Is the Reproductive Health Bill for the Catholic priests who are sexual perverts and maniacs?


Posted by benjie on June 9, 2011 at 11:56 am

RH Bill does not only benefit the pharmaceutical companies. It also benefits the priests who are sex perverts and maniacs. Are you sure your priests don’t use condoms and contraceptives?


Posted by Quirino M. Sugon Jr on June 9, 2011 at 2:26 pm


Good argument. RH bill would benefit both Catholic and INC ministers who are sex perverts and maniacs. If we do not allow RH Bill to become a law, illicit sexual intercourse can be more easily known because the woman will get pregnant or acquire sexually transmitted diseases. So why does the INC support the RH bill and why does the Catholic Bishops don’t? Is it because majority of the INC ministers are sex perverts and majority of Catholic Bishops are celibates?


Reply to Daily Tribune’s Frontline: RH Bill, divorce, and separation of Church and State

Below is my reply to the author of the Daily Tribune’s Frontline artile entitled “No Church Issue” published 05/27/2011.


You cannot take religion and God out of the RH Bill because religion and God are not present in the RH Bill. In the place of God, you have in the RH bill the idols named “overpopulation”, “safe sex”, “reproductive health”, and “pro-choice”. Ancient Filipinos have fertility rituals–they pray for rain, abundant harvest, and many children. The RH bill, on the other hand, have infertility rituals: condoms, pills, and ligation–and abortion, if all these fail.

Separation of church and state means that churches have no business interfering with state matters, such as how and where to build roads, bridges, and buildings. At the same time, the state has no business interfering with morality which is the domain of the Church. The RH bill is in the domain of morality because it concerns human life and eternal salvation, so the Church has to intervene. As Christ said: “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” (Mt 22:21)

Italy is distinct from the and the Vatican City State where the Pope resides. So the government affairs of Italy is not the business of the Pope. But regarding condoms and pills, Pope Paul VI in his Encyclical Humanae Vitae (Art. 14) wrote: “it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.” This encyclical is not only for Italy (whose Northern parts were known as the Papal States for more than a thousand years) but for the whole Catholics worldwide, including the Philippines.

There is a distinction between annulment and divorce in the Catholic Church. Divorce is the breaking up of a valid marriage. This is not possible, because Christ said:

“Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate. Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” (Mt 19:4-10)

King Henry VIII of England asked the pope to allow him to divorce his wife and marry his mistress. The Pope refused, so King Henry broke from the Catholic Church and declared himself the Head of the Anglican Church. By the way, many Anglican bishops and entire parishes are now converting to the Catholic Church.

On the other hand, annulment in the Catholic Church means that there was no marriage in the first place, so the man and the woman whose marriage was annulled are free to marry.

I am glad that the author recognizes that some contraceptives are abortifacients. Concerning contraception, as I said before, the state has no authority to define what is morally good or not, only the Church does. The Catholic Faith has united the warring tribes of the Philippines into a single nation. So for the sake of the common good and the Filipino religious tradition, the Philippine State should recognize the teaching authority of the Catholic Church in matters of morality. If the state cannot promote good morals, it is better that it desist from promoting bad morals by not passing the RH Bill into a state law.

If the author cannot see that the world has become more promiscuous, she may like to watch a Hollywood films and TV 60 years ago and compare it with the Hollywood films and TV now. She may like to count the average number of times that the following words are mentioned: sex and fuck. She may like to classify the films according to the number of scenes nudity in various levels is shown. This would be a good research paper, and the author would be surprised at her results: “The world indeed has become more promiscuous!”

What the pope is saying regarding condoms is that in conscience darkened by sin, the use of condoms to protect the partner from sexual disease can be a sign of the slow awakening of the moral sense. Here is the quote in full:

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

“She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

Reproductive Health Bill debate: can a good Catholic remain good amidst a thousand condoms and pills?

Pro RH Bill Argument:

“If a Catholic member has a morally-formed conscience with regards to these issues, a thousand free condoms and contraceptive pills being dangled before him WON’T tempt him to make use of them. It is as simple as that for me. An analogy has been offered by my daughter: Why did God allow the existence of the Forbidden Tree in the Garden in the first place? Why did He only command Adam and Eve: “do not eat” of its fruit yet gave them free access and freedom to exercise their free will? God could just have very well  PHYSICALLY prevented both of them easy access to it or installed formidable baricades around it.


A green leaf placed near a fire, can only resist the heat up to a certain point (when most of the leaf’s water content turns to vapor). Then the green leaf catches fire.  A strong rock cliff facing the sea can withstand a strong wave or two.  But after years of bombardment (we call this weathering), the rock cliff gets chipped here and there, then the cracks become bigger, until the rock splits into fragments.  In the same way, if you flood a well-formed Catholic with condoms, he can resist the first assaults.  But when the condoms become a common sight, and he sees little boys and girls blow them as balloons,  he sees demonstrations in TV how to use condoms, he finds condoms available in toilets for Php 5, and everywhere he goes he sees couples copulate in in broad daylight, will the good Catholic still resist? And what if the woman that he likes approaches him, gives him a box of condoms as Valentine’s gift, kisses him, and takes off her clothes?  If you are St. Francis, you shall jump into thorns.  If St. Benedict, into snow.  If St. Aquinas–you’ll grab a firebrand and chase the temptation away.  But what if you are just an ordinary Catholic who goes to mass only during Easter andChristmas, and whose last Confession was 10 years ago, can you still resist?

Before his Fall, Adam has perfect control over his passions.  This is called Original Justice.  His nakedness and Eve’s nakedness does not incite malicious thoughts on him.  When God placed the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the middle of the Garden of Eden, Adam can perfectly control his desire for the fruit, so this is not a test of desire but of obedience.  There is no need to put walls and barriers, because this is a test of free will to obey God, in order to merit eternal life for him, for Eve, and for us their descendants.  When Adam ate the forbidden fruit, he disobeyed God and this is Original Sin.  As one of the consequences, Adam lost his perfect control over his passions and desires (c.f. concupiscence).   So God knows that even if He forbade Adam to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life, Adam will sooner or later eat the fruit. To prevent this from happening, God banishedAdam and Eve from the Garden and placed an angel to guard the gates of paradise.  From this analysis, we see that since we are descendants of Adam and Eve who lost our perfect control over our passions and desires, despite having our Original Sin washed away by the waters of Baptism, then putting a temptation before us like free condoms would have a chance that we fall to the temptation.  So the best way is to follow a way similar to  what God did by putting a barrier between the condom and the man, by not making condoms more available, by stopping the passage of the RH bill.

Draft for an anti-RH Bill: Maternal Health Bill of 2011

The Catholic Church and anti-RH bill lawmakers have always been on the defensive after years of siege by the proponents of the RH Bill. The RH bill forces will never tire: they have the funding of multinational pharmaceuticals who make contraceptives, abortion companies like Planned Parenthood, and UN commissions who push for reproductive health.

What the anti-RH Bill forces need is a counter-attack on the RH-Bill forces’ flanks.  We must fight the RH Bill by proposing a contrary bill (read the parable of the unclean spirit (Lk 11:24-26)).  The Reproductive Health Bill is a misnomer and a lie: the bill does not concern reproduction but contraception and contraceptives endanger the woman’s health.  The Maternal Health Bill that I propose is really for maternal health, which concerns both the mother and the child:  the word “maternal” does not only refer to the woman but also to her child, for how can a woman be a mother, a “mater”, if she has no child?  A woman’s right over her body should never trample on the rights of the child in her womb over his body.

