Reproductive Health Bill

The Reproductive Health bills, popularly known as the RH Bill, are Philippine bills aiming to guarantee universal access to methods
and information on birth control and maternal care. The bills have 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 An Act Providing For a National Policy on Reproductive Health
and Population and Developmentintroduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago.
While there is general agreement about its provisions on maternal and child health, there is great debate on its key proposal 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, as the government continues to disseminate information on their use through all health
care centers.

Background
The first time the Reproductive Health Bill was proposed was in 1998. During the present 15th Congress, the RH Bills filed are those
authored by House Minority Leader Edcel Lagman of Albay, HB 96; Iloilo Rep. Dale Bernard Tuddao, HB 101, Akbayan Representatives
Kaka Bag-ao & Walden Bello; HB 513, Muntinlupa Representative Rodolfo Biazon, HB 1160, Iloilo Representative Augusto Syjuco, HB
1520, Gabriela Rep. Luzviminda Ilagan. In the Senate, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago has filed her own version of the RH bill which,
she says, will be part of the countrys commitment to international covenants. On 31 January 2011, the House of Representatives
Committee on Population and Family Relations voted to consolidate all House versions of the bill, which is entitled An Act Providing for
a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population Development and for Other Purposes.
Stated purpose
One of the main concerns of the bill, according to the Explanatory Note, is that the population of the Philippines makes it the 12th most
populous nation in the world today, that the Filipino womens 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.
[edit]History
According to the Senate Policy Brief titled Promoting Reproductive Health, the history of reproductive health in the Philippines dates
back to 1967 when leaders of 12 countries including the Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos signed the Declaration on Population.[1][2] The
Philippines agreed that the population problem be considered as the principal element for long-term economic development. Thus, the
Population Commission was created to push for a lower family size norm and provide information and services to lower fertility rates. [3].
Starting 1967, the USAID started shouldering 80% of the total family planning commodities (contraceptives) of the country, which
amounted to US$ 3 Million annually. In 1975, the United States adopted as its policy the National Security Study Memorandum 200:
Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200). The policy gives "paramount
importance" to population control measures and the promotion of contraception among 13 populous countries, including the Philippines
to control rapid population growth which they deem to be inimical to the socio-political and economic growth of these countries and to
the national interests of the United States, since the "U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad",
and these countries can produce destabilizing opposition forces against the United States. It recommends the US leadership to

"influence national leaders" and that "improved world-wide support for population-related efforts should be sought through increased
emphasis on mass media and other population education and motivation programs by the U.N., USIA, and USAID.[4]
Different presidents had different points of emphasis. President Marcos pushed for a systematic distribution of contraceptives all over
the country, a policy that was called "coercive," by its leading administrator.[2] The Cory Aquino administration focused on giving couples
the right to have the number of children they prefer, while the Ramos presidency shifted from population control to population
management. Estrada used mixed methods of reducing fertility rates, while Arroyo focused on mainstreaming natural family planning,
while stating that contraceptives are openly sold in the country.[3]
In 1989, the Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD) was established, "dedicated to the formulation
of viable public policies requiring legislation on population management and socio-economic development."
In 2000, the Philippines signed the Millennium Declaration and committed to attain the MDG goals by 2015, including promoting gender
equality and health. In 2003, USAID started its phase out of a 33 year old program by which free contraceptives where given to the
country. Aid recipients such as the Philippines faced the challenge to fund its own contraception program. In 2004, the Department of
Health introduced the Philippines Contraceptive Self-Reliance Strategy, arranging for the replacement of these donations with
domestically provided contraceptives.[3]
In August 2010, the government announced a collaborative work with the USAID in implementing a comprehensive marketing and
communications strategy in favor of family planning called "May Plano Ako".
[edit]Key definitions
House Bills 101 and 513, and Senate Bill 2378 define the term "reproductive health care" as follows:
Reproductive Health Care refers to the state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of
disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. This implies that people are
able to have a satisfying and safe sex life, that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often
to do so, provided that these are not against the law. This further implies that women and men attain equal relationships in matters
related to sexual relations and reproduction.
House Bill 96 replaces "have a satisfying and safe sex life" with "enjoy responsible and safe sex" but is otherwise identical in its
definition. House Bill 1160 omits "a satisfying and" but is otherwise identical. House Bill 3387 omits the word "complete" before physical,
and replaces "attain" with "are afforded," but is otherwise identical.
Reproductive Rights are defined by House Bills 101, 513, 1160, 3387, and Senate Bill 2378 as follows:
the rights of individuals and couples, to decide freely and responsibly whether or not to have children; the number, spacing and timing
of their children; to make other decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence; to have the information
and means to do so; and to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health.
House Bill 96 replaces "other decisions" with "allied decisions," but is otherwise identical.
The opposition says that by supporting such definitions, the country will guarantee this same right of having "a satisfying and safe sex
life" and the freedom of decision to unmarried children and teenagers, since they are "people" and "individuals." They argue that this
will lead to promiscuity among the young. They say that the terminology is part of deceptive "verbal engineering" since RH is not in
favor of reproduction, and contraceptives are not healthy, but RH is presented as something good.[citation needed]
1.

Ideal Family Size

2.

Employers Responsibilities

3.

Pro Bono Services for Indigent Women

4.

Sexual And Reproductive Health Programs For Persons With Disabilities

5.

Right to Reproductive Health Care Information

6.

Implementing Mechanisms

7.

Reporting Requirements

8.

Congressional Oversight Committee

[edit]Bill content
[edit]Sections
The basic content of the Consolidated Reproductive Health Bill is divided into the following sections.

1.

Title

2.

Declaration of Policy

3.

Guiding Principles

4.

Definition of Terms

5.

Midwives for Skilled Attendance

6.

Emergency Obstetric Care

7.

Access to Family Planning

8.

Maternal and Newborn Health Care in Crisis Situations

9.

Maternal Death Review

10.

Family Planning Supplies as Essential Medicines

11.

Procurement and Distribution of Family Planning Supplies

12.

Integration of Family Planning and Responsible Parenthood Component in Anti-Poverty Programs

13.

Roles of Local Government in Family Planning Programs

14.

Benefits for Serious and Life-Threatening Reproductive Health Conditions

15.

Mobile Health Care Service

16.

Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education

17.

Additional Duty of the Local Population Officer

18.

Certificate of Compliance

19.

Capability Building of Barangay Health Workers

20.

Ideal Family Size

21.

Employers Responsibilities

22.

Pro Bono Services for Indigent Women

23.

Sexual And Reproductive Health Programs For Persons With Disabilities (PWDs)

24.

Right to Reproductive Health Care Information

25.

Implementing Mechanisms

26.

Reporting Requirements

27.

Congressional Oversight Committee

28.

Prohibited Acts

29.

Penalties

30.

Appropriations

31.

Implementing Rules and Regulations

32.

Separability Clause

33.

Repealing Clause

34.

Effectivity
[edit]Summary of major provisions
The bill mandates the government to promote, without bias, all effective natural and modern methods of family planning that are
medically safe and legal.[5]
Although abortion is recognized as illegal and punishable by law, the bill states that the government shall ensure that all women
needing care for post-abortion complications shall be treated and counseled in a humane, non-judgmental and compassionate
manner.[5]
The bill calls for a multi-dimensional approach integrates a component of family planning and responsible parenthood into all
government anti-poverty programs.[5]
Under the bill, age-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education is required from grade five to fourth year high school using
life-skills and other approaches.[5]
The bill also mandates the Department of Labor and Employment to guarantee the reproductive health rights of its female employees.
Companies with less than 200 workers are required to enter into partnership with health care providers in their area for the delivery of
reproductive health services.[5]
Employers are obliged to monitor pregnant working employees among their workforce and ensure they are provided paid half-day
prenatal medical leaves for each month of the pregnancy period that they are employed.[5]
The national government and local governments will ensure the availability of reproductive health care services, including family
planning and prenatal care.[5]
Any person or public official who prohibits or restricts the delivery of legal and medically safe reproductive health care services will be
meted penalty by imprisonment or a fine.[5]
[edit]Summary of support and criticism
Proponents argue: (1) Economic studies, especially the experience in Asia,[6] show that rapid population growth and high fertility rates,
especially among the poor, exacerbate poverty and make it harder for the government to address it.[7][8] (2) Empirical studies show that
poverty incidence is higher among big families.[7][9] Smaller families and wider birth intervals could allow families to invest more in each
childs education, health, nutrition and eventually reduce poverty and hunger at the household level.[3][6][7] (3) Ten to eleven maternal
deaths daily could be reduced if they had access to basic healthcare and essential minerals like iron and calcium, according to the
DOH; (4) Studies show that 44% of the pregnancies in the poorest quintile are unanticipated, and among the poorest women who
would like to avoid pregnancy, at least 41% do not use any contraceptive method because of lack of information or access.[6][7] and
"Among the poorest families, 22% of married women of reproductive age express a desire to avoid pregnancies but are still not using
any family planning method,"[6] (5) use of contraception, which the World Health Organization has listed as essential medicines,[10][11] will
lower the rate of abortions as it has done in other parts of the world, according to the Guttmacher Institute.[12] (6) An SWS survey of
2008 showed that 71% of the respondents are in favor of the bill,[13] (7) at the heart of the bill is the free choice given to people on the
use of reproductive health, enabling the people, especially the poor to have the number of children they want and can care for.
Opponents of the bill argue that: (1) "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".[14][15] (2) 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.[16] The latest studies in scientific
journals and organizations show that the ordinary birth control pill,[17] and the IUD[18] are abortifacient to fertilized eggs: they kill young

