The suspension of today’s plenary session wherein the sponsorship of the RH bill was scheduled is a fortuitous delay due to a glitch in the airconditioning system of the House of Representatives.
This coincidence reinforces our advocacy and resolve to pursue the enactment of the reproductive health bill in order that pregnancy and development should not be left to the contingency of accidental events.
This temporary setback of only one day should spur RH advocates to continue surmounting all supervening obstacles.
Let us take heed of Einstein’s assertion that “in the middle of difficulty lies opportunity” and Leonardo da Vinci’s statement that “obstacles cannot crush me, every obstacle yields to stern resolve.”
Starting today, let us light candles for 11 mothers who die daily of complications from pregnancy and childbirth until the RH bill becomes a law.
The Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC) has reached a consensus on 21 out of the 23 priority measures proposed by the Office of the President and is open to the inclusion of additional priority measures.
The bill on fiscal responsibility was withdrawn from the priority list pending further review.
With respect to the proposed postponement of the ARMM elections and appointment of officers-in-charge by the President, Minority Leader and Albay Representative Edcel C. Lagman said that some members of the minority in the House have grave reservations on the policy and legal anchorage of the projected postponement.
On the other hand, Senate President Enrile suggested that President Aquino should thoroughly discuss the matter with local officials in the ARMM as well as with concerned members of the House of Representatives.
Considering that the Office of the President has crafted its own versions of the priority measures, it was the sense of the LEDAC that there is need to harmonize the Malacañang-sponsored measures with allied bills pending in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Regarding allied bills already in the advanced stage of committee action or already calendared for plenary consideration, there should be guidance on how to treat the Malacañang-crafted priority measures and possibly consider them as proposed amendments.
The majority in the House is again dancing to the baton of Malacañang.
This time the tempo coming from the President is for the postponement of the ARRM elections which the Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms and the Committee on Muslim Affairs have endorsed.
The Aquino administration has taken contradictory positions on the holding of elections.
With respect to the barangay elections where more than two dozen bill and resolutions called for its postponement as being expensive and too proximate to the divisive national elections, Malacañang insisted against postponement to sustain the momentum of Aquino’s victory.
Now taking an opposite posture, Malacañang wants the cancellation of the ARMM elections because it appears it has no viable candidates yet and allow the President to appoint officers-in-charge.
The precipitate decision of the House Committee on Justice to resume the impeachment proceedings without waiting for the finality of the Supreme Court decision recalling the status quo ante order is rash and regrettable.
The right of a litigant to interpose a motion for reconsideration is a component of due process. Thwarting one’s opportunity to file a reconsideration effectively tramples the right to due process.
The House leadership and the Committee on Justice have recognized the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by filing pleadings and appearing for oral argument in connection with the petition of the Ombudsman. Perforce, they have to wait until the decision of the Supreme Court becomes final after the projected motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman is disposed with finality.
Prudence must temper victory and rashness is the image of prejudice.
The sixty-day period within which the Committee on Justice has to resolve the impeachment case has been tolled by the pendency of the Supreme Court proceedings and will resume to run after the decision has become final.
There is no need to rush. Ill-advised alacrity will lead to further delay.
What the US House of Representatives “defunded” was limited to financial assistance to private entities performing abortions but no funds were withheld for contraceptives for family planning and for legal abortion performed in hospitals.
Fr. Melvin Castro of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) is utterly misinformed about the US “defunding” measure or he is conveniently misleading the public.
The US Congress did not withhold funds for family planning and contraceptive use. Section 1009 of House Resolution 217 which was passed by the Lower House of United Sates merely states that “(a) Prohibition.- The Secretary shall not provide any assistance under this title to an entity unless the entity certifies that, during the period of such assistance, the entity will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion.”
This particular section “does not apply with respect to an abortion where (1) the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape, or an act of incest against a minor” or when the woman is “(2) … is in danger of death unless an abortion is performed…” (Subsection [b] Exception)
Moreover, hospitals are also exempt from Subsection a of Section 1009. HR 217 clearly mandates that “Subsection (a) does not apply with respect to a hospital, so long as such hospital does not, during the period of assistance described in subsection (a), provide funds to any non-hospital entity that performs an abortion (other than abortion described in subsection b).”
It is unmistakable that only non-hospital entities will not be granted federal funding for abortions. Clinics and hospitals all over the United States will still receive much needed appropriations not only for family planning and the purchase of contraceptives but also for abortions which remain legal in the United States.
In fact, there is completely no mention of any cut, let alone the prohibition, of funding for contraceptives and family planning.
Let me remind Fr. Castro that House Bill 4244 (consolidated RH bill) does not in any way endorse abortion as a family planning method nor does it propose to change the country’s current laws prohibiting abortion.
What it aims to achieve is the promotion of the right to reproductive health and reproductive self-determination by making available to couples who want to plan their families all forms of family planning options as long as they are legal, medically safe and effective.
The RH bill will also definitely help lower the incidence of abortion because contraceptive use and abortion have an inverse correlation – regular and correct use of contraceptives reduces abortion rates since unplanned and unwanted pregnancies are avoided.
Research from the Guttmacher Institute even states that contraceptive use reduces abortion rates by as much as 85%.