This anti-RH bill shall divert the time and resources of the pro-RH forces, for one cannot fight at the same time both the impregnable wall that is the Catholic Church and the new menace that may spell the doom of RH in the Philippines.  (News Flash: Cong. Manny Pacquiao’s anti-RH bill  knocks out Sen. Miriam Santiago’s RH bill).   And if this anti-RH bill becomes a law, it will be one layer of defense wall against the renewed assault of the pro-RH bill forces in the future.  As Gandalf would said to the Balrog in the battle of the Bridge of Khazadum: “You cannot pass!”

Below is a draft of the bill that I propose, following the outline of the Consolidated RH Bill,  House Bill 4244, “The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health andPopulation and Development Act of 2011” and Senator Miriam Santiago’s Senate Bill 2378, The Reproductive Health Act.  I hope a congressman or senator can improve my draft bill and sponsor it as a congressional or senate bill.  Please spread the word.

Dr. Quirino Sugon Jr., Monk’s Hobbit

St. Albert the Great, pray for us.  

St. Bobo, pray for us.

Section 1.  Title

This act shall be known as the “Maternal Health Bill of 2011”.

Section 2.  Declaration of Policy

“The state recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic, autonomous, social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of the parents in rearing of the youth into civic efficiency and the development of the moral character shall receive support from the government.” (1987 Philippine Constitution Art. II, Sec. 12)

Section 3.  Guiding Principles

This act declares the following as guiding principles:

  1. A human being is formed when a sperm fertilizes an egg.  Many contraceptive pills are actually abortifacients because they prevent the fertilized egg to cling to the uterine walls and the fertilized egg dies.
  2. Every child has a right to be conceived in his mother’s womb through the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s egg through sexual intercourse.
  3.  Every child conceived has the right to be born alive.
  4. The use of condoms and contraceptive pills makes fornication and adultery easier because the woman involved will not get pregnant and the scandalous affair is not brought to light.  Fornication leads to low marriage rates and adultery increases the breakdown of marriages.
  5. The use of condoms and and contraceptive pills contributes to environmental pollution.  In particular, when the contraceptive chemicals are excreted from the woman’s body through urine, these chemicals enter the sewage  system,  down to our rivers and streams, and back to our drinking water.  The female sex hormones in the water contributes to the impotence of males.
  6. Contraceptive pills interrupt women’s natural fertility cycle. Furthermore, the use of contraceptive pills has been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer.
  7. The use of condoms and contraceptive pills lessen the respect of the husband to the wife, making her an object to be used anytime, anywhere, without regard to her natural fertility cycle.
  8. The use of condoms increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases: those who use condoms think that having sex is safer, so they increase the frequency of their sexual intercourse and the number of their sexual partners.
  9. The use of condoms and contraceptive pills leads to a notion that a child is not a gift but a burden, so that if the contraception fails and a child is conceived, the next recourse is abortion.  Countries who made contraception into a law ended up making abortion into a human right.
  10. Willful abortion is a criminal offense because a human being is killed.
  11. Growing population is not a problem, but graft and corruption.  Decline in population leads to a graying population which would decrease the number of taxpayers and increase the numbers of old pensioners, leading to economic collapse.
  12. The children are the hope of our country, said Dr. Jose Rizal. It is not the duty of the state to mandate the number of children per household, but to provide opportunities for each child conceived to grow to become responsible citizens of the country.
  13. Those who contribute to the pollution of our environment or to the destruction of our families must be must be the one who shall be taxed in order for the government to clean up the mess.
Section 4. Definition of Terms
  1. Maternal health refers to the biological capacity of a woman to do the all of the four functions: (a) conceive a child through sexual intercourse with a man, (b) carry the child in her womb for nine months, (c) give birth to the child through normal delivery, (d) and breastfeed the child immediately after birth until the child does not anymore need breastmilk.
  2. Maternal death is defined as the death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and site of the pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management but not from accidental or incidental causes (World Health Organization)
  3. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman as witnessed by the State for the the purpose of raising a family.
  4. Fornication or pre-marital sex is the sexual intercourse between the unmarried man and an unmarried woman
  5. Adultery is the sexual intercourse with a partner who is married to another.
  6. Contraceptives are devices or chemicals that hinders the meeting between the sperm and egg during sexual intercourse
  7. Abortifacients are substances or chemicals that induce abortion.
  8. Sex hormones are sex-specific chemicals that are naturally produced by the human body.  Males have male hormones, females have female hormones.
  9. Abortion is the killing of an unborn child in the womb.
  10. Fertility cycle is the reproductive cycle of which define the days when she is fertile and when she is not.
  11. Natural family planning refers to the study of the woman’s fertility cycle to determine the proper times for sexual intercourse for the proper spacing of births.
  12. Sexually transmitted diseases refers to diseases that are transmitted through sexual intercourse, such as AIDS and HIV.
Section 5.  Contraception, Abortion, and Fertility Treatments
  1. Contraceptives imported from other countries are subject to 100% tariff. Contraceptives donated from other countries will also be subject to 100% tariff based on their estimated value.  Thirty-five percent (35%) of the tariff shall go to the National Treasury, 30% shall go to the Department of Health (DOH) for its Maternal Health Programs, 15 % shall go to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and 15% shall go to a special research fund of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST).  This special research fund shall be awarded to research proposals for development of ways to monitor and remove women sex hormones in rivers, lakes, and drinking water.  These funds shall be included in the yearly appropriations of the Philippine government budget.
  2. Contraceptives produced in the country are subject to 50% production tax.  Contraceptives sold in the country are subject to 50% sales tax.
  3. Contraceptives that do not require surgery or taking in of chemicals can be purchased over-the-counter in pharmacies, e.g. condoms.  Contraceptives that require the absorption of chemicals in a man’s or woman’s body can only be bought through doctor’s prescription.  Contraceptives that require surgery shall be considered contraband goods.
  4. Ligation in men and women as a form of contraception shall not be allowed.  Doctors and nurses who took part in  these surgeries shall have their medical licenses revoked for three (3) years.
  5. The Department of Health shall provide a list of chemical contraceptives that are abortifacients.  The importation, manufacture, and sale of these contraceptives shall be prohibited and these contraceptives shall be considered contraband goods.
  6. Willful termination of a normal pregnancy (abortion) is a criminal offense.  The doctor or nurse who took part in these surgeries shall be tried in a criminal court.
  7. Fertility treatments which require fertilization outside the woman’s womb shall not be allowed in the country.  Doctors and nurses who took part in these treatments shall have their medical licenses revoked for three years.
  8. Contraceptives shall not be classified as essential medicines and their purchase shall not be covered by PhilHealth.  No government fund must be used for the purchase of contraceptives or for the promotion of their use.  Government funds shall only be used by DOH for Natural Family Planning and other Maternal Health Programs.
  9. Hospitals shall be required to have pregnancy crisis centers for counselling women who are thinking of aborting their child due to rape, incest, abandonment, etc.  These centers will be staffed by DOH and DSWD personnel or DOH and DSWD-accredited personnel.  They shall also be funded by donors from the private sector and NGO’s.  The purpose of these centers is to convince the women to let their baby live, and give it up for adoption at least.  The women shall be shown the ultrasound–in 4G if possible–what their baby looks like in the womb–pointing out the head, the arms, the feet, fingers, and toes.  Once the baby is delivered, the mother of the baby may decide to keep the baby or give him up for adoption.
  10. The DOH and DSWD shall publish a joint list of accredited pregnancy crisis centers and child adoption centers.  This list shall be made available to all hospitals.
Section 6.  Marriage and Sex Education
  1. All couples who wish to get married must attend lectures on possible sources of conflicts in marriage and how to resolve them to make marriage and family life wonderful.  The Department of Social Welfare and Services (DSWS) shall conduct these lectures at least once a year.  The DSWS can also accredit centers who shall do these lectures.
  2. The couples who wish to get married must also take lectures on natural family planning, fetal development, breastfeeding, and child development.  The Department of Health (DOH) shall conduct these lectures once a year.  The DOH can also accredit centers who shall do these lectures.
  3.  Sex education in elementary and high schools is only limited to that body’s fertility cycle, sexual reproduction, and child development as taught in Biology.  The harmful effects of chemical contraceptives may also be taught.  The use of condoms should not be taught in elementary and high school.
  4. Values formation classes should stress the dignity of marriage, the gift of a child, and social responsibility.  These classes should discuss the problems  resulting from the contraceptive mentality such as pre-marital sex, adultery, and divorce, and abortion.  These classes should discuss how these things destroy family and society.  The Department of Education shall review the existing curriculum on values education and incorporate these topics if these were not included before.
Section 7.  Maternal Health
  1. Couples may use PhilHealth for the ultrasound imaging of a developing fetus in his mother’s womb, provided that such a procedure is prescribed by a doctor.
  2. The benefits of paternity and maternity shall be availed by the couples as stipulated in the existing laws.
  3. The delivery efficiency of midwives shall be labeled in their DOH certified identification card.  The delivery efficiency is the ratio of two numbers: total live births delivered divided by total births delivered, computed since the start of her career.  Both the fraction and percent efficiency should be displayed.  Midwives with the highest yearly number of live births  assisted with 100% delivery efficiency shall be given an award by the provincial DOH at least Php 10,000 in cash and a plaque of appreciation.
  4. All midwives, nurses, and doctors who have assisted delivery cases wherein the infant or the mother died or both shall inform the DOH.  A  DOH personnel shall interview the medical practitioners involved on the sequence of events and the possible causes of death.  These interviews shall be recorded in text, audio, or video.  The transcribed interviews shall be sent to provincial DOH centers for making a yearly report.  From this data, midwifery practices that are shown to correspond higher incidence of infant and maternal deaths shall be eliminated or modified.  DOH shall then issue revised protocols on child delivery and maternal health.
  5. All hospitals in a province are required to submit to provincial DOH centers the statistics on infant and maternal mortality, starting from the child is in the womb until the child is released from the hospital.
  6. At the end of each year, the provincial DOH centers shall make a summary report of the child mortality per hospital and and health center.
  7. Doctors, nurses, and midwives must see to it that the newborn child is breastfed by the mother.
  8. Hospitals should only display the benefits of breastmilk in posters.    Dairy products should not be prominently advertised in hospitals as breast-milk substitutes.  Purchase of breastmilk substitutes require a doctor’s prescription.
  9. Malls must have designated breastfeeding stations where a mother can breastfeed her child in private.  These stations should be clearly marked and its location should be available in the information booth and the mall map.  Mall owners shall be given a year to comply to this requirement.  Malls that fail to comply shall have their business permit revoked .
Section 8. Separability Clause, Repealing Clause, and Effectivity
  1. Separability Clause.  If any part of this act is considered invalid or unconstitutional, other provisions not affected thereby shall remain in force and effect.
  2. Repealing Clause.  All other laws, decrees, ordinances, rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended, or modified accordingly.
  3. Effectivity.  This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Ang Kapatiran Party: Position Paper on the Reproductive Health Bill