human embryos, who as such are human beings equally worthy of respect,[19] making the bill unconstitutional.[20][21] (3) 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).[22][23] Harvard Director Edward Green concluded that the "best studies" show that more condoms
promote the spread of AIDS.[24] Combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (the most common type prescribed globally) are
carcinogenic,[25][26] and confers other serious health risks.[27][28] The increased usage of contraceptives, which implies that some babies
are unwanted, will eventually lead to more abortion.[20] (4) 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 awelfare 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. (5) A 2009 survey showed that
92% rejected the bill when informed of its detailed provisions and penalties;[29] Hundreds of thousands have rallied against the bill all
over the country, while the pro-RH bill rallies only had a few thousands and there is evidence that attendees were paid.[30] (6) The penal
provisions constitute a violation of free choice and conscience, and establishes religious persecution.[31]
President Aquino stated he was not an author of the bill. He also stated that he gives full support to a firm population policy, educating
parents to be responsible, providing contraceptives to those who ask for them, but he refuses to promote contraceptive use. He said
that his position "is more aptly called responsible parenthood rather than reproductive health."[32][33]
[edit]Economic and demographic premises
The Philippines is the 39th most densely populated country, with a density over 335 per squared kilometer,[34] and the population growth
rate is 2.04 (2007 Census), 1.957% (2010 est. by CIA World Fact Book), or 1.85% (20052010 high variant estimate by the UN
Population Division, World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision) coming from 3.1 in 1960. The 2010 total fertility rate (TFR) is 3.23
births per woman, from a TFR of 7 in 1960.[35] In addition, the total fertility rate for the richest quintile of the population is 2.0, which is
about one third the TFR of the poorest quintile (5.9 children per woman). The TFR for women with college education is 2.3, about half
that of women with only an elementary education (4.5 children per woman).[36]
Congressman Lagman states that the bill "recognizes the verifiable link between a huge population and poverty. Unbridled population
growth stunts socioeconomic development and aggravates poverty." [12]
The University of the Philippines' School of Economics presented two papers in support of the bill: Population and Poverty: the Real
Score (2004), and Population, Poverty, Politics and the Reproductive Health Bill(2008). According to these economists, which
include Solita Monsod, Gerardo Sicat, Cayetano Paderanga, Ernesto M. Pernia, and Stella Alabastro-Quimbo, "rapid population growth
and high fertility rates, especially among the poor, do exacerbate poverty and make it harder for the government to address it," while at
the same time clarifying that it would be "extreme" to view "population growth as the principal cause of poverty that would justify the
government resorting to draconian and coercive measures to deal with the problem (e.g., denial of basic services and subsidies to
families with more than two children)." They illustrate the connection between rapid population growth and poverty by comparing the
economic growth and population growth rates of Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines, wherein the first two grew more rapidly than
the Philippines due to lower population growth rates.[7] They stressed that "the experience from across Asia indicates that a population
policy cum government-funded [family planning] program has been a critical complement to sound economic policy and poverty
reduction."[6]
In Population and Poverty, Aniceto Orbeta, Jr, showed that poverty incidence is higher among big families: 57.3% of Filipino families
with seven children are in poverty while only 23.8% of families who have two children live below the poverty threshold.[9]
Proponents argue that smaller families and wider birth intervals resulting from the use of contraceptives allow families to invest more in
each childs education, health, nutrition and eventually reduce poverty and hunger at the household level.[6] At the national level, fertility

reduction cuts the cost of social services with fewer people attending school or seeking medical care and as demand eases for
housing, transportation, jobs, water, food and other natural resources.[3][7][37] The Asian Development Bank in 2004 also listed a large
population as one of the major causes of poverty in the country, together with weak macroeconomic management, employment issues,
an underperforming agricultural sector and an unfinished land reform agenda, governance issues including corruption.[8]
[edit]Criticism of premises
Opposing the bill, Former Finance Secretary Roberto de Ocampo wrote that it is "truly disingenuous for anyone to proceed on the
premise that the poor are to blame for the nations poverty." He emphasized that the government should apply the principle of first
things first and focus on the root causes of the poverty (e.g. poor governance, corruption) and apply many other alternatives to solve
the problem (e.g. giving up pork barrel, raising tax collection efficiency).[31] They also point to the five factors for high economic growth
and reduction of poverty shown by the 2008 Commission on Growth and Development headed by Nobel prize winner Michael Spence,
which does not include population control.[15]
Opponents also refer to a 2003 Rand Corporation study which concluded that "there is little cross-country evidence that population
growth impedes or promotes economic growth...population neutralism has in fact been the predominant school in thinking among
academics about population growth for the last half-century." [14] For example, the 1992 study of Ross Levine and David Renelt, which
covered 119 countries over 30 years (vs UP study of 3 countries over a few years). In his Primer which critiques the bill, Economist
Roberto de Vera refers to Nobel prize winner Simon Kuznets's study which concludes that no 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." Julian Simon compared parallel countries such as North and South Korea, East and West Germany whose birthrates were
practically the same but whose economic growth was entirely different due to different governance factors. De Vera says that "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" and the studies of Hanushek and Wommann (2007), Doppelhoffer, Miller, Sala-I-Martin (2004), Ahlburg
(1996), etc.[38] The other Nobel Prize winner who expressed the same view is Gary Becker.[39][40]
De Vera also states that from 19612000, as Philippine population increased almost three times, poverty decreased from 59% to 34%.
He stressed that the more probable cause of poor families is not family size but the limited schooling of the household head: 78% to
90% of the poor households had heads with no high school diploma, preventing them from getting good paying jobs. He refers to
studies which show that 90% of the time the poor want the children they have: as helpers in the farm and investment for a secure old
age.[38]
Instead of aiming at population decrease, De Vera stressed that the country should focus through education on cashing in on a possible
demographic dividend, a period of rapid economic growth that can happens when the labor force is growing faster than the
dependents (children and elderly), thus reducing poverty significantly.[38]
In a recent development, two authors of the Reproductive Health Bill changed their stand on the provisions of the bill regarding
population and development. Reps. Emerciana de Jesus and Luzviminda Ilagan wanted to delete three provisions which state that
"gender equality and women empowerment are central elements of reproductive health and population and development," which
integrate responsible parenthood and family planning programs into anti-poverty initiatives, and which name the Population
Commission as a coordinating body. The two party-list representatives strongly state that poverty is not due to over-population but
because of inequality and corruption.[41]
[edit]Maternal health and deaths
Maternal deaths in the Philippines, according to the WHO, is at 5.7 per day,[42] not 10-11 deaths a day, as per the proponents who
repeated these numbers "to drive home the point."[43][44]

The proponents state that RH will mean: (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 and (12) RH education for the youth.
The Department of Health states that family planning can reduce maternal mortality by about 32 percent.[10] The bill is "meant to prevent
maternal deaths related to pregnancy and childbirth," said Clara Padilla of Engender Rights. She reported that "Daily, there are 11
women dying while giving birth in the Philippines. These preventable deaths could have been avoided if more Filipino women have
access to reproductive health information and healthcare."
Regarding these figures, Francisco Tatad of the International Right to Life Federation and former Senator wrote that "If correct,
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," without any need for a law on the distribution of contraceptives.[21] The key to solving maternal
deaths, according to the Senate Policy Brief on reproductive health, is the establishment of birthing centers.[3]
The Philippine Medical Association or PMA stated in their Position Paper that the goal of reducing the rise of maternal and child deaths
"could be attained by improving maternal and child health care without the necessity of distributing contraceptives. The millions of funds
intended for the contraceptive devices may just well be applied in improving the skills of our health workers in reducing maternal and
child mortality in the Philippines."[45]
[edit]Magna Carta for Women of 2009
There have been comparisons made with the 2009 Law called the Magna Carta for Women and the RH Bill.
The Magna Carta for Women contains the following provisions in Section 17 and 19:[46][47]

Prenatal and postnatal care

Information regarding all types of family planning methods

Access to family planning methods as long as they are ethically and medically safe

Sex education

Obstetric and gynecological care regarding pregnancy complications and the prevention of AIDS, HIV, STD, and the like

Spouses have the right to decide to space their children

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Magna Carta directs the Commmission on Women under the Office of the President to
oversee that the provisions are implemented by the Department of Health, the Department of Local Governments, the Commission of
Human Rights, the Department of Education, Department of Social Welfare, Department of Labor, the Commission on High Education.
In the IRR, it also states that in order for the law to be successful, the government should tie up with all LGUs so that midwives, doctors,
birthing facilities should be put in place to take care of the health needs of all to ensure that we minimize maternal and child deaths.
Because of these provisions, Senator Majority Floor Leader Tito Sotto said that the RH Bill is redundant.[48]
[edit]Family planning
The majority of Filipinos are in favor of family planning. The Catholic Church teaches the necessity of responsible parenthood and
correct family planning (one child at a time depending on one's circumstances), while at the same time teaching that large families are a
sign of God's blessings. It teaches that modern natural family planning, a method offertility awareness, is in accord with God's design,
as couples give themselves to each other as they are. The RH bill intends to help couples to have government funded access to
artificial contraception methods as well. [citation needed]

[edit]Unmet need
Using data from the 2008 National Demographic and Health Survey, Lagman stated that "Twenty-two percent of married Filipino
women have an unmet need for family planning services, an increase by more than one-third since the 2003 National Demographic and
Housing Survey." "Our women are having more children than they desire, as seen in the gap between desired fertility (2.5 children) and
actual fertility (3.5 children), implying a significant unmet need for reproductive health services," state some Ateneo de Manila
University professors. The Bill provides that "The State shall assist couples, parents and individuals to achieve their desired family size
within the context of responsible parenthood for sustainable development and encourage them to have two children as the ideal family
size."[6][37]
Basing itself on demographic surveys, Likhaan, a non-government organization for women's health, stated that the most common
reasons why women with unmet need in the Philippines do not practice contraception are health concerns about contraceptive
methods, including a fear of side effects. 44% reported these reasons in 2008. The second largest category of reasons is that many
believe they are unlikely to become pregnant41% in 2008. Their specific reasons include having sex infrequently, experiencing
lactational amenorrhea (temporary infertility while nursing) and being less fecund than normal.[49]
Writing against the bill, Bernardo Villegas wrote about the Myth of Unmet Family Planning Needs, citing development economist Lant
Pritchett who said that the term "unmet need" is an elitist construct, an imposition of a need on the poor, disrespectful of their real
preferences. Pritchett said that it is "based on a discrepancy...identified by the analyst through the comparison of responses to items in
separate blocks of the questionnaire" and is "an inference on the part of the researcher, not a condition reported by the respondents
themselves." Pritchett argued this term is applied to women who are not sexually active, are infecund, whose husband is absent, etc.,
thus bloating the numbers to favor the pharmaceutical companies and those with a population control agenda. Villegas stressed:
"Because [the poor] have been deprived of the infrastructures they need, such as farm-to-market roads, irrigation systems, post-harvest
facilities and other support services that the State neglected to provide them, the only economic resources they have are their children."
He also challenged that he is willing to bet that if the government will provide cash money to the poor to buy condoms, the poor will use
the cash for food and basic needs, thus exploding the myth.[50]
[edit]Access
One of the main concerns of the proponents is the perceived lack of access to family planning devices such as contraceptives and
sterilization. The bill intends to provide universal access through government funding, complementing thus private sector initiatives for
family planning services, such as those offered by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) which supports the Family
Planning Organizations of the Philippines and the 97 organizations of the Philippine NGO Council.
The opposition argues that "Access to contraceptives is free and unrestricted" and that the proposed law is pushing an open door.
[21]

