“Why is the church against the RH Bill?

I. The Reproductive Health bill, popularly known as the RH bill, is a Philippine

bill aiming to guarantee universal access to methods and information on birth control and
maternal care. The bill has become the center of a contentious national debate. There are
presently two bills with the same goals: House Bill No. 4244 or An Act Providing for a
Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and
Population and Development, and For Other Purposes introduced by Albay 1st district
Representative Edcel Lagman, and Senate Bill No. 2378 or the Reproductive Health Act
introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago.
One of the main concerns of the bill, according to the Explanatory Note, is that
population of the Philippines makes it “the 12th most populous nation in the world today”, that
the Filipino women’s fertility rate is “at the upper bracket of 206 countries.” It states that
studies and surveys “show that the Filipinos are responsive to having smaller-sized families
through free choice of family planning methods.” It also refers to studies which “show that
rapid population growth exacerbates poverty while poverty spawns rapid population growth.”
And so it aims for improved quality of life through a “consistent and coherent national
population policy.”
Opponents of the bill argue that: "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". The bill takes away limited
government funds from treating many high priority medical and food needs and transfers
them to fund harmful and deadly devices. The latest studies in scientific journals and
organizations show that the ordinary birth control pill and the IUD are abortifacient to fertilized
eggs: they kill young human embryos, who as such are human beings equally worthy of
respect, making the bill unconstitutional. Leading secular social scientists like Nobel prize
winner, George Akerlof and US National Defense Consultant, Lionel Tiger, have shown
empirical evidence that contraceptives have deleterious social effects (abortion, premarital
sex, female impoverishment, fatherless children, teenage pregnancies, and poverty).
Harvard Director Edward Green concluded that the "best studies" show that more condoms
promote the spread of AIDS. Combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (the most
common type prescribed globally) are carcinogenic, and confer other serious health risks.
The increased usage of contraceptives, which implies that some babies are unwanted, will
eventually lead to more abortion. 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. A 2009 survey showed
that 92% rejected the bill when informed of its detailed provisions and penalties. The penal
provision constitutes a violation of free choice and conscience, and establishes religious
persecution.

II. a.) Teachings of the church

Advocates contend that the RH bill promotes reproductive health. The RH

Bill certainly does not. It does not protect the health of the sacred human life that is
being formed or born. The very name “contraceptive” already reveals the anti-life nature
of the means that the RH bill promotes. These artificial means are fatal to human life,
either preventing it from fruition or actually destroying it. Moreover, scientists have
known for a long time that contraceptives may cause cancer. Contraceptives are
hazardous to a woman’s health.

Advocates also say that the RH bill will reduce abortion rates. But many scientific
analysts themselves wonder why prevalent contraceptive use sometimes raises the
abortion rate. In truth, contraceptives provide a false sense of security that takes away
the inhibition to sexual activity. Scientists have noted numerous cases of contraceptive
failure. Abortion is resorted to, an act that all religious traditions would judge as sinful.
“Safe sex” to diminish abortion rate is false propaganda.

Advocates moreover say that the RH bill will prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.
This goes against the grain of many available scientific data. In some countries where
condom use is prevalent, HIV/ AIDS continues to spread. Condoms provide a false
security that strongly entices individuals towards increased sexual activity, increasing
likewise the incidence of HIV/AIDS. “Safe sex” to prevent HIV /AIDS is false
propaganda.

Advocates also assert that the RH Bill empowers women with ownership of their
own bodies. This is in line with the post-modern spirit declaring that women have power
over their own bodies without the dictation of any religion. How misguided this so-called
“new truth” is! For, indeed, as created by God our bodies are given to us to keep and
nourish. We are stewards of our own bodies and we must follow God’s will on this
matter according to an informed and right conscience. Such a conscience must certainly
be enlightened and guided by religious and moral teachings provided by various
religious and cultural traditions regarding the fundamental dignity and worth of human
life.

Advocates also say that the RH bill is necessary to stop overpopulation and to
escape from poverty. Our own government statistical office has concluded that there is
no overpopulation in the Philippines but only the over-concentration of population in a
number of urban centers. Despite other findings to the contrary, we must also consider
the findings of a significant group of renowned economic scholars, including economic
Nobel laureates, who have found no direct correlation between population and poverty.
In fact, many Filipino scholars have concluded that population is not the cause of our
poverty. The causes of our poverty are: flawed philosophies of development, misguided
economic policies, greed, corruption, social inequities, lack of access to education, poor
economic and social services, poor infrastructures, etc. World organizations estimate
that in our country more than P400 billion pesos are lost yearly to corruption. The
conclusion is unavoidable: for our country to escape from poverty, we have to address
the real causes of poverty and not population.
b.) Principles of Christian Morality

Sexual promiscuity and casual sexual encounters can damage sexual

health, emotions and the physical body. Early sexual experimentation can damage
impressionable emotions of our children at a deep level.

The principles of Christian sexual morality in the Bible teach that we are more
than a body. The body is seen as a temporary housing for our whole being. We are
body, soul and spirit. As whole beings, when we enter into sexual union, we are
entering with our whole self, and not just a fractional part of who we are. We are
therefore not a commodity for instant gratification. Sexual union is a wonderful event
when given in the right context. Over the years, this is what I have learned from some
wonderful Christian mentors and that is how I reconcile my Christian principles of sexual
morality to the biblical teachings.

III. Conclusion

Being a Christian, I can say that I am against the RH Bill. It is against

Christian Morality. It is against the commandment of God (thou shall not kill). Many say
that the RH Bill does not kill anyone but according to the Christian teachings, life starts
at conception. It does not protect the health of the sacred human life that is being
formed or born. These artificial means are fatal to human life, either preventing it from
fruition or actually destroying it. It promotes abortion which is immoral. “Safe sex” to
diminish abortion rate is false propaganda. They also say that the Bill will prevent HIV
but in other countries where contraception is legal, the HIV rate is still high. Condoms
provide a false security that strongly entices individuals towards increased sexual
activity. The Bill is also harmful to the health of the mothers. As a Christian country, our
leaders should not pass the Bill. It contradicts all the principle of Christian Morality.