into an argument; because of the vagueness, it would do people good to reserve judgement
4. Focus on the poor implementation of the RH Bill
5. Overpopulation is not the problem. The problems are government corruption and the unequal
distribution of wealth and resources.
6. The RH Bill is not just a Catholic issue but concerns universal human rights and values. The Bill
threatens intrinsic rights, such as the right to life, health, education of children, and religious freedom.