They say that these family planning items are available to the citizens and many local government units and NGOs provide these for

free. Congressman Teddyboy Locsin argued, echoed by a Business Mirror editorial, that the poor can afford condoms since they can
pay for other items such as cellphone load. Opponents also argue that Philippine government is not a welfare state, and taxpayers are
not bound to provide for all the wants and desires of its citizenry, including their vanity needs, promiscuous actions and needs artificially
created by elitist, imperialist and eugenicist forces; nor should taxpayers pay for drugs that are objectively dangerous (carcinogenic)
and immoral. They argue that the Philippines should give priority to providing access to medicines that treat real diseases.[16][21]
The UP School of Economics argues, in contrast, that there is lack of access especially for poor people, because contraceptive use is
extremely low among them and "Among the poorest families, 22% of married women of reproductive age express a desire to avoid
pregnancies but are still not using any family planning method."[6] They say that lack of access leads to a number of serious problems
which demand attention: (1) "too many and too closely-spaced children raises the risk of illness and premature deaths (for mother and
child alike)," (2) "the health risks associated with mistimed and unwanted pregnancies are higher for adolescent mothers, as they are

more likely to have complications during labor," (3) women who have mistimed pregnancies are "constrained to rely more on public
education and health services and other publicly provided goods and services," further complicating limited public resources, (4)
families are not able to achieve their desired family size. Thus the UP economists "strongly and unequivocally support" the thrust of the
bill to enable "couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have the
information and means to carry out their decisions.[6] Proponents argue that government-funded access is the key to breaking the intergenerational poverty that many people are trapped in.[6][37]
[edit]Natural family planning
Pro-life groups and the Catholic church are in favor of NFP or natural family planning or fertility awareness as a moral way of regulating
child births. They say that NFP, which consists in abstinence during period of fertility and having sex during period of infertility, does not
abuse nor trivialize the natural processes wherein sex is intrinsically linked with procreation of new babies. By respecting sexuality, it
does not "use" the spouse as an object for mere pleasure, nor is there a directly willed prevention of human life, since there is no new
human life linked to abstention nor to sex during infertile periods.
On the other hand, proponents contend that "natural family planning methods have not proven to be as reliable as artificial means of
birth control."[51] Pro-life groups counter this by saying that high-level scientific studies show that when fertility awareness is used
correctly and consistently with ongoing coaching, it is 99% effective.[52][53][54][55]
Thus, as Dr. Larimore and Dr. Stanford stated: "given that there are highly effective, inexpensive, totally natural, and non-abortifacient
methods of birth control (the methods of modern natural family planning), it appears that most arguments for using birth-control pills can
be said to be advocating convenience for mothers and fathers at the potential expense of innocent and invaluable human life."[56]
[edit]Abortion
One of the bill's components is "prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications." It provides that "the
government shall ensure that all women needing care for post-abortion complications shall be treated and counseled in a humane, nonjudgmental and compassionate manner." It also states that "abortion remains a crime and is punishable," as the Constitution declares
that the State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.[57]
Opposing the bill, the Faculty of Medicine of the catholic University of Santo Tomas, the Philippine Nurses Association (with at least
368,589 members), the Bioethics Society of the Philippines, Catholic Physicians Guild of the Philippines stated that the antiabortion
stance of the bill is contradicted by the promotion of contraceptive agents (IUD and hormonal contraceptives) which actually act after
fertilization and are potentially abortifacient agents.[58] Opposition refers to a 2000 study of a scientific journal of the American Medical
Association, in which a meta-analysis of 94 studies provides evidence that when a commonbirth control pill fails to prevent ovulation,
"postfertilization effects are operative to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy." [17] They also point to the American Journal of
Obstetrics and Gynecology (2005), which concluded that the IUD brings about the "destruction of the early embryo," [18] thus is deemed
to kill five-day old babies.[59]
The position of the Philippine Medical Association (PMA) "is founded strongly on the principle that 'life or conception begins at
fertilization' at that moment where there is fusion or union of the sperm and the egg and thus a human person or human being already
does exist at the moment of fertilization." The PMA condemns abortifacients that "destroys the fertilized egg or the embryo" and "abhors
any procedure ... or medication that will interrupt any stage of fertilization and prevents its normal, physiological, uninterrupted growth to
adulthood".[45]
Jo Imbong, founder of the Abay Pamilya Foundation, reported that "Lagman said in a House hearing that the bill would protect human
life 'from implantation,'"[60] and not from fertilization, noting at the same time that the Records of the Constitutional Commission state
that Human life begins at fertilization. [60][61] After referring to many standard textbooks of medicine and human embryology to affirm this

as true,[62] the anti-RH bill citizens argue that the human embryo already has the complete genetic code and is thus a distinct human life
beginning its own new life cycle. They say that the embryo is an individual, self-coordinated and self-organizing subject belonging to the
species homo sapiens: a human being by nature and thus a person equally worthy of respect.[19]
Proponents argue that research by the Guttmacher Institute, involved in advancing international reproductive health, reveals that the
use of contraceptives can reduce abortion rates by 85%. Proponents such as 14 Ateneo de Manila University professors, argued thus:
"Studies show that the majority of women who go for an abortion are married or in a consensual union (91%), the mother of three or
more children (57%), and poor (68%) (Juarez, Cabigon, and Singh 2005). For these women, terminating a pregnancy is an anguished
choice they make in the face of severe constraints. When women who had attempted an abortion were asked their reasons for doing
so, their top three responses were: they could not afford the economic cost of raising another child (72%); their pregnancy occurred too
soon after the last one (57%); and they already have enough children (54%). One in ten women (13%) who had attempted an abortion
revealed that this was because her pregnancy resulted from forced sex (ibid.). Thus, for these women, abortion has become a family
planning method, in the absence of information on and access to any reliable means to prevent an unplanned and unwanted
pregnancy."[37]
The bill, said Clara Padilla of EnGender Rights Inc, will "help reduce the number of abortions by providing increased access to
information and services on modern contraceptive methods, that in turn will reduce the number of unwanted --and often aborted-pregnancies."[63]
Opponents of the bill argue that Lagman's data on 85% reduction of abortion through contraception is based on mere projections
without any scientific foundation and that this figure comes from the Guttmacher Institute which cannot be trusted because it is the
research arm of International Planned Parenthood and that the latter is "the largest promoter of artificial birth control and abortion
worldwide."[16][64] At the Senate Hearings, it was shown that the major pro-RH groups openly promote abortions in the Philippines and
are in favor of an abortion law. Opponents argue that new data thwarts the "myth" that contraception lowers abortions,[65] including data
published in 2011 in the scientific journal, Contraception, subtitled an international reproductive health journal. This stated that through
a 10-year period, 1997 to 2007, the overall use of contraceptive methods increased from 49.1 percent to 79.9 percent, while the
elective abortion rate increased from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1,000 women.[64]
Ang Kapatiran Party (AKP) in their Position Paper stated that "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."[66] The AKP argues that "Since contraceptives will not reduce unplanned pregnancy, they will not reduce abortion rates either
and may increase them."[66]Opponents state that leaders of the abortion industry themselves have openly admitted the empirical link
between contraception and abortion.[64] Malcolm Potts, the first medical director of International Planned Parenthood: As people turn to
contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate.[67] Judith Bury, coordinator of Doctors for a Womans Choice on
Abortion: There is overwhelming evidence that the provision of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate.
Both sides of the debate accuse the other side of deception and misleading the public. The pro-RH people accuse the anti-RH group of
misleading the public by calling the bill an abortion bill, when the bill states that abortion remains a crime and is punishable. The antiRH advocates accuse the RH supporters of hiding from the public the international population control agenda which includes abortion
and they refer to US Secretary Hillary Clinton who said that RH includes abortion.[68][69][70] They also state that RH includes the pill where
"postfertilization effects are operative",[18] terminating a 100-cell unborn human,[71] and the IUD which brings about the "destruction of the
early embryo," according to the American Medical Association and the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.[18]
[edit]Contraceptives
[edit]Morality and social effects

