(Speech delivered by REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN at the Bicol Federation of Population Officers and Workers (BFPOW) Orientation on Responsible Parenthood on
11 July 2007 in Legaspi City)

Last week, a reporter from ABS-CBN called to ask if I planned to re-file the so-called “two-child policy” bill. I was dismayed that up to now, the deliberate misinformation of those opposed to a consistent and coherent national policy on responsible parenthood and reproductive health has managed to confuse not only the public but also media practioners who ought to know better. I had no choice but to strongly admonish her for resorting to misguided labels.

First, there is no “two-child policy” bill. Even a cursory reading of the then proposed House Bill 3773 will clearly show that a numerical goal was not the raison d’être of the measure. House Bill 3773 was never a population control measure with the sole objective of limiting population growth. Neither did it promote a compulsory and punitive policy strictly limiting a family to two children. There was never an imposition, neither was the ideal number of children arbitrary because the ideal size of two children per family approximates the desired number of 2.5 children nationwide.

Second, I do not plan to re-file the bill. I have already re-filed it last July 2 under House Bill No. 17 or the proposed “Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development Act”.

I am heartened that the Bicol Federation of Population Officers and Workers (BFPOW) is conducting an orientation on responsible parenting because House Bill No. 17 is firmly anchored on promoting genuinely responsible and responsive parenthood and aims not simply to manage a ballooning population but to afford couples and parents access to information and family planning services that will help them in the spacing and timing of their children. This will in turn help them have the ability to respond more effectively to the needs and aspirations of their families even as it will strengthen their commitment and capacity to ensure that the basic needs of their families are met.

This morning, I am pleased to discuss the true intentions of House Bill No. 17 in relation to the kind of parenthood which entails a proactive and conscientious approach to raising children.

Etymologically, the word “parent” can be derived from the Latin parens which is a preposition of parere which means “to bring forth or beget”. On the other hand, the word “responsible” involves the obligation to be “accountable or answerable for something”. Therefore, as parents we are expected to be accountable for the welfare and total wellbeing of the children we bring forth into this world. We are assumed to be liable with regards to assuring that they will have a bright and promising future – a future where they can make full use of their talents and take full advantage of opportunities that may come their way because we have given them not only the tools of good health and relevant education but also nurtured in them the correct values and the ability to make intelligent decisions based on the same.

The parents present today know that this is easier said than done. Raising a child into an honorable and hardworking citizen is fraught with problems and unavoidable obstacles. The huge and serious task of helping a child be the best that he or she can be becomes doubly difficult if parents have more children than they intended to have or can afford to support.

The saddest thing for me is when parents who do not have the means or the information to plan their families start viewing the arrival of each additional child as a burden instead of a wondrous blessing.

The irony is, based on survey after survey conducted by the Social Weather Stations and Pulse Asia since 1991, we see that an overwhelming number of Filipinos – from 96 to 98 per cent – recognize the importance of having the ability to control their fertility and plan their families.

The results of these surveys are not surprising. It takes engaged couples months, even years to plan the perfect wedding. Students carefully plan what course to take in college, soliciting the advice of their parents and teachers to ensure that they would make the right decision. Government bureaucrats and private sector executives painstakingly draft decade-long development plans for their agencies and companies. Why shouldn’t the same amount of meticulousness and preparation be given to planning a family when lives and futures of children are at stake?

By teaching them the different ways to carefully plan their families, population officers have the opportunity to help prepare men and women to be not mere progenitors but genuine parents who are conscious of their responsibilities and obligations to their children even as they anticipate the numerous joys and rewards of parenthood.

A sustained grassroots-based campaign involving accurate information on responsible parenthood and all family planning methods from the natural to the modern, similar to what BFPOW is going to undertake and like what HB 17 mandates, will help eliminate myths and ignorance regarding contraception and vastly improve the reproductive health of women and decrease infant mortality.