Source: Phnix


The Ang Kapatiran Party, a registered national political party, is releasing this Position Paper which summarizes a number of objections to the proposed “reproductive health” (RH) bills that are currently pending in Congress.

To date, a number of have been filed at the House of Representatives. These include House Bill 96, known as the “Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2010,” filed by Rep. Edcel C. Lagman. This new bill is a rewritten version of the draconian HB 5043, which did not pass in the last Congress despite the underhanded and deceptive tactics of its authors and foreign-funded proponents.

Other bills on “reproductive health” filed in the 15th Congress include HB101 by Rep Janette Garin of Iloilo, HB513 by Rep. Bag-Ao of the AKBAYAN Party-List, and HB1160 by Rep. Rodolfo Biazon of Muntinlupa. These bills may be consolidated into one much like HB5043 in the 14th Congress.

The points covered in this paper are based on scientific evidence and legal arguments acceptable by persons from any religion. They do not, however, include all the many moral and religious arguments which could still be made against the proposed RH bills.

The so-called reproductive health agenda is essentially repackaged population control and are a step in the direction of legalized abortion. Indeed, as this paper will show, the many RH bills in the past and present explicitly fund abortifacient contraceptives. They also have provisions that are undemocratic and violate the human and civil rights of Filipinos. As a pro-life, pro-family, and pro-God organization, the Ang Kapatiran Party rejects the radical RH agenda as well as the bills that promote it. The party calls on all Filipinos to defend the sanctity of life, their rights, and our democracy by likewise rejecting the bill and to openly express their opposition to the radical RH agenda.

This paper was originally released in August 2010. This latest revision (version 06) is was released in November 2010.

Objections to the proposed reproductive health bills

1 The bills fund abortifacient contraceptives and are thus

The bills explicitly fund the procurement and distribution of abortifacient contraceptives such as oral contraceptives, other hormonal contraceptives, and the IUD. Section 9 of the proposed HB 96, for example, classifies hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, and injectables as “essential medicines,” includes them as part of the National Drug Formulary, and subsidizes their procurement.

Such contraceptives, however, have been shown to cause early-term abortions by preventing the implantation and development of the fertilized egg – which is already a newly-conceived human being
– in the womb.

One such study, “Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent,” came to the following conclusion:

“It seems likely that for perfect use of COCs, postfertilization mechanisms would be likely to have a small but not negligible role. For POPs, COCs with lower doses of estrogen, and imperfect use of any OCs, postfertilization effects are likely to have an increased role. In any case, the medical literature does not support the hypothesis that postfertilization effects of OCs do not exist.”1

Scientific studies show that IUDs are also abortifacient. Stanford and Mikolajczyk found that, “both prefertilization and postfertilization mechanisms of action contribute significantly to the effectiveness
of all types of intrauterine devices.”2CVS/Pharmacy (, described the functions of IUDs in the following manner:

“IUDs are thought to prevent pregnancy by making the womb ‘unfriendly’ to sperm and eggs. Sperm is either killed, or kept from reaching and fertilizing an egg. An IUD also may keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb and growing into a baby.”3

The promotion and use of abortifacients is clearly against Article 2, Section 12 of the Philippine Constitution which protects the unborn from conception which begins at fertilization (the union of sperm and egg). It states:

“The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the supportof the Government.”