Another central issue is the morality of contraception. Around 81% of Filipinos are Catholics, and the Catholic Church teaches that the
immorality of contraception is not a matter of religious doctrine (e.g. liturgy) but is of an ethical nature, such as lying and prostitution,
which common ethical reasoning can understand. It says that contraception is evil because it desecrates sex which is intrinsically linked
to new sacred human beings, it makes spouses lie about their total self gift to their spouse, by not surrendering their personal fertility,
and is an abuse of the function of reproductive organs.[72]
However, 14 professors from Ateneo de Manila University, a prominent Catholic University, considering the empirical evidence of the
dire socio-economic conditions of the Filipino poor, urged that the bill be passed to help them. They argued: "As Catholics and Filipinos,
we share the hope and mission of building a Church of the Poor. We are thus deeply disturbed and saddened by calls made by some
members of the Catholic Church to reject a proposed legislation that promises to improve the wellbeing of Filipino families, especially
the lives of women, children, adolescents, and the poor." They announced that "Catholic social teachings recognize the primacy of the
well-formed conscience over wooden compliance to directives from political and religious authorities," urging Catholic authorities to
withdraw their opposition the bill.[37] Citing Catholic documents and scientific studies, they reasoned that "the RH Bill is pro-life, prowomen, pro-poor, pro-youth, and pro-informed choice." They emphasized that the bill "promotes quality of life, by enabling couples,
especially the poor, to bring into the world only the number of children they believe they can care for and nurture to become healthy and
productive members of our society."[37] Thus, they entitled their paper as "Catholics Can Support the RH Bill in Good Conscience."[37]
In response, the Ateneo administration announced its unity with Catholic teaching and that it had "serious objections to the present
bill."[73] The catholic University of Santo Tomas's student paper, The Varsitarian expressed shock about what they see as the Ateneo
professors' "erroneous conscience", and ignorance of economic science and medicine.[40] 42 prominent international Catholic scholars,
including Janet E. Smith, Peter Kreeft, William E. May, and Joseph W. Koterski, S.J., responded to the faculty of the Ateneo, saying that
It is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it," that the bill disrespects poor people, and "focuses
primarily on providing services to curb the number of children of the poor, while doing little to remedy their situation."[74]
Proponents such as Lagman also stressed that official Catholic teaching itself, expressed in the Encyclical Humanae Vitae issued only
forty years ago in 1964, is not infallible.[12] He said that the Papal Commission on Birth Control, which included ranking prelates and
theologians, recommended that the Church change its teaching on contraception as it concluded that the regulation of conception
appears necessary for many couples who wish to achieve a responsible, open and reasonable parenthood in todays circumstances.
The editorial of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, moreover, stated that Catholic teaching is "only" a religious teaching and should not be
imposed with intolerance on a secular state.
Responding to the Inquirer, opponents of the bill said that science and secular moral reasoning show the objective truth that
contraception is evil and disastrous for society, and therefore a secular state should stand by this evidence. Thus they cite the 15 nonreligious reasons against contraception provided by the Ethics Guide of the secular BBC which includes the loss of potential beneficent
human life, causing widespread moral promiscuity, weakening family life, being unnatural and anti-life.[75] They stress that it is the errors
of conscience pushed by the "dictatorship of relativism" --rather than the objective truth and the good--- that is imposing itself on people.
They say that Catholic Church doctrine on contraception has been the same since its beginning,[75] taught by bishops around the world,
thus part of infallible ordinary magisterium.[76][77] Prestigious secular and anti-Catholic social scientists are also reported to have found
empirical evidence linking contraception and a variety of social ills: more premarital sex, fatherless children, and abortion; decline of
marriage, crimes by unmarried men, poverty, social pathology (George Akerlof, Nobel prize winner);[22] heightened spread of AIDS
(Edward C. Green, Harvard Director for AIDS);[24] breakdown of families, female impoverishment, trouble in the relationship between the
sexes, and single motherhood (Lionel Tiger).[23][78] Opponents argue that misery is not the result of the church which they say is the
largest charitable organization in the world, but of a breakdown in moral sense that gives order to society, nor does misery come from

parents who bring up children in faithfulness, discipline, love and respect for life, but from those who strip human beings of moral dignity
and responsibility, by treating them as mere machines, which they believe contraception does.[79]
[edit]Health reasons
Stating that contraception is a lie and "against the beginning of new life," the Philippine Medical Association also stressed that "The
health risks of contraception to women are considerable; the list of side effects is long, and includes high blood pressure, strokes,
increased incidence of some forms of cancer."[45]
In his Science Facts on the RH Bills,[15][80] Dr. Raul Nidoy referred to:

a meta-analysis of the Stroke Journal that concluded that the Pill confers "risk of first ischemic stroke."[15][28]

findings of The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2007 that "there is sufficient evidence in humans for
the carcinogecity of combined estrogen-progestogen contraceptives.",[25][26] the same level as cigarettes and asbestos.
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism which concluded in 2005 that "a rigorous meta-analysis of the literature

suggests that current use of low-dose OCs significantly increases the risk of both cardiac and vascular arterial events."[27]
the conclusion of Edward Green, Director of the Harvard AIDS Prevention center, that "the best studies" show that widespread

use of contraception and condoms promote the spread of AIDS due to greater risk-taking and sexual adventures.
In its list of essential medicines, WHO stated that these drugs "have been questioned" and "will be reviewed" by its Expert Committee.
[11]

Opponents also say that being pregnant with a child is not a disease but a blessing, and that there are real diseases among the leading
causes of mortality that should take on a higher priority, given the limited budget. They refer to data from the Department of Health as to
the leading causes of death in the Philippines, and the daily death toll per 100,000 women are: (1) Heart diseases 80; (2) Vascular
diseases 63; (3) Cancer 51; (4) Pneumonia 45; (5) Tuberculosis 23; (6) Diabetes 22; (7) Lower chronic respiratory diseases
16.[21][81] Dr. Aguirre of the Makati Medical Society also said that "The health risks of the pill actually outweighs by far the risks of
pregnancy and childbirth to a woman's health."[16]
Proponents such as E. Ansioco of Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines argued that "The World Health Organization (WHO)
includes contraceptives in its Model Lists of Essential Drugs" and thus are safe medicines.[10][11] "Medical and scientific evidence," says
the main proponent, "shows that all the possible medical risks connected with contraceptives are infinitely lower than the risks of an
actual pregnancy and everyday activities...The risk of dying within a year of using pills is 1 in 200,000. The risk of dying from a
vasectomy is 1 in 1 million and the risk of dying from using an IUD is 1 in 10 million. ... But the risk of dying from a pregnancy is 1 in
10,000."[12]
In Facts on Barriers to Contraceptive Use in the Philippines, Likhaan made the following projection: "If all women who wanted to avoid
pregnancy used modern methods, there would be 1.6 million fewer pregnancies each year in the Philippines. Unintended births would
drop by 800,000, abortions would decline by 500,000 and miscarriages would decline by 200,000. Expanding modern contraceptive
use to all women at risk for unintended pregnancy would prevent 2,100 maternal deaths each year. It would also reap savings on
medical care for pregnant women and newborns that would more than offset the additional spending on modern contraception."
[edit]HIV/AIDS
The RH bill provides for "prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other, STIs/STDs," especially since the number of HIV cases
among the young nearly tripled from 41 in 2007 to 110 in 2008.[63] Primary among the means is distribution of condoms. The proponents
applauded government efforts last February 2010 when it distributed condoms in some areas of Manila.
On the other side of the debate, Dr. Rene Josef Bullecer, Director of AIDS-Free Philippines, said that in 1987, Thailand had 112 AIDS
cases, more or less the same number as the Philippines (135). By the year 2003, there were around 750,000 cases in Thailand, where
there was an intense campaign for the "100% Condom Use Program", while there were only 1,935 cases in the Philippines, whose

population is around 30% greater than Thailand's.[82][83] Pro-life groups refer to the Director of Harvard's Aid Prevention Center, Edward
C. Green, who said that the "best evidence" agrees with Benedict XVI's statement that condom distribution risked exacerbating the
spread of the virus, because availability of condoms leads to riskier sexual behavior.[24]
Jason Evert, an international expert on sexuality and family, cited the "wisdom of the Filipino approach to halting AIDS" and that they
are "living proof that self-control always trumps birth control."[84] He cited the British Medical Journal which stated that "The greater the
percentage of Catholics in any country, the lower the level of HIV." The BMJ said that whereas "in Swaziland, where 42.6 percent have
HIV, only 5 percent of the population is Catholic. ...In Uganda, with 43 percent of the population Catholic, the proportion of HIV infected
adults is 4 percent." Evert said that "In the Philippines, over 80 percent of the population is Catholic, and only .03 percent of the
population has HIV!"[85]
[edit]Sexuality education
To achieve its goals, the bill provides for mandatory reproductive health education and that it be taught in "an age-appropriate manner...
by adequately trained teachers starting from Grade 5 up to Fourth Year High School." Opposition to the bill is concerned about early
sexualization of the youth and say that sexuality education promoters themselves state that it has led to more teenage pregnancies and
illegitimacy. They quote the The Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils, which said that programs in safer sex education
and condom distribution have not reduced the out-of-wedlock birth rates among sexually experienced teens. . . . The fact is, increased
condom use by teens is associated with increased out-of-wedlock birth rates.[86] They stressed that what is needed is chastity
education, especially taught by their parents, rather than sex education in school. Proponents refer to the latest UNESCO study dated
December 2009 which concluded that sexuality education did not encourage early initiation into sex, but actually increased the age at
which people first engage in sexual activity.[87]
[edit]Opinion polls and TV debates
Proponents refer to many surveys conducted by two prominent locally based organizations (SWS and Pulse Asia) which show majority
support for the bill. A survey conducted in 2008 by the Social Weather Stations, commissioned by the Forum for Family Planning and
Development (FFPD), a non-government advocacy group, showed that 68 percent of Filipinos agree that there should be a law
requiring government to distribute legal contraceptives.[88] SWS President and RH Bill proponent, Mahar Mangahas reported that the
"survey found 71 percent in favor [of the RH Bill], 21 percent undecided, and a mere 8 percent opposed. Among those who originally
knew of the bill, the score is 84 percent in favor, and 6 percent opposed. Among those who learned of the bill for the first time because
of the survey, the score is 59 percent in favor, versus 11 percent opposed.[13][88] Pulse Asia reported that in an October 2008 survey
"most Filipinos are aware of the reproductive health bill pending at the House of Representatives (68%) and are in favor of the bill
(63%)."[89] In December 2010, Pulse Asia announced based on the results of an October 2010 survey, 69% of the Filipinos are in favor
of the bill.
Saying that nation-wide surveys are financed by wealthy, foreign-funded political lobby groups to create a bandwagon effect, Senator
Tatad remarked that an objective measure of Filipino preference is the consistent top electoral success of the pro-life party-list, Buhay
Hayaan Yumabong (Let Life Flourish).[21] President of Prolife Philippines, Lito Atienza, said that the surveys conducted by SWS and
Pulse Asia were misleading, because the participants were not fully informed of the bill, were merely aware of it, and informed that it
was about health and "modern methods". Instead he referred to the Filipino Family survey of December 2009 conducted by the HB&A
International (an affiliate of Louis Harris & Associates) together with the personnel of Asia Research Organization (the Philippine affiliate
of Gallup International). The survey concluded that 92% of people in Metro Manila rejected the bill, "85 percent are not aware that once
passed the RH bill would allow teenagers to secure 'abortifacient devices and substances' without their parents knowledge and
consent....90 percent do not agree that Congress should appropriate P2 billion to the detriment of other essential medicines for free

