“The Comedy of the RH Law”

Do the advocates of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, informally known as Reproductive Health Law or RH Law, really believe that the law can really achieve its intended purpose? Or they are just wasting people’s money since the law will only bring the converse.

In my view, the RH Law is more detrimental than beneficial, for the reason that the arguments used to pass it were made on faulty ground.

The TEN FAULTY ASSUMPTIONS the passage of the RH Law was founded on:

FIRST: The law advocates presented a fact that “14-15 mothers die daily in the Philippines in complications related to childbirth and that the law can reduce maternal mortality by about 32%.”

This is like saying: “There’s a finding that the more people walk, the greater the chances of people tripping. Therefore, the best solution is—for people to stop walking so they can avoid tripping.” It’s the getting tripped—more than anything else—that decides if a person should walk or not. Truly, we just cannot stop the reality of walking. Walking is basic to life; no walking, no life. Tripping is part and parcel of walking.

In parallel: “There’s a finding that more women are dying daily due to complications in childbirth. Therefore, the solution is—for women to stop the pregnancy so they don’t run the risk of dying during delivery.” It’s the chance of dying in childbirth—more than anything else—that decides if a woman should wish to get pregnant or not. Truly, we just cannot stop the reality of pregnancy. Pregnancy is basic to life; no pregnancy, no life. Complications are part and parcel of pregnancy.

SECOND: The law advocates presented a fact, as certified by the Food and Drug Administration, that “the contraceptives are non-abortifacient, paving the law to be implemented.”

The good news about this fact is—if a woman starts or continues taking pills not knowing she’s pregnant, the pills will not allegedly harm the baby inside her womb. Be that as it may, the contraceptive experts would advise women to not take the risk: “Stop taking pills at once if you’re sure you’re pregnant.”

But the bad news here is: “How many women would immediately know that they were pregnant as to stop the pills right away? Worse, after knowing they were pregnant, how many would really think of stopping it and not just go ahead with the pills to kill the baby inside?” Remember, the very reason they take pills is to prevent pregnancy. And remember too that the advice is “not to take the risk,” meaning, if the woman continues taking the pills, “there is the risk.” But suppose, despite the mother’s attempt to stifle the baby’s life, the baby survives—will the baby yet come out normal? [This is not to mention that the pills may even be fake and very harmful both to the mother and the baby.]

My prediction is (and I hope I’m wrong)—with the implementation of the RH Law, the claimed saving of the “14-15 women that die daily from childbirth complication” will now be replaced by “14-15 deformed babies that will be born daily from misuse of contraception.”

I would rather see a million unwanted babies born due to lack of access to birth control methods but “all came out normal,” than see a thousand unwanted babies born due to misuse of contraception and “all came out deformed.” For me, one deformed baby is equivalent to a million births controlled by the contraception. To the advocates of the law, “Suppose you are that baby?” All birth defects brought about by the failure of contraception shall be upon the advocates of the RH Law!

“Life is so sacred” that just considering this one factor of birth defects alone, our country will be far much “saner and healthier” without the contraception!

THIRD: The law advocates asserted that “the artificial family planning method is more reliable than the natural method.”

I say, either method requires DISCIPLINE. If the users of the natural method have the discipline, they may even end up more successful than the artificial users who don’t have the discipline. Just using the condom alone in every sex already takes discipline, to say nothing of having it with you always every time you need it.

Contraceptives are not wonder drugs that even if the women don’t take them as directed, the pills will still do their job as well. The contraceptives to be 99.9% effective, women ought to take them “at the same time every day without a miss.” Unfortunately, taking contraceptives are just like vitamins where almost all of us are guilty of occasionally forgetting. In the end, contraceptives are like guns: “When properly handled they protect, when mishandled they backfire.”

FOURTH: The law advocates assured that “the law shall bring reproductive health to women, hence the name ‘REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH LAW’.”

The purpose of the contraception is to prevent pregnancy, hardly to promote health. And contraceptives are drugs. All drugs, whether prescription or over-the-counter, can have side effects. Unfortunately, the contraceptives have a litany of side effects which includes headaches, migraine, nausea, breast enlargement or tenderness, breast cancer, chest pain, weight gain, mood changes, depression, high blood pressure, liver injury, kidney injury, heart problems, strokes, and even instant death. In the end, health risks are a million times greater for women taking contraception than those who don’t. I pity all those women who are so healthy-looking but when they start taking pills begin to look like an emotional wreck.