An abortifacient, however, causes the eventual destruction of the fertilized egg — of newly-conceived life. The RH bill, as stated earlier, promotes and funds such abortifacients. It therefore violates the Philippine Constitution.

Furthermore, the Filipino Family Survey (2009), conducted in December 2009 by the HB&A-ARO Research Group, found that 91% of Metro Manila residents agree that human and animal life start upon conception (when the sperm joins the egg), 98% would not ever consider aborting their unborn child still forming in the womb even if the pregnancy is unplanned, and 98% would not consider or condone aborting a baby even within the first three months. Of those aware of the pro-life provisions of Article 2, Section 12 of the Philippine Constitution, 87% agree with it.4

It may be argued that the abortifacient mechanism of some oral contraceptives has not been conclusively proven to occur in human beings, or that if it does occur then this occurrence is very rare. To the first argument we would reply that even if there really were any doubt that a contraceptive is abortifacient, the grave stakes involved (the death of a human being) means that the burden of proof is on those who would deny that these are abortifacients. In other words, they must prove that these contraceptives are in fact non-abortifacient. Until such a conclusive determination is achieved we must err on the side of caution and not place the lives of the unborn at risk.

To the second argument we reply that there is no medical necessity to birth control that justifies such a risk to the unborn child. Artificial methods of birth control are not necessary to preserve health; they are not therapeutic and pregnancy is not a disease. We also note that the imperative to avoid the questionable methods promoted by the RH bill becomes especially more compelling since there is a safe, modern, and effective alternative: Natural Family Planning.

2 Filipinos do not want an RH law.

The Filipino Family Survey mentioned earlier revealed that 92% of Metro Manila residents are against the passage of the controversial reproductive health (RH) bill once they know and understand its provisions. It was conducted from December 2-9, 2009, was conducted by HB&A International Research using the experienced field personnel of the Asian Research Organization (ARO), the Philippine affiliate of Gallup International. The poll has called into question claims of wide public support for the proposed measure made by its authors and supporters.

The claims of widespread support for a reproductive health law are also highly questionable as they are based on misleading surveys. Previous surveys by the pro-RH SWS asked questions such as whether the respondents favored family planning or believed in proper sex education, both of which are measures that even opponents of the bill, such as the Catholic Church, already support. Most respondents were almost totally unaware of the provisions of the bill in question. Former Congressman Leonie Montemayor of the Alyansang Bayanihan ng mga Magsasaka, Manggagawang-Bukid at Mangingisda (ABA) noted that, “Earlier surveys were couched in very general terms and without first ensuring that the respondents had read or understood the contents [of the RH Bill].”

RH proponent and SWS president, Mahar Mangahas, acknowledged in his column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer that the previous SWS surveys made no mention of the penal provisions of the previous RH Bill (and which are still in HB 96).5 These include Section 21 of the RH bill which forces doctors and health workers to distribute abortifacient and artificial contraceptives against their conscience. If they object, the provision requires them to refer those who request for such contraceptives to other persons who will do the same objectionable act. Those who refuse to do so face heavy fines and imprisonment.

Critics of the bill, however, point out that these are some of its most controversial aspects, and that even erstwhile supporters of the general purposes of the bill have expressed objections to these penal provisions. Former finance secretary Roberto de Ocampo, for example wrote the following in the Philippine Daily Inquirer:

“…the present draft bill contains punitive provisions that are tantamount to an affront to civil liberties and smack of religious persecution. Just read the section mandating private sector employees and private health practitioners to actively promote artificial birth control methods and distribute devices whether or not their conscience and religious convictions agree with the practice. Combine that with the section imposing penalties of imprisonment or fines or both if they don’t follow or are deemed guilty of “perceived violations” and tell me that the bill does not encroach on basic civil rights. Tell me that the bill does not unfairly force a person into a moral dilemma, a State-induced struggle of conscience. This is not education, it’s coercion. This is not choice, it’s threat.”6

3 Contraceptives often do not prevent unplanned pregnancy and may actually increase them.

Numerous studies have shown that the increased availability and usage of contraceptives does not necessarily reduce unplanned pregnancies and abortion. In fact, contraceptives often increase them. For example, in the United States, 89% of sexually active women of reproductive age “at risk” of becoming pregnant use contraception, and 98% have used it in their lifetime, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute.7 In addition, with typical use, 9% of women using oral contraceptives (OC) will become pregnant within one year,8 as will 15% of women whose partners use condoms.9 Forty-eight percent of women with unintended pregnancies were using contraception in the month they became pregnant.10

Other studies show that greater access to contraception does not reduce unintended pregnancy. These include:

  • Peter Arcidiacono (2005) found that among teens, “increasing access to contraception may actually increase long run pregnancy rates even though short run pregnancy rates fall. On the other hand, policies that decrease access to contraception, and hence sexual activity, are likely to lower pregnancy rates in the long run.”11
  • David Paton (2002) in a study of 16 regions of the U.K. over a 14-year period, found no increase in pregnancies or abortions in underage English girls despite reduced access to contraception, and no decrease in underage pregnancies or abortions overall from greater access to contraception. He found “no evidence” that “the provision of family planning reduces either underage conception or abortion rates.”12
  • Lawrence Finer (2007) in “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954-2003,” found that the increase in premarital sex amongst a group of teens turning 15 during the years 1964-1973 “may be partly due to increased availability of effective contraception (in particular, the pill), which made it less likely that sex would lead to pregnancy.”13
  • Douglas Kirby (1999) concluded: “Most studies that have been conducted during the past 20 years have indicated that improving access to contraception did not significantly increase contraceptive use or decrease teen pregnancy.”14
  • Akerlof, Yellen, and Katz (1996) argue that a phenomenon they call “reproductive technology shock,” caused by contraception, birth control, and legal abortion, changed the relationships between men and women, and led to an increase in out-of-wedlock births. Women that did not resort to these methods were at a disadvantage and biological fathers increasingly rejected the idea of paternal obligation.15

4 Since contraceptives will not reduce unplanned pregnancy, they will not reduce abortion rates either and may increase them.

As shown in the previous section, contraceptive usage can actually increase the incidence of unplanned pregnancy, and consequently, demand for abortion. In addition, studies in democratic countries that do not have historically very high abortion rates and where fertility is healthy or still dropping – exactly the situation in the Philippines – reveal that contraception does not necessarily lower abortion rates.

The Guttmacher Institute notes that in the United States, 54% of women seeking abortions were using contraception in the month they became pregnant.16 In Sweden, K. Edgardh found that despite free abortions, free contraceptive counseling, low cost condoms and oral contraceptives, and over-thecounter emergency contraception (EC), Swedish teen abortion rates rose to 22.5 per thousand from 17 per thousand between 1995 and 2001.17
Pro-RH groups have often cited studies that they claim prove that contraception will lower abortion rates. But much of this data is from countries that had abnormally high abortion rates to begin with, or countries that have very low, constant fertility. These conditions do not exist in the Philippines The republics of the former Soviet Union and the Russian Federation are examples of countries that have historically very high abortion rates as a result of abortion being used as a birth control method, as well as government coercion or encouragement to abort.

The Guttmacher Institute’s own study in 2003 showed simultaneous increases both abortion rates and contraceptive use in the United States, Cuba, Denmark, Netherlands, Singapore, and South Korea. The study also claimed, however, that abortion rates went down after fertility on some of those countries had reached very low levels and became constant, particularly in South Korea. Critics note, however, that In the United States, lowered abortion rates were also due to state laws restricting access to abortion.