childrens vaccinations, treatment of dreaded diseases and other more important health and medical concerns."[29] Mangahas
acknowledged that the SWS surveys did not include the penalties.[90]
A TV Debate was also hosted by ABS-CBN last May 2011. Leaders of both sides, including Rep. Lagman and Rep. Golez were
present. According to the ABS-CBN news which reported on the results: "In the SMS poll, 69.58% of votes cast reject the RH bill while
30.42% support it."[91] In the separate online poll held on the Harapan microsite that livestreamed the debate, majority voted against the
bill at the very end of the debate.
The online poll conducted by the Philippine Star which was published on 18 May 2011 showed that 56% were against the RH Bill, while
44% were in favor.[92]
On TV5's Debate Hamon sa Pagbabago on 21 August 2011, the studio audience voted 100% against the bill, while 58.7% of the
viewers voted against the RH Bill via text messaging, versus 41.3% in favor.[93]
At the Pinoysurvey online poll of 21 May 2011, 82% of the online readers voted against the bill, while 18% were in favor.[94]
[edit]Rallies
From late 2010 to the present, there have been rallies for and against the bill.
The pro-life rallies against the bill where in: Manila (25 March) 40,000[95] 200,000,[96][97] Mindanao 50,000,[98] Manila (13 Feb)
10,000[99] 50,000,[100] Bacolod 20,000,[101] Cebu 10,000 to 12,000,[102] Balanga 10,000,[103] Christians and non-Christians in
Mindanao - 10,000[104] Manila (Dec 2011) - 10,000,[105] Lucena 8,000,[106] Dipolog 10,000 and Pagadian 8,000,[107] Maasin, Leyte
6000 to 7000,[106][108] Manila Knights of Columbus March (March 2011) 7000,[109] Legazpi 4000,[110] Iloilo 4000,[111] San Pablo,
Quezon 2000,[106] Quiapo (Oct) 1500,[112] Tagaytay 2000,[113]Batasan 3000.[114]
The pro-RH rallies were: Batasan 1500,[115] CBCP complex 1000.[116] Mendiola - 1000.[117]
In one pro-RH rally, organizers "set aside P1,750,000 to organize a rally of 'at least 5,000 people.' Each participant was supposed to
receive P350."[30]
[edit]Penalties
There is mandatory sexuality education starting grade 5, and "malicious disinformation" is penalized. [118] All health care service
providers which provide reproductive health services, including faith-based hospital administrators, may be imprisoned or fined if they
refuse to provide family planning services such as tubal ligation and vasectomy. The same may happen to employers who do not
provide free services to employees.[118] Imprisonment ranges from (1) month to six (6) months or a fine ranging from Ten Thousand
Pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).[118] Former Finance Secretary, Roberto de Ocampo, stated that these
punitive provisions "are tantamount to an affront to civil liberties and smack of religious persecution."[31]
Defending the bill, Dr. Felipe Medalla, former dean of the School of Economics of UP, said that "Although the poors access to family
planning services can be improved even without the law, the absence of the law makes it easier to block the program."
[edit]Separation of church and state
The head of the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines, Archbishop Luis Antonio Tagle opposes the Reproductive Health Bill, along
with abortion and contraception. Because 81% of Filipinos are Catholics, the Catholic Church exerts a strong influence in public and
moral life. Its staunch opposition to the bill has drawn the controversy among non-Catholics and Catholics alike who support the bill
whereby many invoke the principle of separation of church and state.
Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J, one of the drafters of the Philippine Constitution and a prominent lawyer and writer, explained that the concept
of separation of church and state is directed towards the state, rather than the church, as it is a political concept. Technically it means
non-establishment of religion, as the Constitution stated that No law shall be passed respecting an establishment of religion ... It
means that the state should be guided by the principle that it should support no specific religion. This means that government funding

should not be allocated for building churches or mosques, and not favor any particular religion. It does not prevent the church, parents,
supervisors, teachers and other moral educators from expressing their views and educating their wards on the morality of their personal
and social actions. Proponents, on the other hand, state that the church should not meddle in matters of the state, and should focus on
religious matters, not political matters.
[edit]Culture war and its implications
The national debate is seen as part of a wider culture war.[119][120] Passage or non-passage of the bill have negative implications
depending on the views. Proponents state that the non-passage of the bill will mean keeping the Philippines in a backward state and
unable to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, especially the points on poverty alleviation and maternal health. It will mean
reneging on international commitments and will slow down modernization. Also the poor will not have free access to family planning
support that many have expressed desires to have, and thus will have more children than they can care for, and will not have the
money to invest in education to break the intergenerational poverty they are trapped in. Proponents also accuse the Catholic Church of
holding the Philippines "hostage" and violating the separation of church and state.[121] They argue that a decreased population growth
will lead to improved quality of life and economic development.
Opponents of the bill cite the historical study of Columbia University professor Matthew Connelly, stating that the population control
agenda traces its roots to the wrong assumptions ofThomas Malthus, the forced eugenics of Adolf Hitler and Margaret Sanger.[21]
[122]

Opponents see the bill as allowing the Filipinos to be fooled by the deceptive manipulations of American imperialism and eugenicist

control, using United Nations Agencies for its own national interests, and to use Philippines' own national funds to kill the youngest
Filipinos, harm its own mothers, and encourage immorality. They see the bill as an act of disrespect and ingratitude to the Catholic
Church that works for the poor and the sick, and for the education and development of Filipinos.[21][120] They accuse the Philippine
Legislator's Committee on Population and Development as "essentially a foreign body" that has drafted the bills, and that its "2008
lobbying fund of two billion pesos comes from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, IPPF and UNFPA the latter two both well
known for their global agenda to legalize abortion."[120] They say that a two-child policy will make the country fail to cash in on a
possible demographic dividend of rapid economic growth, and great reduction of poverty, a chance for complete modernization without
destruction of human life and promotion of immorality.[38]
[edit]Status
[edit]Legislature
On 31 January 2011, six different bills were consolidated into a single RH Bill which was then unanimously approved for plenary debate
by the House Committee on Population and Family Relations. On 7 February 2011, the bill was scheduled to go before the House
Appropriations Committee. 16 February 2011 the bill was endorsed by the House Appropriations Committee with amendment and
referred back to the Population Committee for finalizing the language.
[edit]President and Cabinet
President Noynoy Aquino during the presidential campaign said that it confounds him why he is always associated with the RH Bill and
reiterated that he is neither an author nor a co-author, much less did he sign the committee report regarding the bill. He said that "he
will fully support the crafting of a firm policy that will address the serious problem on population." [32] At the same time, Aquino said that
"artificial contraception was a matter of choice and conscience and that health professionals who fool people into using artificial
contraceptives should be penalized. As a Catholic, Aquino said he himself was not promoting artificial contraception but believes that
the government should be able to provide it to Filipinos who ask for it." Aquino stressed: "Im a Catholic, Im not promoting it. My
position is more aptly called responsible parenthood rather than reproductive health."[33]

According to Rina Jimenez David who is pro-RH, during the Women Deliver Philippines Conference held September 2010, Dinky
Soliman, Aquino's Secretary of Social Welfare and Development, said that "choice and access constituted the keystone of the Aquino
governments policy, reiterating the administrations support for the pending reproductive health bills.[123]
The Cabinet and the CBCP have agreed to have a joint campaign providing full information on the advantages and risks of
contraceptives, natural and artificial family planning and responsible parenthood. They have established a technical working group for
this purpose. They also agreed that government will not be an "instrument to enforce or violate the conscience of the people about
these issues."
[edit]Compromise and alternatives
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, Congressman Roilo Golez and Buhay party-list separately filed bills that seek to restrict abortion
and birth control use. These bills have been seen either as a nullification of the RH Bill, its alternative, or as a way of achieving unity
among the populace, since the RH Bill proponents have stated their concern in preventing abortion.
Presidential candidate Gilbert Teodoro or Gibo suggested a cash transfer from the government to individuals wanting access to family
planning methods, whether natural or artificial. The individuals can then make use of the cash they receive to purchase birth control
devices they may choose, thus guaranteeing freedom of choice.[124]
The Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute on State and Church Issues issued 9 "Talking Points" on the RH Bill.
Among other points, they proposed a study on the meaning of conception in the Constitution, and if it means fertilization, abortifacients
"are to be banned even now and regardless of whether the RH Bill is passed". They also proposed "parallel programs for providing
information and training, one for Natural Family Planning (NFP) and another for artificial methods of family planning". [125] Columnist Jose
Sison of the Philippine Star criticized this: a Catholic School of theology has actually proposed in public, the use of tax payers money
to train Filipinos to employ methods that are objectively and intrinsically evil and cites "empirical evidence and scientific proofs
confirming the harmful and evil effects of contraceptives to individuals and to society." [126]
[edit]Recent Events
In September 2010, Aquino during this visit to the US reiterated his stand that he is in favor of responsible parenthood and respects the
decision of each couple as to the number of children they want, and if they need the government support for contraception, then the
government will provide it. This statement has created a furor as Catholic church leaders say that Aquino has sold out the Filipino soul
in exchange for some "measly" aid from the United States. The President of the Catholic Bishops Conference said that there can
possibly be an excommunication of the President if he continues on with his stance. Pro RH Bill Senators encouraged the President to
be steadfast to do his duties towards the state. The President's spokesperson Edwin Lacierda explained that the President "has not
changed his stand" and is reaching out to the prelates and said that the President himself has not made any decision in support of the
Reproductive Health Bill as he is still studying the document. Lacierda said that the Executive Branch "is not involved in the passage of
the RH bill, saying the measure's fate rests solely on the legislative branch."
Filipino Freethinkers, an association of agnostics, atheists, progressives, etc., who have been very active in the fight in favor of the RH
bill, stepped up the pressure, creating more controversy that fired up renewed interest in the bill on both sides. On 30 September 2010,
one of the freethinkers, Carlos Celdran staged a protest action against the Catholic Church, holding a sign which read "DAMASO" a
reference to the villainous, corrupt clergyman Father Dmaso of the novel Noli Me Tangere by Filipino revolutionary writer Jose Rizal
and shouting "stop getting involved in politics!" A fan page, Free Carlos Celdran was created in Facebook, which generated 23,808 fans
in 24 hours. Francisco Montalvan of the Inquirer said that in the end the Damasos are the scheming, corrupt and deceptive people,
implying that the "pro-death advocates" are these, while the Cardinal Rosales who started a nationwide fund for the poor is very far
from Damaso. Meanwhile, the Imam Council of the Philippines, the top leaders of the Moslem population which at 4.5 M constitutes 5%