FIFTH: The law advocates argued that “the use of contraceptives can reduce abortion rates by 85%.”

Surprisingly, Germany—a highly developed country where all their women have access to all kinds of modern contraception—has an alarming abortion rate that runs to 100,000 every year. And their population is even fewer than ours—86 million as against our 100 million.

I can bet my bottom dollar that all abortions that have happened here in our country have been performed on “almost all women that have access to modern contraception”—but still did become pregnant. How do I know this? It’s because a good and safe abortion is expensive which the poor can never well afford, to say nothing of it being mostly performed abroad as abortion is illegal in the Philippines. This explains why the number of the poor continually bloats as against the fertility rate of the rich that is well “controlled” due to the latter’s access to safe but pricey abortions.

SIXTH: The law advocates affirmed that “the law will slow down the growth of the birth rate paving the way for the country to rapidly grow.”

That argument is close to saying, “It is better for the country if there will be more deaths than births than having more births than deaths.”

This is what I can say: “If you’re building a ship, you need more people to do it than when you’re building a boat. If you’re building a skyscraper, you need more people to do it than when you’re building a house. If you’re building a city, you need more people to do it than when you’re building a town. If you’re building a great nation, you need more people to do it than when you’re building a community fit for the poor.”

A heavy cargo could be more easily pulled by ten people than by just two people. Crimes could be more likely curbed if there are more law enforcers in the streets than if there are just a few. Justice could be more speedily served if there are more judges to hear the cases than if there are just a handful.

NUMBER [of people] is STRENGTH! You can topple down a dictator by sheer number, even without guns. You can farm thousands of hectares of land with number, even with no modern implements. You can even flatten a mountain with number, even with just picks and shovels. It is all a matter of knowing how to parlay the number so much so that a leader who sees no “power in number” will cry when confronted with a high population, as against a leader who considers it as a power and is sad because he doesn’t have the number.

“A country that has the greatest number of people shall stand superior to any other countries with fewer, if the leaders of that country know how to use its strength in number.” Any small country that seeks world dominance can never happen unless it borrows millions of people from other lands. Hitler supplemented his German forces with millions of non-German soldiers to win the war.

In the final analysis, “a rise in population is the answer to a nation seeking a rise in economic growth.” For this, we Filipinos must celebrate, rather than condemn ourselves, that we have one of the highest fertility rates among our neighbors. The higher the fertility, the better! Fertility is a blessing! They who don’t see it that way are scourges to our nation!

At the end of the day, our problem is not having too many people, but lack of leaders with right perceptions. “Contraception won’t shape the nation, good leaders will.”

In the first place, “Is there really overpopulation in the Philippines?”

My answer is—“Four hundred years from now, yes!”

The Philippine’s total land area is 310,780 square kilometers. If you divide that by the number of our population which presently stands at 100 million, the result is .00311 per sq. km. or 311 people per one million square meters. Is that overpopulation?

If we assume that overpopulation is defined as having one person per one square meter, then—at our present annual growth rate of 1.9%—it will likely take more than 400 years for the Philippines to reach that much dreaded overpopulation. And in my computation, deaths are not even factored in, like deaths from natural calamities such as floods, tsunamis, earthquakes, conflagrations, and tornadoes; sicknesses and plagues; man-made destruction like crimes, armed conflicts, and possible World War III; and, of course, the natural deaths from old age. So where are the sense and the urgency of all this RH Law?

Lastly, let us assume that the law advocates were right: “That by slowing down the birth growth, the economy can indeed rapidly grow.”

However, slowing down the birth growth is yet a growth, isn’t it? For as long as births outnumber deaths, the population grows. Over the years, this gradual but slow growth shall reach the so-called much dreaded peak. Then what now? In effect, we have just prolonged our agony like the man on death row whose execution always gets delayed until the day finally comes.

If the law advocates really believe that high population has a link with the stunted growth of the country, why settle for the slowing down and not the outright stopping like China’s one-child policy?

SEVENTH: The law advocates said that “the law will reduce poverty by curbing the population growth rate.”