Michael New Ph.D., (Feb. 2007), for example, found that pro-life legislation such as laws requiring parental involvement in the abortion decision, requiring informed consent, imposing Medicaid funding restrictions, and banning partial-birth abortion, reduces minors’ abortion rates. Parental involvement

state laws resulted in a 30.5% decline, and Medicaid funding restrictions which result in a 23% decline.18 In an earlier (2006) study, Dr. New also found that after states passed and enforced parental involvement laws, abortion rates among minors were reduced. When these laws were repealed,
abortion rates rose, and dropped again when new parental involvement laws were again passed and enforced.19

5 The contraceptive approach does not address the causes of maternal deaths related to pregnancy and childbirth.

The contraceptive approach taken by the HB 96 (and in its previous versions) treats pregnancy as if it were a disease, and seeks to reduce maternal mortality simply by reducing childbirth. Instead of providing urgently needed health care, the approach mainly provides condoms and abortifacient contraceptives, and therefore ignores the real causes of maternal death while attacking a non-problem. It will only succeed in diverting scarce resources away from more urgent problems while encouraging even more promiscuity and – as people experience even more contraceptive failures – eventually greater demand for abortion.
Instead of providing contraceptives, with all their attendant health risks and costs, maternal deaths related to childbirth can be reduced by increasing access to health facilities and skilled birth attendants.

According to the National Demographic and Health Survey 2008, only 44 percent of births occur in health facilities and only 62% of births are assisted by a health professional.20

Instead of wasting scarce funds on contraceptives the government should increase access to basic health facilities and trained birth attendants. These measures will do more to lower maternal deaths than contraceptives.

Former senator Kit Tatad expressed the same idea in his article, “Revised: The Truth and Half-Truths About Reproductive Health,” notes that “…experience has shown (as in Gattaran, Cagayan and Sorsogon, Sorsogon) that the incidence of maternal death arising from such complications could be fully mitigated and brought down to zero simply by providing adequate basic and emergency obstetrics care and skilled medical personnel and services.”21

The Philippines has to deal with many other true killer diseases such as heart and vascular diseases, pneumonia, tuberculosis, cancer, and diabetes. The government does not provide free medicines and medical treatment for these because it cannot afford to do so. Why then should it waste money on contraceptives which do not treat any real disease? Pregnancy is not a disease.

6 The contraceptive approach does not address the real causes of
infant mortality
If we accept the assertion that infants and children have a greater probability of dying if they are born to mothers who are too young or too old, if they are born after a short birth interval, or if they are of high birth order.

Contraceptive methods, however, introduce other adverse medical side-effects. This is unnecessary since modern natural Family Planning methods are completely safe and can be easily used to effect birth spacing and avoid early or late pregnancies. Infant mortality cab also be significantly reduced using the same means as reducing maternal mortality, namely increasing access to health facilities and skilled health attendants.

7 The bills will exacerbate the suffering of rape victims by encouraging them to commit the crime of abortion using abortifacients.

Rape is a terrible ordeal and victims compassion, justice, and assistance. Many women who become pregnant often resort to abortion, compounding their suffering with the additional burden of guilt that comes with murdering their own children. The RH bill’s proposed solution, however, making available so-called “emergency contraception,” or EC, is also a form of abortion, and does not address the root causes of rape.

Many of the bill’s proponents will often cite the WHO, saying that EC do not interrupt pregnancy and are therefore not a method of abortion. But this is clever semantics, since the WHO has redefined pregnancy as beginning when the fertilized egg has implanted in the uterus. This definition is entirely different from the concept used by the Philippine Constitution, which mandates that the unborn be protected from conception. Medical science is also nearly unanimous in defining conception as beginning at fertilization, not at implantation.

Furthermore, studies have shown that increased access to EC does not reduce unintended pregnancies or abortions. An analysis by Raymond, Trussell and Polis of 23 studies published between 1998 and 2006 measured the effect of increased access to EC on its actual use, unintended pregnancy, and abortion. None of the 23 found a reduction in unintended pregnancies or abortions following increased access to EC.22 The study also found:

  • Sixteen months after 18,000 sexually active women in a health district in Scotland were each given five packets of EC, researchers concluded: “No effect on abortion rates was demonstrated with advance provision of EC. The results of this study suggest that wide-spread distribution of advanced supplies of EC through health services may not be an effective way to reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy in the UK.”23
  • In a San Francisco Bay area study of over 2,000 women randomly assigned to three groups each with varying access to EC, 7-8% of women in each group were pregnant in only six months. Over 80% of the women were also using another form of contraception. The study concluded: “We did not observe a difference in pregnancy rates in women with either pharmacy access or advance provision [of EC]; … Previous studies also failed to show significant differences in pregnancy or abortion rates among women with advance provisions of EC.”24
  • “Another commonly held view for which there is no documented evidence is that improving knowledge about and access to Emergency Contraception will reduce the number of teenage pregnancies. … Experience of use so far does not give any evidence of effectiveness. Prescribing rates of the morning-after pill have multiplied steadily in Scotland while there has been no observed decline in the rate of teenage pregnancies or abortions.”25
  • “Despite the fact that emergency contraceptive pills (ECP) have become easily available across the country during recent years, abortion numbers continue to rise in Sweden, especially in the young age groups (<25).”26
  • Pharmacies were allowed to dispense EC without a prescription from February 1998 to June 1999 through the Washington State Pilot Project. Pregnancy and abortion rates in Washington state initially dropped and then increased slightly the following year. Between 1996 and 2000, however, the decline in Washington state (at 3%) was actually smaller than the decline in the abortion rate nationally (which was 5%).27

8 Contraceptives will not decrease the incidence of STDs and may
actually increase it
A number of studies have linked increased access to contraceptives to an increase in STDs. These include:

  • Tyden’s study in Sweden also found that between 1995 and 2001, Chlamydia infections rose 50% overall in Sweden and 60% among the young.28
  • In a 2003 study, David Paton found that between 1999 and 2001, with improved access to family planning clinics in the United Kingdom (teen visits rose over 23%), the number of sexually active teens rose almost 20%, and STD rates rose 15.8%.29
  • A. Williams noted that “In Scotland there has been a doubling of the rates of Herpes and [Gonorrhea] and a four-fold increase in Chlamydia in the past ten years (1993-2003),” despite a three-fold increase in the use of EC and greatly increased access to contraception.30

9 Condom programs will not lower the incidence in AIDS/HIV cases and may in fact increase it

In 2004, Dr. Rene Josef Bullecer, Director of AIDS-Free Philippines and Executive Director of Human Life International (HLI) Visayas-Mindanao, observed that:

“The discrepancy in the infection rates between the two countries, Thailand with severe condom- oriented programs and the Philippines without, has continued and only grown wider. As of August 2003 there were 899,000 HIV/AIDS cases documented in Thailand and approximately 125,000 deaths attributed to the disease. These numbers are many times those projected by the WHO (60,000-80,000 cases) in 1991. These numbers contrast sharply with those of the Philippines where, as of September 30, 2003, there were 1,946 AIDS cases resulting in 260 deaths. This is only a mere fraction of the number of cases (80,000-90,000) that the WHO projected would be reached by 2000.”31