of the Philippine population, declared that they are against contraceptives since using them "underestimates God," and "makes one
lose morality in the process."
During the first public hearing on 24 Nov, the chair of the Committee on Population handling the bill said that there is no instruction from
the Speaker of the House to expedite the bill. Upon the call of anti-RH congressmen, the Committee Chair decided to refer the bill also
to the Committee on Health, since the bill is about Reproductive Health. Leader of the pro-RH group, Elizabeth Ansioco, said that the
bill is doomed if it is referred to the Committee on Health. Anti-RH Deputy Speaker Congressman Pablo Garcia said the members of the
Committee on Health know of the WHO announcement on the carcinogenicity of combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives.
House Speaker Belmonte said that Congress is not likely to rush the legislation of the bill and will tackle it in plenary early next year.
Belmonte said it is better that highly contentious bills be given more attention.
On 3 December, the Senate cut the proposed budget of P 880M for contraceptives down to P 8M for condoms since other
contraceptives violated the Constitution's ban on abortifacients, and Senator Tito Sotto III said that his constituents never asked for
contraceptives.
Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) has expressed support for the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill. In a letter to House population and family relations
committee chairman Rep. Rogelio Espina on October 2010, INC Executive Minister Eduardo Manalo said the bill needs to be passed.
[edit]International reactions
[edit]European Union
European Union Ambassador to the Philippines Alistair MacDonald said "We have all seen the figures on illegal abortion a year in the
Philippines and I very much hope that both Houses of Congress will take these issues into account in producing a reproductive health
legislation which will really help people make their own choices and to provide for their families."[127]
MacDonald said that lack of effective access to reproductive health services in the Philippines was 'antithetical' to the countrys struggle
against poverty and "It seems to me extremely unlikely that the Philippines will be able to meet its commitment under the MDGs under
the present policy."[127] MacDonald noted that the total fertility rate for the richest quintile of the population is 2.0, while the total fertility
rate of the poorest quintile is 5.9. The total fertility rate for women with a college education is 2.3, about half that of women with only
elementary education (4.5). He mentioned that the lack of access to RH services is anti-women, citing the slow decline in the maternal
mortality ratio in the Philippines. He also said surveys suggest that the total wanted fertility rate for the Philippines is 2.4 children, or
below the actual TFR of 3.3 children.[127]
[edit]International scholars
An international group of conservative catholic scholars, including George Weigel, Mary Ann Glendon, Thomas Lickona have expressed
opposition to the bill in a one-page ad in the major newspapers of the Philippines, entitled Population Control Does Not Reduce
Poverty. They refer to the RAND Corporation study of 2003, which states that "Most economic analysis has examined the statistical
correlation between population and economic growth and found little significant connection... there is little cross-country evidence that
population growth impedes or promotes economic growth... The neutralist theory has been the dominant view since the mid-1980s...
population neutralism has in fact been the predominant school in thinking among academics about population growth for the last halfcentury."[14]
The international scholars stressed that "Corruption, lack of education, and lack of opportunity cause poverty. The poor are victims of
poverty, not the cause of poverty... HB 96 seeks to establish a government-managed program of population management and
demographic targets in the Philippines. This policy is based on incorrect economics assumptions."

The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that the Philippines is overpopulated.

I agree. I, myself, have observed that the Philippine is NOT overpopulated. In fact, if you use your common sense and think about it,
you will realize a few things:
1. We are not overpopulated! Look at the mountains, the jungles, the caves and the ocean floor. There are no people there!
2. If we were really overpopulated, we would have trouble travelling. But if you go to EDSA, theres no traffic. When you ride the MRT,
its not packed with people.
3. Students in public schools are well educated because the teacher to student ratio is very low. In fact, because of our low population
the government can basically guarantee that all public school students are provided books, notebooks and other school supplies.

The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that contraceptives are good for mankind and women.
1. I agree, the RH Bill is not good for women because it might draw a woman away from her one, true, universal purpose the
uninterrupted production of healthy babies.
2. Furthermore, the role of women in society and the universe is to make babies. Thats why God made women. Thats their sole
purpose in life. Theyre not good for anything else. Ever wonder why there are no women in the clergy? Because theyre not good
enough.
3. Contraceptives would allow women to enjoy the benefits of physical intimacy while maintaining a successful and productive career, if
she so chooses. That is so wrong. Only men should be able to enjoy that privilege.
4. Women should get pregnant every single time they have sex and only immoral women enjoy sex without the possibility of
conception. In fact, a better alternative would be for women, in general, to follow the example made by Mother Mary to learn how to
conceive without having sex.

The RH bill will put Filipinos at risk of extinction!

1. I agree. If we pass the RH bill, we will become extinct, like dinosaurs. The dinosaurs are all dead. If we dont want to be extinct, we
should not pass the RH Bill. I mean, do you really want to be a dinosaur?
2. In my opinion, it wouldnt even be far-fetched to speculate that the most probable reason the dinosaurs became extinct was because
they used contraceptives.
3. Population decline is just bad for nations. Just look at the countries which have a declining population Italy, Japan and Singapore.
Theyre in such a bad shape. The Philippines obviously has a better economy and has a higher literacy rate than these countries. In
fact, many Italians, Japanese, and Singaporeans go to the Philippines for work. That only goes to show that a decline in population is
bad for the economy.

Our population is our biggest asset!

1. In my opinion, people should make as many babies as they can because the population is not a problem. In fact, the more babies a
person has, the more assets he has. Forget real estate properties, stock investments, or Jollibee franchises. The real secret to
increased wealth is babies.
2. If you have 15 babies, youre practically wealthy because babies are assets:
2.1 If you need money, you can sell them.
2.2 If you can keep them alive until they can walk, they can one day beg for money in the streets theyre going to have to anyway
because theres no way in hell youll be able to provide for all of them on your own.
3. If ever a person is not able to feed the 15 babies he made, its the governments fault, because its the governments sole
responsibility to make sure that every Filipino baby is fed.

4. The best way a person can contribute to his country is to contribute to its population.

The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that reproductive education and contraceptives will effectively reduce cases of
abortion.
1. Reproductive/contraceptive education will have no effect on the number of abortion cases. In my opinion, these abortion cases will
not lessen because women will continue to have abortions regardless of whether they are pregnant or not.
2. Abortions cannot be prevented. Its just something that women naturally do. Like shopping, for example.

The RH Bill is wrong because it will make people participate in extra-marital and pre-marital sex.
1. By approving the RH Bill, we as a nation, are practically encouraging our people to engage in immoral activities.
2. We must protect our moral values and reject the RH Bill. Because, currently, not a single Filipino engages in pre-marital sex or extramarital sex. As soon as this bill is approved, Filipino people will run the streets naked and start a national orgy!
3. The root cause of extra-marital and pre-marital sex is ones exposure to contraceptives. There is just something in contraceptives
that people find very arousing.
4. In Western countries, men lure strange women into bed by showing them condoms.
5. If we ban condoms, absolutely no one would engage in pre-marital or extra-marital sex.

The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that parents dont teach their children about sex.
1. The truth is that parents talk to their children about sex all the time. Its so not awkward. The dad usually tells his children how he
takes off all his clothes, does a sexy Tiger growl and makes sweet, sweet music with their mothers body.
2. Also, a father usually advises his daughter that if shes going to have sex with her boyfriend, she should use a condom. Sometimes
the father even drives the daughter to the boyfriends house and waits for the couple to finish.
3. Filipino daughters dont have sex without the fathers permission. Unwanted pregnancies or teen pregnancies never happen to
Filipino girls. Thats why we do not need the RH Bill.

The RH Bill is a conspiracy.

1. Its lies, all lies!

The RH Bill is wrong because the priest said so, and priests are never wrong.
The biggest reason why we should not pass the RH Bill is because the priests told us that we shouldnt. As anyone should know,
priests, men of the clergy, should be the authority on sexual and reproductive matters because they have the most knowledge and
experience with sex and reproduction. They are true sexperts legendary masters of erotic affairs. If you are a real Catholic, you would
do everything they say, because theyre always right.

HOUSE BILL NO. 5043

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A NATIONAL POLICY ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD AND POPULATION
DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. Short Title. This Act shall be known as the Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008.
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. The State upholds and promotes responsible parenthood, informed choice, birth spacing and respect
for life in conformity with internationally recognized human rights standards.
The State shall uphold the right of the people, particularly women and their organizations, to effective and reasonable participation in
the formulation and implementation of the declared policy.
This policy is anchored on the rationale that sustainable human development is better assured with a manageable population of
healthy, educated and productive citizens.

