- Office of Minority Leader Edcel C. Lagman
- 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137
- Official Website: http://www.edcellagman.com.ph
- 31 December 2010
CONSTITUTION AND MEDICAL SCIENCE
CONFIRM LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION
The issue on whether life begins upon fertilization or at the onset of conception has long been resolved by the 1987 Constitution and reputable medical authorities worldwide in favor of conception or when the fertilized ovum implants in the uterus.
The following genesis of the constitutional provision on the obligation of the State “to equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception” (Section 12, Article II of the Constitution) confirms that life does not begin with the fertilized ovum:
1. Father Joaquin Bernas, who was a commissioner of the Constitutional Commission, initially proposed for inclusion in the Bill of Rights the following provision: “The right to life extends to the fertilized ovum.” This proposal did not materialize, and its non-adoption unmistakably shows that the concept that life begins at fertilization was not constitutionalized for lack of concurrence from the commissioners.
2. After the deletion of the Bernas proposal, another formulation was proposed to be included in the Declaration of Principles which originally read: “The State shall protect human life from the moment of conception.” The new draft abandoned the concept that human life begins from the fertilization of the ovum, but from the “moment of conception”. It also showed that “fertilization” is not synonymous with “conception” as they constitute different stages of the reproductive process.
3. Since the commissioners could not determine when the moment of conception occurs, the phrase “the moment of” was also deleted and the phrase “the life of the mother” was included so much so that the final provision which was adopted reads: “It (State) shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”
The deletion of the phrase “the moment of” before the word “conception” was the result of the Commissioners’ uncertainty and lack of consensus as to the precise beginning of conception. Hence, they decided to defer to medical science the determination of the start of conception.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asserts that “conception is the implantation of the blastocyst (the egg several days after fertilization). It is not synonymous with fertilization.”
The National Institute of Health and the US Food and Drug Administration state that “pregnancy encompasses the period of time from confirmation of implantation until expulsion or extraction of the fetus”.
The foregoing medical definitions of conception or pregnancy show that the fertilized egg has no sustainable viability outside of the uterine wall. It has to implant in the uterus to have sustainable life and for gestation to progress or pregnancy to begin.
A fertilized egg implants on the uterine wall five to 12 days after fertilization.
Consequently, the International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetrics (FIGO) defines abortion as “the termination of pregnancy after implantation.”
The proceedings of the Constitutional Commission establish that the purpose of protecting “the life of the unborn from conception” is to prevent the Congress and the Supreme Court from legalizing abortion.
The RH bills definitely do not legalize abortion and repeatedly provide that abortion is illegal and punishable.
The Constitution does not prohibit the manufacture, distribution and use of contraceptives because they are not abortifacient.
In fact, the RH bills provide that contraceptives for distribution and use as methods of family planning must be “medically safe, legally feasible and effective”.
The purpose of contraception is to prevent ovulation and/or prevent the sperm from reaching the egg, and consequently, neither fertilization nor conception occurs and no unborn is imperiled.
A fertilized egg implants on the uterine wall five to 12 days after fertilization. Fertilized eggs that do not implant disintegrate, and a high percentage of those which implant are naturally lost without any external intervention.
The Department of Reproductive Health and Research of the World Health Organization (WHO) in an expert opinion submitted to the House of Representatives as early as 7 November 2006 categorically stated that “contraceptives are not abortifacients”.
The same report cited research showing that “the hypothesis that the primary mechanism of copper-bearing IUDs in women is destruction of embryos in the uterus (i.e., abortion) is not supported by available evidence” and firmly maintains that “an IUD does not cause an abortion.”
Moreover, the medical textbook Contraceptive Technology (Hatcher, et. al) states that the risk of dying within a year of using the much-maligned IUD is 1 in 10 million, compared to the worldwide risk of dying from maternal causes which is an alarming 1 in 10,000 of pregnancies.
The RH bills do not offend constitutional intent proscribing abortion. They are even anti-abortion measures because they respect the option of women and couples to use legal and medically-safe contraceptives which reduce abortion rates by 85%.
The State of the Philippine Population Report (SPPR) of 2001 documents that majority of those who undergo induced abortion in the Philippines are not teenagers or single women. They are married catholic women with ages ranging from 21 to 29 who do not want another pregnancy or could not afford another child because of poverty or lack or resources.