The huge discrepancy continues, with Thailand having 610,000 [low estimate: 410 000; high estimate: 880,000] people living with HIV and death according to the UNAIDS/WHO. In contrast, the Philippines has only 8,300 [low: 6,000; high: 11,000] persons living with HIV. The numbers are even
more striking considering that the Philippines has a much larger population than Thailand.32
There is also more evidence from other countries that questions the effectiveness of condoms in the fight against HIV/AIDS. A study in Uganda by Kajubi et al. (2005) concluded that condoms were not effective at lowering HIV infections: “In this study, gains in condom use seem to have been offset by increases in the number of sex partners. Prevention interventions in generalized epidemics need to promote all aspects of sexual risk reduction to slow HIV transmission.”33
Dr Edward Green of the Harvard AIDS Prevention Research Project, in his book Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries, contested the efficacy of condoms and HIV counseling and testing, the preferred prevention strategies of Western donor nations and the U.N.
Green said:

“The largely medical solutions funded by major donors have had little impact in Africa, the continent hardest hit by AIDS. Instead, relatively simple, low-cost behavioral change programs–stressing increased monogamy and delayed sexual activity for young people–have made the greatest headway in fighting or preventing the disease’s spread. Ugandans pioneered these simple, sustainable interventions and achieved significant results.”34

Tim Allen and Suzette Heald, in a comparison of AIDS policy in Uganda and Botswana, also noted:

“Promotion of condoms at an early stage proved to be counter-productive in Botswana, whereas the lack of condom promotion during the 1980s and early 1990s contributed to the relative
success of behaviour change strategies in Uganda.”35

10 The RH bills are based on an erroneous analysis of population and family size as related to poverty

Although no longer as heavily emphasized by their authors and proponents, the RH bills seek to address poverty though population control, assuming that poverty is caused by a large, growing population and large family size. The scientific evidence, however, shows otherwise.

Dr. Roberto de Vera, writing in a primer on the RH bill, noted that, “Population growth has little or no direct effect on per capita GDP growth. Thus there is no basis for a policy that aims to reduce population growth to raise per capita GDP growth.”36 He then cited several studies to support his
Nobel prize winner Simon Kuznets’s pioneering study contained in his 1966 book Modern Economic Growth: Rate, Structure and Spread (pp. 67-68) showed that “[n]o clear association appears to exist in the present sample of countries, or is likely to exist in other developed countries, between rates of growth of population and of product per capita.”
Other studies have confirmed Kuznets’s findings, showing no clear link between population growth and economic growth (or poverty). Here are the findings for five studies:

  1. the 1992 Ross Levine and David Renelt study of the relationship between growth and its determinants found no significant effect of population growth on economic growth;
  2. the 1994 Jeff King and Lant Pritchett study arrived at a similar finding where they allowed the effect of population on economic growth to vary according to the level of development and resource scarcity;
  3. in a 1996 review of the population-growth-poverty relationship, Dennis Ahlburg points out that studies have shown population growth has little or no effect on poverty;
  4. in a 2004 study examining the determinants of long-term growth, Gernot Dopelhoffer, Ronald Miller, and Xavier Sala-I-Martin, found that average annual population growth from 1960-1990 was not robustly correlated with economic growth;
  5. the 2007 Eric Hanushek and Ludger Wommann study found that total fertility rates, which can be seen as an alternative measure of population growth, did not have a statistically significant association with population growth.

Similar conclusions have been arrived at by the US National Research Council in 1986 and in the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) Consultative Meeting of Economists in 1992.37 In the same primer, Dr. de Vera also explained that, “Large families are poor not because they are large but because most of the heads of these poor families have limited schooling which prevents them from getting good paying jobs. Moreover, a 1994 study shows that parents of poor families want the children they beget. These findings show that there is no basis for having a population management policy that raises economic growth to reduce poverty.38
In any case, it is apparent that fertility in the Philippines is fast declining and will soon be below replacement level even without population control measures. This was the conclusion of Fr. Gregory Gaston. formerly of the Pontifical Council for the Family at the Vatican, who wrote the following in an
article published in 2007:

“The UN Population Division figures indicate that it is not an exaggeration to say that as early as now the Philippine Total Fertility Rate [children per woman] is already dangerously low. Whereas in the early 1970’s the average Filipina had six children, today she has around three, and in another 20 years, only two. Shortly after 2020, or just fifteen years from now, the
Philippine TFR will sink below its replacement level of around 2.29.”39

11 HB 96 is unduly coercive and violates freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion

Section 22 (e) of the proposed bill HB 96, for example, lists the following as a prohibited act: “Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.” This provision is overly broad and “disinformation” could (and most probably will) be construed as prohibiting the expression of objections to the Bill, such as what we are presently doing. This provision is is obviously going to be used to suppress dissent, and is an undue restriction of freedom of speech. It has no place in any of the laws of a democratic nation.
Section 22, number 3, requires doctors and health workers to provide “health care services,” but since the bill classifies abortifacient contraceptives and other artificial contraceptive devices and methods as essential medicines, these are presumably included. If they refuse to do so on religious grounds, they must still refer those who want to use such devices or methods to another person who will dispense them. Conscientious objectors are thereby required to cooperate in such acts, and if they refuse, they are slapped penalties ranging from one to six months imprisonment and a fine of P10,000-P50,000, as specified in Section 23 of the proposed bill. HB 96 eliminates any choice for conscientious objectors and makes no room for their legitimate concerns.
Section 18, on the other hand, mandates that employers must provide family planning services (or information on where to obtain these), presumably including abortifacient contraceptives, to their employees. Employers, therefore, are not given any choice despite the fact that distribution of these
abortifacients and contraceptives may be against their conscience.

12 Value-neutral sex education involving contraceptives will not reduce unplanned pregnancies or encourage responsible sexual behavior.

The various versions of the RH bills mandate several years of mandatory, “age-appropriate” sex education for young children. The training these children will receives will include family planning methods (including contraceptives), population and development, and children’s and women’s rights.
As harmless as these topics may sound, they are actually dangerous and counterproductive. The topic on family planning methods, for example, will include explicit training in the use of contraceptives as these are defined as being family planning methods. Many studies have shown that so-called comprehensive sex education programs that involves training in the use of contraceptives are ineffective in reducing unplanned pregnancies or irresponsible sexual behavior. In fact, such programs often increase the incidence of both.
In 2009, Meg Wiggins et al., published research evaluating the effectiveness of the U.K.’s Young People’s Development Programme (YPDP) in reducing teenage pregnancy, substance use, and other outcomes. The program involved giving teenagers sex education and advice about contraception. Of those in the program, 16 percent became pregnant, compared with just 6 percent in a comparison group. The study concluded that: No evidence was found that the intervention was effective in delaying heterosexual experience
or reducing pregnancies, drunkenness, or cannabis use. Some results suggested an adverse effect. Although methodological limitations may at least partly explain these findings, any further implementation of such interventions in the UK should be only within randomised
To be sure, the bills that have been filed at the Philippine Congress also include values formation, sexual abstinence, and proscription and hazards of abortion, but studies indicate that if these topics are taught along with contraceptive use and other value-neutral topics, they become ineffective presumably because of the conflicting and confusing value messages that such education transmits to young students.
John B. Jemmott III et al., for example, compared the effectiveness of abstinence-only, safer-sex only, comprehensive sex education, to evaluate the efficacy of an abstinence-only intervention in preventing sexual involvement in young adolescents. The study, involving 682 African-American students in grades 6 and 7, found that students in the abstinence-only intervention had lower sexual activity even over time than those in the control group. The study concluded that, “Theory-based abstinence-only interventions may have an important role in preventing adolescent sexual involvement.”41

Other studies support this conclusion. For example, Stan Weed et al., examined seventh graders in northern Virginia, and found that students who received abstinence education were half as likely as non-participants to initiate sexual activity one year after the program.42

Rejecting the the so-called reproductive health bills is only a part of what must be done to protect and uphold the sanctity of human life. The Ang Kapatiran Party also proposes a number of measures that will promote and protect life, our families, our rights, and improve the quality of life in our nation.