The State likewise guarantees universal access to medically-safe, legal, affordable and quality reproductive health care services,
methods, devices, supplies and relevant information thereon even as it prioritizes the needs of women and children,among other
underprivileged sectors.
SEC. 3. Guiding Principles. This Act declares the following as basic guiding principles:
a. In the promotion of reproductive health, there should be no bias for either modern or natural methods of family planning;
b. Reproductive health goes beyond a demographic target because it is principally about health and rights;
c. Gender equality and women empowerment are central elements of reproductive health and population development;
d. Since manpower is the principal asset of every country, effective reproductive health care services must be given primacy to ensure
the birth and care of healthy children and to promote responsible parenting;
e. The limited resources of the country cannot be suffered to, be spread so thinly to service a burgeoning multitude that makes the
allocations grossly inadequate and effectively meaningless;
f. Freedom of informed choice, which is central to the exercise of any right, must be fully guaranteed by the State like the right itself;
g. While the number and spacing of children are left to the sound judgment of parents and couples based on their personal conviction
and religious beliefs, such concerned parents and couples, including unmarried individuals, should be afforded free and full access to
relevant, adequate and correct information on reproductive health and human sexuality and should be guided by qualified State
workers and professional private practitioners;
h. Reproductive health, including the promotion of breastfeeding, must be the joint concern of the National Government and Local
Government Units(LGUs);
i. Protection and promotion of gender equality, women empowerment and human rights, including reproductive health rights, are
imperative;
j. Development is a multi-faceted process that calls for the coordination and integration of policies, plans, programs and projects that
seek to uplift the quality of life of the people, more particularly the poor, the needy and the marginalized;
k. Active participation by and thorough consultation with concerned non-government organizations (NGOs), peoples organizations
(POs) and communities are imperative to ensure that basic policies, plans, programs and projects address the priority needs of
stakeholders;
l. Respect for, protection and fulfillment of reproductive health rights seek to promote not only the rights and welfare of adult individuals
and couples but those of adolescents and childrens as well; and
m. While nothing in this Act changes the law on abortion, as abortion remains a crime and is punishable, the government shall ensure
that women seeking care for post-abortion complications shall be treated and counseled in a humane, non-judgmental and
compassionate manner.
SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall be defined as follows:
a. Responsible Parenthood refers to the will, ability and cornmitTrient of parents to respond to the needs and aspirations of the family
and children more particularly through family planning;
b. Family Planning refers to a program which enables couple, and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and
spacing of their children and to have the information and means to carry out their decisions, and to have informed choice and access to
a full range of safe, legal and effective family planning methods, techniques and devices.
c. Reproductive Health -refers to the state of physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity,
in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its funcitions and processes. This implies that people are able to have a
satisfying and safe sex life, that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so,
provided that these are not against the law. This further implies that women and men are afforded equal status in matters related to
sexual relations and reproduction.
d. Reproductive Health Rights refers to the rights of individuals and couples do decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing
and timing of their children; to make other decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence; to have the
information and means to carry out their decisions; and to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health.
e. Gender Equality refers to the absence of discrimination on the basis of a persons sex, in opportunities, allocation of resources and
benefits, and access to services.
f. Gender Equity refers to fairness and justice in the distribution of benefits and responsibilities between women and men, and often
requires. women-specific projects and programs to eliminate existing inequalities, inequities, policies and practices unfavorable too
women.
g. Reproductive Health Care refers to the availability of and access to a full range of methods, techniques, supplies and services that
contribute to reproductive and sexual health and well-being by preventing and solving reproductive health-related problems in order to
achieve enhancement of life and personal relations. The elements of reproductive health care include:
1. Maternal, infant and child health and nutrition;
2. Promotion of breastfeeding;
3. Family planning information end services;
4. Prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications;

5. Adolescent and youth health;

6. Prevention and management of reproductive tract infections (RTIs), HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmittable infections (STIs);
7. Elimination ofviolence against women;
8. Education and counseling on sexuality and sexual and reproductive health;
9. Treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers and other gynecological conditions;
10. Male involvement and participation in reproductive health;,
11. Prevention and treatmentof infertility and sexual dysfunction; and
12. Reproductive health education for the youth.
h. Reproductive Health Education refers to the process of acquiring complete, accurate and relevant information on all matters
relating to the reproductive system, its functions and processes and human sexuality; and forming attitudes and beliefs about sex,
sexual identity, interpersonal relationships, affection, intimacy and gender roles. It also includes developing the necessary skills do be
able to distinguish between facts and myths on sex and sexuality; and critically evaluate. and discuss the moral, religious, social and
cultural dimensions of related sensitive issues such as contraception and abortion.
i. Male involvement and participation refers to the involvement, participation, commitment and joint responsibility of men with women
in all areas of sexual and reproductive health, as well as reproductive health concerns specific to men.
j. Reproductive tract infection (RTI) refers do sexually transmitted infections, sexually transmitted diseases and other types ofinfections affecting the reproductive system.
k. Basic Emergency Obstetric Care refers to lifesaving services for maternal complication being provided by a health facility or
professional which must include the following six signal functions: administration of parenteral antibiotics; administration of parrenteral
oxyttocic drugs; administration of parenteral anticonvulsants for pre-eclampsia and iampsia; manual removal of placenta; and assisted
vaginal delivery.
l. Comprehensive Emergency Obstetric Care refers to basic emergency obstetric care plus two other signal functions: performance of
caesarean section and blood transfusion.
m. Maternal Death Review refers to a qualitative and in-depth study of the causes of maternal death with the primary purpose of
preventing future deaths through changes or additions to programs, plans and policies.
n. Skilled Attendant refers to an accredited health professional such as a licensed midwife, doctor or nurse who has adequate
proficiency and the skills to manage normal (uncomplicated) pregnancies, childbirth and the immediate postnatal period, and in the
identification, management and referral of complication in women and newborns.
o. Skilled Attendance refers to childbirth managed by a skilled attendant under the enabling conditions of a functional
emergencyobstetric care and referral system.
p. Development refers to a multi-dimensional process involving major changes in social structures, popular attitudes, and national
institutions as well as the acceleration of economic growth, the reduction of inequality and the eradication of widespread poverty.
q. Sustainable Human Development refers to the totality of the process of expending human choices by enabling people to enjoy
long, healthy and productive lives, affording them access to resources needed for a decent standard of living and assuring continuity
and acceleration of development by achieving a balance between and among a manageable population, adequate resources and a
healthy environment.
r. Population Development refers to a program that aims to: (1) help couples and parents achieve their desired family size; (2)
improve reproductive health of individuals by addressing reproductive health problems; (3) contribute to decreased maternal and infant
mortality rates and early child mortality; (4) reduce incidence of teenage pregnancy; and (5) enable government to achieve a balanced
population distribution.
SEC. 5. The Commission on Population (POPC0NI). Pursuant to the herein declared policy, the Commission on Population
(POPCOM) shall serve as the central planning, coordinating, implementing and monitoring body for the comprehensive and integrated
policy on reproductive health and population development. In the implementation of this policy, POPCOM, which shall be an attached
agency of the Department of Health (DOH) shall have the following functions:
a. To create an enabling environment for women and couples to make an informed choice regarding the family planning method that is
best suited to their needs and personal convictions;
b. To integrate on a continuing basis the interrelated reproductive health and population development agenda into a national policy,
taking into account regional and local concerns;
c. To provide the mechanism to ensure active and full participation of the private sector and the citizenry through their organizations in
the planning and implementation of reproductive health care and population development programs and projects;
d. To ensure peoples access to medically safe, legal, quality and affordable reproductive health goods and services;
e. To facilitate the involvement and participation of non-government organizations and the private sector in reproductive health care
service delivery and in the production, distribution and delivery of quality reproductive: health and family planning supplies and
commodities to make them accessible and affordable to ordinary citizens;
f. To fully implement the Reproductive Health Care Program with the following components:

(1) Reproductive health education including but not limited to counseling on the full range of legal and medically-safe family planning
methods including surgical methods;
(2) Maternal, pen-natal and post-natal education, care and services;
(3) Promotion of breastfeeding;
(4) Promotion of male involvement, participation and responsibility in reproductive health as well as other reproductive health concerns
of men;
(5) Prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications; and
(6) Provision of information and services addressing the reproductive health needs of the poor, senior citizens, women in prostitution,
differently-abled persons, and women and children in war AND crisis situations.
g. To ensure that reproductive health services are delivered with a full range of supplies, facilities and equipment and that service
providers are adequately trained for reproductive health care;
h. To endeavor to furnish local Family Planning Offices with appropriate information and resources to keep the latter updated on current
studies and research relating to family planning, responsible parenthood, breastfeeding and infant nutrition;
i. To direct all public hospitals to make available to indigent mothers who deliver their children in these government hospitals, upon the
mothers request, the procedure of ligation without cost to her;
j. To recommend the enactment of legislation and adoption of executive measures that will strengthen and enhance the national policy
on reproductive health and population development;
k. To ensure a massive and sustained information drive on responsible parenthood and on all methods and techniques to prevent
unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies, it shall release information bulletins on the same for nationwide circulation to all
government departments, agencies and instrumentalities, non-government organizations and the private sector, schools, public and
private libraries, tri-media outlets, workplaces, hospitals and concerned health institutions;
l. To strengthen the capacities of health regulatory agencies to ensure safe, high-quality, accessible, and affordable reproductive health
services and commodities with the concurrent strengthening and enforcement of regulatory mandates and mechanisms;
m. To take active steps to expand the coverage of the National Health Insurance Program (NHIP), especially among poor and
marginalized women, to include the full range of reproductive health services and supplies as health insurance benefits; and
n. To perform such other functions necessary to attain the purposes of this Act.
The membership of the Board of Commissioners of POPCOM shall consist of the heads of the following AGENCIES:
1. National Economic DevelopmentAuthority (VEDA)
2. Department of Health (DOH)
3. Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD)
4. Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
5. Department of Agriculture (DA)
6. Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG)
7. Department of Education (DepEd)
8. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
9. Commission on Higher Education (CHED)
10. University of the Philippines Population Institute (UPPI)
11. Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAFI)
12. National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPQ
13. National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women (NCRFW)
14. National Youth Commission (NYC)
In addition to the aforementioned, members, there shall be three private sector representatives to the Board of Commissioners of
POPCOM who shall come from NGOs. There shall be one (1) representative each from women, youth and health sectors who have a
proven track record of involvement in the promotion of reproductive health. These representatives shall be nominated in a process
determined by the above-mentioned sectors, and to be appointed by the President for a term of three (3)years.
SEC. 6. Midwives for Skilled Attendance. -Every city and municipality shall endeavor to employ adequate number of midwives or other
skilled attendants to achieve a minimum ratio of one (1)for every one hundred fifty (150) deliveries per year, to be based on the average
annual number of actual deliveries or live births for the past two years.
SEC. 7. Emergency Obstetric Care. Each province. and city shall endeavor to ensure the establishment and operation of hospitals
with adequate and qualified personnel that provide emergency obstetric care. For every 500,000 population, there shall be at least one
(1) hospital for comprehensive emergency obstetric care and four (4) hospitals for basic emergency obstetric care.
SEC. 8. Maternal Death Review. All LGUs, national and local government hospitals, and other public health units shall conduct
maternal death review in accordance with the guidelines to be issued by the DOH in consultation with the POPCOM.
SEC. 9. Hospital-Based Family Planning. -Tubal ligation, vasectomy, intrauterine device insertion and other family planning methods
requiring hospital services shall be available in all national and local government hospitals, except: in specialty hospitals which may