If I understand them correctly, “their solution to poverty reduction is contraceptives.” So when people do go hungry due to bad governance, the solution to reduce the hunger is contraceptives! When people do go hungry due to bad economic policies, the solution to reduce the hunger is contraceptives! When people do go hungry due to massive and relentless corruption, the solution to reduce the hunger is contraceptives! When people do go hungry due to senseless political infighting, the solution to reduce the hunger is contraceptives! When people do go hungry due to lack of employment opportunities, the solution to reduce the hunger is contraceptives! When people do go hungry due to worsening peace and order, the solution to reduce the hunger is contraceptives!

If population is really a factor, have the law advocates defined at what LEVEL OF POPULATION then is the most productive one for the country? Is it at 100 million? At 80 million? At 60 million?

During the time of President Ramos in 1992, the population stood at 66 million and there was poverty. During the time of President Marcos in 1960 when the population was only 20 million, there was poverty. In the time of Rizal when population was a mere 8 million, there was poverty. Two thousand years ago in the time of Jesus where the population of Israel stood at only a fraction of a million, there was poverty. This I must say: “Even if there are only two people in the world but if one of them is mightier and greedy, the other can only live a life of poverty and misery.”

If ? of the land is owned by 10,000 people and ? by the 99,990,000—it is not population growth problem, but greed!

Again, if high population is truly a detrimental factor to economic growth, then the Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia ought to be more prosperous than China, since China’s population of 1.4 billion exceeds the combined population of the three; or, Japan ought to be poorer than the Philippines since our population is lower than Japan’s.

I tell you this: “A poor family, who uses contraception and was able to indeed limit their children to only two instead of four, is yet ever poor, isn’t it?” In other words, the RH Law may only prevent the increase of people born to poor families, but never reduce the poverty among the living poor! For indeed, to liberate the poor from their wretched condition, livelihood is the answer, not contraception. “Contraception won’t pay the bills, livelihood will!”

When people are desperate in their lives with no any hopes of getting out, they tend to drown themselves in liquors, cigarettes, and even illegal drugs—the hell they care if their lives go to ruins; or in making children in any number they can—the hell they care if they can raise them well; or in stealing, drug-dealing, or prostituting—the hell they care if they get caught, be salvaged, or rot in jail. The answer to their desperation is not CONTRACEPTION—but HOPES of getting pulled out from their most miserable situation.

At the rate the RH Law is primarily aimed upon the poor, one will be led to think that “providing the poor an access to all methods of family planning is simply a EUPHEMISM for giving them the guns to take themselves out—so poverty may end.”

EIGHT: The law advocates presented a fact that “fertility rate for the rich is higher than the fertility rate for the poor, coming to the conclusion that there is a verifiable link between a huge population and poverty.”

I see it differently: “The verifiable link is rather between a low population and affluence”—that if you make people rich, their fertility rate will consequently decelerate.

NINTH: The law advocates made “sex education mandatory for children starting from an early age of 11 to 19, with parental consent.”

This is what I can say: The more you talk about the reasons why the movie was banned, the more the people are intrigued to see the film. The more you educate the children about the nature and dangers of illegal drugs, the more some of them are intrigued to try the drug. The more you educate the children about the nature and dangers of cigarette, the more some of them are intrigued to try to puff. I just hope when it comes to sex education, the opposite shall be true: “The more we educate the children about sex, the more they will all be urged not to try it—EVEN ONCE.”

TENTH: The law advocates related that “poverty incidence is higher among large families.”

Unfortunately, the poor see it other way: “With a large family, they may be poorer but in hopes they are richer.”

IN CONCLUSION:

By the risk the misuse of contraception may bring to the new babies and the damaging side effects the contraception will give to the mothers, our country is decidedly much better off without the contraception. Sacrificing the health of the mothers and the new babies for “possible” national progress is but plain and simple WICKED!

To reiterate, our country has no problem of overpopulation, only a problem of lack of leaders with the right mental calibration. And stop treating our poor as dumb. By the miracle they show in being able to survive every single day even with practically nothing, they are far wiser than many of us. Family planning is only ‘one plus one’ to the poor, so don’t lecture them on birth control and birth spacing, for they know. Their having large families is not product of ignorance nor lack of access to birth control methods, more than lack of access to money-making opportunities to better fill up their time with than just making babies.

All said, the only ones who are benefiting from the RH Law are the pharmaceutical companies (by the billions of pesos they derive from the sales annually) and the other social, political, and/or financial groups with dark hidden agenda over its implementation.

May the DOH’s P4.5 billion annual budget be rather used to create jobs for the poor—than use it to destroy the very lives their RH Law intend to secure.

Amen!