1. Clear and unambiguous legal definition on the beginning of life and punitive provisions to protect the unborn.

Although the Philippine Constitution mandates the protection of the unborn from conception, there is a need for further legislation to fully implement the Constitution’s provisions. To eliminate any possible ambiguity, we recommend laws that explicitly define conception as beginning at fertilization, as well as explicitly define the unborn as legally recognized persons with human rights and dignity. We note that such legislation has already been filed at the 15th Congress in the form of HB 13, the Protection Of The Unborn Child Act Of 2010, by Rep. Roilo Golez of Parañaque City. Its abstract states that the bill, “aims to remedy the oversight in the statutes by recognizing that the unborn has a basic right to life and by extending the mantle of legal recognition and protection to it by defining and clarifying the basic concepts and principle of fetal development.”43
2 Stricter laws against abortions and better enforcement of these laws

Abortion is already a crime in the Philippines, but there is a need to further enhance the penal laws on this matter. We recommend stricter and more comprehensive enforcement of anti-abortion laws and increasing the punishment for abortion one degree higher than at present.

3 Ban on abortifacient contraceptives

Abortifacient contraceptives are already available in the Philippines and may be responsible for thousands of unrecorded deaths of unborn children. We recommend legislation that explicitly bans the sale and use of abortifacient contraceptives, as well as punishes those who engage in the traffic of such
deadly substances and their accomplices.

4 Warning labels on dangerous non-abortifacient contraceptives

There are other non-abortifacient contraceptive methods (such as condoms) that nevertheless pose risks to those who rely on them because they are inherently prone to failure. If these cannot be removed from the market, then they should be required to carry labels warning users of the probability of failure, their unreliability, as well as any other possible side-effects and risks that they may pose to unsuspecting users.

5 Chastity, values, and abstinence education

Many social ills such as unplanned pregnancy, rape and incest are the result of the breakdown of public morals. This situation can be addressed by consistent and integrated education in chastity, moral values, abstinence from sex until marriage, and fidelity in marriage. Such education should be offered not only to students that are ready to receive it but to parents and married couples as well. No one, however, should be forced to receive such education against their conscience or their religious beliefs.

6 Natural Family Planning

There are certain situations where married couples must use family planning. We recommend that the government undertake measures to promote the safest and most effective means to do so, namely modern natural Family Planning (NFP) methods. NFP is the only method that has absolutely no
adverse medical side-effects, is practically 100% effective when used correctly and properly, and doesnot violate moral or religious tenets of the nation’s major religious groups.

About the Ang Kapatiran Party
The Ang Kapatiran Party (AKP) is an accredited national political party that espouses a pro-God, prolife platform as an antidote to the traditional personality-based parties that have dominated and debased Philippine politics for decades.  The party was founded by Reynaldo “Nandy” Pacheco in 2004 and was accredited as a national political by the Commission on Elections that same year. It participated in the 2007 and 2010 elections, fielding candidates for local and national positions.

AKP Media Contacts for this document:

Emmanuel R. Amador
Ma. Andrea “Baby” Mendigo


1 Walter L. Larimore, MD; Joseph B. Stanford, MD, MSPH, “Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent,” Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:126-133. (Abstract and full paper at

2 Stanford JB, Mikolajczyk RT, “Mechanisms of action of intrauterine devices: update and estimation of postfertilization effects,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

3 CVS/Pharmacy (

4 HB&A-ARO Research Group, “Filipino Family Survey,” conducted December 2009, made public January 2010. The results of the study can be downloaded at

5 Mahar Mangahas, “Business groups work for RH compromise,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, November 20, 2009.

6 Roberto de Ocampo , “Kill ‘Bill’?”, Philippine Daily Inquirer, November 27, 2009. The article can be viewed online at

7 Boonstra H et al., Abortion in Women’s Lives, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2006, available online at, pp. 6-7.

8 Conforth, Tracee, “Contraceptive Effectiveness,” available online at

9 Ibid.

10 Boonstra H et al., Abortion in Women’s Lives, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2006, available online at, p. 7

11 Peter Arcidiacono et al, “Habit Persistence and Teen Sex: Could Increased Access to Contraception have Unintended Consequences for Teen Pregnancies?” (Oct. 3, 2005), p.29, available at

12 David Paton, “The Economics of Family Planning and Underage Conceptions,” Journal of Health Economics, 21.2 (March 2002): 207-225; abstract available at

13 Lawrence Finer, “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954–2003,” Public Health Reports, Volume 122 (January–February 2007): pp. 77-78. The study can be found at

14 Douglas Kirby, “Reflections on Two Decades of Research on Teen Sexual Behavior and Pregnancy,” Journal of School Health 69.3 (March 1999).

15 Akerlof, G.A., Yellen, J.L. and M.L. Katz “An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Child-bearing in the United States.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 111, No. 2 (May, 1996), pp. 277-317.

16 Jones RK, Darroch JE and Henshaw SK, Contraceptive use among U.S. women having abortions in 2000–2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002, 34(6):294–303; available online at

17 Edgardh, K. et al. Adolescent Sexual Health in Sweden, Sex Trans Inf 78 (2002): 352-6, available at

18 M. New, “Analyzing the Effect of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion Among Minors,” Heritage Foundation Data Analysis Report #07-01 (2007), available online at

19 M. New, “Using Natural Experiments to Analyze the Impact of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion,” Heritage Center for Data Analysis Report #06-01 (January 23, 2006); available at

20 National Demographic and Health Survey 2008, National Statistics Office (NSO), December 2008, Manila, Philippines (available online at
21 Francisco Tatad, “Revised: The Truth and Half-Truths About Reproductive Health,”

22 E. Raymond et al., “Population Effect of Increased Access to Emergency Contraceptive Pills,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 109 (2007): 181-8.

23 A. Glasier et al., “Advanced Provision of Emergency Contraception does not Reduce Abortion Rates,” Contraception 69.5 (May 2004): 361-6, available online at

24 T. Raine et al., “Direct Access to Emergency Contraception through Pharmacies and Effect on Unintended Pregnancy and STIs,” Journal of the American Medical Association 293 (2005): 54-62, available online at

25 A. Williams, “The Morning After Pill,” Scottish Council of Human Bioethics (Nov. 2005) (, click on “Publications” then “Sexual Health”).

26 T. Tyden et al., “No reduced number of abortions despite easily available emergency contraceptive pills,” Lakartidningen 99.47 (2002): 4730-2, 4735 (abstract online at cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12523048&dopt=Citation; visited Feb. 16, 2007).