render such services on an optional basis. For indigent patients, such services shall be fully covered by PhilHealth insurance and/or
government financial assistance.
SEC. 10. Contraceptives as Essential Medicines. 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 lord hospitals and other government health units.
SEC. 11. Mobile Health Care Service. -Each Congressional District shall be provided with a van to be known as the Mobile Health Care
Service (MHOS) to deliver health care goods and services to its constituents, more particularly to the poor and needy, as well as
disseminate knowledge and information on reproductive health: Provided, That reproductive health education shall be conducted by
competent and adequately trained persons preferably reproductive health care providers: Provided, further, That the full range of family
planning methods, both natural and modern, shall be promoted.
The acquisition, operation and maintenance of the MRCS shall be funded from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of
each Congressional District.
The MHCS shall be adequately equipped with a wide range of reproductive health care materials and information dissemination
devices and equipment, the latter including but not limited to, a television set for audio-visual presentation.
SEC. 12. Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health Education. Recognizing the importance of reproductive health rights in
empowering the youth and developing them into responsible adults, Reproductive Health Education in an age-appropriate manner shall
be taught by adequately trained teachers starting from Grade 5 up to Fourth Year High School. In order to assure the prior training of
teachers on reproductive health, the implementation of Reproductive Health Education shall commence at the start of the school year
one year following the effectivity of this Act. The POPCOM, in coordination with the Department of Education, shall formulate the
Reproductive Health Education curriculum, which shall be common to both public and private schools and shall include related
population and development concepts in addition to the following subjects and standards:
a. Reproductive health and sexual rights;
b. Reproductive health care and services;
c. Attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development, sexual behavior and sexual health;
d. Proscription and hazards of abortion and management of post-abortion complications;
e. Responsible parenthood.
f. Use and application of natural and modern family planning methods to promote reproductive health, achieve desired family size and
prevent unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies;
g. Abstinence before marriage;
h. Prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other, STIs/STDs, prostate cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer and other gynecological
disorders;
i. Responsible sexuality; and
j. Maternal, peri-natal and post-natal education, care and services.
In support of the natural, and primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth, the POPCOM shall provide concerned parents with
adequate and relevant scientific materials on the age-appropriate topics and manner of teaching reproductive health education to their
children.
In the elementary level, reproductive health education shall focus, among others, on values formation.
Non-formal education programs shall likewise include the abovementioned reproductive Health Education.
SEC. 13. Additional Duty of Family Planning 0ffice. Each local Family Planning Office shall furnish for free instructions and information
on family planning, responsible parenthood, breastfeeding and infant nutrition to all applicants for marriage license.
SEC. 14. Certificate of Compliance. No marriage license shall be issued by the Local Civil Registrar unless the applicants present a
Certificate of Compliance issued for free by the local Family Planning Office certifying that they had duly received adequate instructions
and information on family planning, responsible parenthood, breastfeeding and infant nutrition.
SEC. 15. Capability Building of Community-Based Volunteer Workers. Community-based volunteer workers, like but not limited to,
Barangay Health Workers, shall undergo additional and updated training on the delivery of reproductive health care services and shall
receive not less than 10% increase in honoraria upon successful completion of training. The increase in honoraria shall be funded from
the Gender and Development (GAD) budget of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), Department of Health
(DOH) and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG).
SEC. 16. Ideal Family Size. The State shall assist couples, parents and individuals to achieve their desired family size within the
context of responsible parenthood for sustainable development and encourage them to have two children as the ideal family size.
Attaining the ideal family size is neither mandatory nor compulsory. No punitive action shall be imposed on parents having more than
two children.
SEC. 17. Employers Responsibilities. Employers shall respect the reproductive health rights of all their workers. Women shall not be
discriminated against in the matter of hiring, regularization of employment status or selection for retrenchment.

All Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) shall provide for the free delivery by the employer of reasonable quantity of reproductive
health care services, supplies and devices to all workers, more particularly women workers. In establishments or enterprises where
there are no CBAs or where the employees are unorganized, the employer shall have the same obligation.
SEC. 18. Support of Private and Non-government Health Care Service Providers. Pursuant to Section 5(b) hereof, private
reproductive health care service providers, including but not limited to gynecologists and obstetricians, are encouraged to join their
colleagues in non-government organizations in rendering such services free of charge or at reduced professional fee rates to indigent
and low income patients.
SEC. 19. Multi-Media Campaign. POPCOM shall initiate and sustain an intensified nationwide multi-media campaign to raise the level
of public awareness on the urgent need to protect and promote reproductive health and rights.
SEC. 20. Reporting Requirements. Before the end of April of each year,the DOH shall submit an annual report to the President of the
Philippines, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives on a definitive and comprehensive
assessment of the implementation of this Act and shall make the necessary recommendations for executive and legislative action. The
report shall be posted in the website of DOH and printed copies shall be made available to all stakeholders.
SEC. 21. Prohibited Acts. The following acts are prohibited:
a) Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall:
1. 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;
2. Refuse to perform voluntary ligation and vasectomy and other legal and medically-safe reproductive health care services on any
person of legal age on the ground of lack of spousal consent or authorization.
3. Refuse to provide reproductive health care services to an abused minor, whose abused condition is certified by the proper official or
personnel of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) or to duly DSWD-certified abused pregnant minor on whose
case no parental consent is necessary.
4. Fail to provide, either deliberately or through gross or inexcusable negligence, reproductive health care services as mandated under
this Act, the Local Government Code of 1991, the Labor Code, and Presidential Decree 79, as amended; and
5. Refuse to extend reproductive health care services and information on account of the patients civil status, gender or sexual
orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work; Provided, That all conscientious objections of health care service
providers based on religious grounds shall be respected: Provided, further, That the conscientious objector shall immediately refer the
person seeking such care and services to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently
accessible: Provided, finally, That the patient is not in an emergency or serious case as defined in RA 8344 penalizing the refusal of
hospitals and medical clinics to administer appropriate initial medical treatment and support in emergency and serious cases.
b) Any public official who prohibits or restricts personally or through a subordinate the delivery of legal and medically-safe reproductive
health care services, including family planning;
c) Any employer who shall fail to comply with his obligation under Section 17 of this Act or an employer who requires a female applicant
or employee, as a condition for employment or continued employment, to involuntarily undergo sterilization, tubal ligation or any other
form of contraceptive method;
d) Any person who shall falsify a certificate of compliance as required in Section 14 of this Act; and
e) Any person who maliciously en ges in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.
SEC. 22. Penalties. The proper city or municipal court shall exercise jurisdiction over violations of this Act and the accused who is
found guilty shall be sentenced to an imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six (6) months or a fine ranging from Ten Thousand
Pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. If the
offender is a juridical person, the penalty shall be imposed upon the president, treasurer, secretary or any responsible officer. An
offender who is an alien shall, after service of sentence, be deported immediately without further proceedings by the Bureau of
Immigration. An offender who is a public officer or employee shall suffer the accessory penalty of dismissal from the government
service.
Violators of this Act shall be civilly liable to the offended party in such amount at the discretion of the proper court.
SEC. 23. Appropriations. The amounts appropriated in the current annual General Appropriations Act for reproductive health and
family planning under the DOH and POPCOM together with ten percent (10%) of the Gender and Development (GAD) budgets of all
government departments, agencies, bureaus, offices and instrumentalities funded in the annual General Appropriations Act in
accordance with Republic Act No. 7192 (Women in Development and Nation-building Act) and Executive Order No. 273 (Philippine Plan
for Gender Responsive Development 1995-2025) shall be allocated and utilized for the implementation of this Act. Such additional
sums as may be necessary for the effective implementation of this Act shall be Included in the subsequent years General
Appropriations Acts.
SEC. 24. Implementing Rules and Regulations. Within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of this Act, the Department of Health shall
promulgate, after thorough consultation with the Commission on Population (POPCOM), the National Economic Development Authority

(NEDA), concerned non-government organizations (NGOs) and known reproductive health advocates, the requisite implementing rules
and regulations.
SEC. 25. Separability Clause. If any part, section or provision of this Act is held invalid or unconstitutional, other provisions not
affected thereby shall remain in full force and effect.
SEC. 26. Repealing Clause. All laws, decrees, Orders, issuances, rules and regulations contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions
of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.
SEC. 27. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of national
circulation.
UP School Of Economics : Population, Poverty, Politics and the Reproductive Health Bill

A contraceptive is a method, device or pharmaceutical drug that prevents pregnancy. People have been using different
forms of contraceptives for centuries. The birth control pill, a hormonal contraceptive, is among the various medical
discoveries of the 20th century and has had lasting effects for women and men. New and improved contraceptives are
regularly created and marketed, giving people affordable and generally safe birth control options.
There are negative effects possible with all methods of birth control. Failure to prevent pregnancy is one possible negative
effect of all birth control methods, including natural methods; however, artificial birth control methods have other negative
effects associated with them.
Birth Control Pills, Injections and Patches
Birth control pills, injections and patches are hormonal birth control options. The common side effects of these are all
similar. Increased acne, weight gain, depression, spotting between periods, loss of libido, vaginal infections and
nausea/vomiting are all possible side effects of hormonal birth control methods. Serious side effects include blood clots, a
possible increased risk of cervical cancer, heart attacks and strokes.
Condoms, Cervical Cap, Diaphragm, Spermicides, Sponges
Condoms, cervical caps, diaphragms, spermicides and sponges are barrier methods of birth control. Side effects of these
include an allergic reaction to the materials used in the products and irritation while using the products. In some cases,
toxic shock syndrome may occur, especially if the products aren't removed immediately after use. The spermicide
frequently used, nonoxynol-9, may increase the risk of contracting HIV, according to the World Health Organization.
Diaphragms and cervical caps may make a woman more susceptible to urinary tract infections.
Vaginal Rings and IUDs
Vaginal rings and intrauterine devices (IUDs) increase a woman's chance of developing vaginitis. Severe bleeding and
cramping, uterine perforation and pain after insertion can be side effects of IUDs.
Sterilization
Female and male sterilization both have a risk of pain and/or regret after the surgery. A female who has a tubal ligation
faces the risk of complications with the anesthesia used for the surgery. There is also a risk of an ectopic pregnancy if the
surgery fails to work properly.
Emergency Contraception
Emergency contraception is used to prevent an unwanted pregnancy after having unprotected sex. The side effects of
emergency contraception usually abate within a day after the last dose is taken. Nausea, vomiting, breast tenderness and
fatigue are all possible side effects of this type of birth control. The U.S. National Institutes of Health also lists abdominal
pain as a side effect.