27 J. Gardner et al., “Increasing Access to Emergency Contraception Through Community Pharmacies: Lessons from Washington State,” Family Planning Perspectives 33 (2001): 172-5, available online at

28 T. Tyden et al., “No reduced number of abortions despite easily available emergency contraceptive pills,” Lakartidningen 99.47 (2002): 4730-2, 4735 (abstract at

29 David Paton, “Random Behavior or Rational Choice? Family Planning, Teenage Pregnancy and STIs,” (Nov.2003), available online at

30 A. Williams, “The Morning After Pill,” Scottish Council on Human Bioethics (Nov. 2005).

31 Rene Josef Bullecer, “Telling the Truth: AIDS Rates for Thailand and the Philippines,” cited in “Family values versus Safe Sex,” Population Research Institute, PRI Review, 29 November, 1999, available online at

32 UNAIDS/WHO Epidemiological Fact Sheets on HIV and AIDS, 2008 Update: Core data on epidemiology and response, UNAIDS/WHO Working Group on Global HIV/AIDS and STI Surveillance, December 2008.

33 Kajubi, et al., “Increasing Condom Use Without Reducing HIV Risk: Results of a Controlled Community Trial in Uganda,” Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, Volume 40, Number 1, September 1 2005,
abstract available at

34 Edward Green, Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries, (2003).

35 Tim Allen and Suzette Heald, “HIV/AIDS Policy in Africa: What has Worked in Uganda and what has Failed in Botswana?”, Journal of International Development, November 2004, Volume 16, Issue 8, pp. 1141-1154.

36 Dr. Roberto de Vera , A Primer on the proposed Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood, and Population Development Consolidated Bill, September 11, 2008.

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid.

39 Rev. Fr. Gregory D. Gaston, STD, “World Population Collapse: Lessons for the Philippines,” in Familia et Vita, vol. XII (2007) no. 2, pp. 84-113, paragraph no. 22.

40 Meg Wiggins et al., “Health outcomes of youth development programme in England: prospective matched comparison study,” British Medical Journal, July 2009, BMJ 2009;339:b2534, available online at

41 John B. Jemmott III PhD; Loretta S. Jemmott, PhD, RN; Geoffrey T. Fong, PhD, “Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 Months : A Randomized Controlled Trial With Young Adolescents ,” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 2010;164(2): pp. 152-159. Abstract available online at:

42 Stan Weed et al., “An Abstinence Program’s Impact on Cognitive Mediators and Sexual Initiation,” American Journal of Health Behavior, Vol. 31, No. 1 (2008), pp. 60-73.


Noynoy Aquino and Barack Obama for CHANGE: Communist America and Contraceptive Philippines

My friends chided me for being a single-issue voter.  I did not vote for Noynoy because he supported the Reproductive Health Bill.  I voted for JC de los Reyes of Ang Kapatiran Party even though I know he wouldn’t have a chance.  But I voted for him, nevertheless.  I supported both JC de los Reyes and Gibo Teodoro in my Monk’s Hobbit blog.  Gibo, at least, has a capacity to change his mind on the reproductive health bill.

Catholics voted for Noynoy for many reasons.  I did not vote for him for only one reason: the RH Bill.  We should have voted for the man based on what he stands for and his capacity to govern and not who his parents are.  The winds of CHANGE swept both US and the Philippines.  We were mesmerized by the rhetoric of change.  Change we asked for and change we got.

The US under Obama became a totally different nation.  Obama could not mention the word “Creator” in the US constitution, believing that we could have the brotherhood of man without the Fatherhood of God.  There is no more right and wrong religion: all religions are equal–equally unecessary to the functioning of the State.  The US is now becoming a socialist state: big taxes, big healthcare plans, big government, but little faith on the ordinary working American who makes America great.  If the Americans are not vigilant enough, within a few years, America will be a Communist Empire with a false messiah at its head.

The Philippines under Noynoy Aquino, even in Aquino’s first hundred days of power, is a mess. We don’t know who is in charge.  With Gloria Arroyo as President, we know who is in-charge and we know whom to blame.  But with Noynoy Aquino, we don’t know who is in-charge so we don’t know whom to blame: Is it the President, the Cabinet Secretaries, the Mayor, the Police Chief, the Media, or the one selling balut?  Noynoy’s chat with Obama is a portent of things to come.  Change we asked for and change we got.  In a few years or even months, the streets will be flooded not by the waters of Ondoy but by condoms, pills, and abortion mills.  We now see condoms sold in MRT stations.  Soon we’ll see them in movie houses, in hotels, in every nook and corner of the street.  This is what is happening in US and in the rest of the world.  And UN, together with many multinational companies, are waging war on the soul of the Philippines.  And they have Lagman and other lawmakers as their mouthpiece.  They want us to offer our children to the Moloch  that appears in the guise of Population Growth and Poverty.  Fancy rhetoric.  But we have heard those lies before from the Father of Lies lurking in the Garden of Eden: “You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”  Tempting.  You can be assured that the 432 million dollars promised investments has strings attached:  “All these shall be yours, if you promote the reproductive health bill in the Philippines.”

Risk Compensation or Behavioral Disinhibition: Why Condom Use Increases Chances of AIDS Infection in Africa–Dr. Edward Green of Harvard University

Senior Harvard Research Scientist for AIDS Prevention, Dr. Edward Green, who is the author of five books, including “Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries” discussed his support for Pope Benedict XVI’s comments with CNA.

According to Dr. Green, science is finding that the media is actually on the wrong side of the issue. In fact, Green says that not only do condoms not work, but that they may be “exacerbating the problem” in Africa.

“Theoretically, condoms ought to work,” he explained to CNA, “and theoretically, some condom use ought to be better than no condom use, but that’s theoretically.”

Condom proponents often cite the lack of condom education as the main culprit for higher AIDS rates in Africa but Green disagrees.

After spending 25 years promoting condoms for family planning purposes in Africa, he insists that he’s quite familiar with condom promotion. Yet, he claims that “anyone who worked in family planning knew that if you needed to prevent a pregnancy, say the woman will die, you don’t recommend a condom.”

Green recalls that when the AIDS epidemic hit Africa, the “Industry” began using AIDS as a “dual purpose” marketing strategy to get more funding for condom distribution. This, he claims, effectively took “something that was a 2nd or 3rd grade device for avoiding unwanted pregnancies” and turned it into the “best weapon we [had] against AIDS.”

The accepted wisdom in the scientific community, explained Green, is that condoms lower the HIV infection rate, but after numerous studies, researchers have found the opposite to be true. “We just cannot find an association between more condom use and lower HIV reduction rates” in Africa.

Dr. Green found that part of the elusive reason is a phenomenon known as risk compensation or behavioral disinhibition.

“[Risk compensation] is the idea that if somebody is using a certain technology to reduce risk, a phenomenon actually occurs where people are willing to take on greater risk.” The idea can be related to someone that puts on sun block and is willing to stay out in the sun longer because they have added protection. In this case, however, the greater risk is sexual. Because people are willing take on more risk, they may “disproportionally erase” the benefits of condom use, Green said.

Full Article Here:
Harvard Researcher agrees with Pope on condoms in Africa” (Catholic News Agency, Cambridge, Mass., 21 March 2009)

A hobbit thanks to Fr. Z of What does the prayer really say?