I would like to underscore that House Bill 17 does not espouse a single method of family planning. It is not biased for either NFP or modern methods alone. Which ever way we look at it, I am certain that you will agree with me that both traditional and modern methods of family planning have the same goal which is to prevent unwanted, mistimed and unplanned pregnancies.

Although there is indeed a directive from President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to both the Department of Health and the Population Commission to pursue a Responsible Parenthood and Natural Family Planning Program, the President has also enunciated that she supports four pillars of population and development, namely: (1) responsible parenthood, (2) informed choice, (3) birth spacing; and (4) respect for life. These are exactly the same pillars that buttress and reinforce HB 17.

The 2007 General Appropriations Act even provides the Department of Health with a budget of P180 million for modern family planning. This amount shall be “sub-allotted by the DOH to LGUs which shall apply for the utilization of the fund for the purchase of reproductive health commodities and the conduct of family planning seminars in local communities.”

It therefore behooves you as population officers and civil servants to ensure that women and couples who make it clear that they prefer to avail themselves of methods other than NFP should be given the opportunity to receive information and services on the method of their choice.

I say the foregoing even as I cannot overemphasize the benefits of NFP. It is affordable. It does not entail taking any medications which may have side effects. It promotes better communication between couples. It strengthens male involvement and participation in reproductive health. These are all advantages that should and must be made clear to women and couples.

However, these same women and couples should also be made aware that NFP is not suited for everyone, in much the same way that not every woman is a candidate for the use of hormonal contraceptives. For women with irregular cycles, NFP will not be a reliable form of contraception. For couples where one or both spouses are Overseas Filipino Workers, NFP will not be a realistic method of family planning. For poor women living in the slums of Metro Manila or in makeshift huts in the rural areas who do not even have toilets where they can check their basal body temperature and secretions, NFP would be problematical and cumbersome. Remember, too, that NFP depends on accuracy and precision. Not getting enough sleep or waking up in the middle of the night to feed a hungry infant significantly changes basal body temperature and thus may result in false readings which will then result in higher failure rates.

A woman should have the following prerequisites for effective utilization of NFP: (1) a regular cycle; (2) a cooperative and enlightened husband; and (3) proper information and consistent guidance from an accredited NFP counselor. However, if she does not have all of the above fundamental requirements, it is her right to have the option of employing other methods of family planning.

Even as newer and more effective natural family planning methods have been developed, it remains a fact that only a minority of women have regular ovulatory cycles. A recent study published by the British Medical Journal (Allen J. Wilcox, et. al.) reveals that only 32% of all women have regular cycles and of these women, only 10% ovulate exactly 14 days before their next period. A regular cycle is indispensable to the success of NFP.

The percentage of unintended pregnancies in women who use NFP is also significantly higher compared to those who use modern contraceptives. The failure rate of the calendar method, ovulation method and the sympto-thermal method when used perfectly is 9%, 3% and 2%, respectively. On the other hand, the failure rate of pills and depo provera injectables when used perfectly is 0.3% and the failure rate of the Levonorgestrel-releasing IUD when used perfectly is 0.1%.

We are talking here of perfect use and admittedly, the efficacy of modern contraceptives are less influenced by human error than NFP which requires precision and diligence. When we consider the effectiveness of the above NFP methods in terms of typical use, the failure rates become more glaring. For all the three NFP methods mentioned, the failure rate is a disturbing 25%, whereas the failure rate for typical use of the pill is 8% and for injectables it is 3%. The Levonorgestrel-releasing IUD has the same failure rate of 0.1% whether with typical use or perfect use.

This is the reason why HB 17 does not promote only one method but mandates that all forms of family planning methods be made available even as women and couples are informed of both the advantages and side effects of all the different forms of family planning. This will guarantee that they will make informed decisions with respect to which method is best suited to their needs and religious convictions.

The obvious limitations of NFP has prompted Fr. Ruben Tanseco, S.J. to write in his column in the Philippine Star in August 2004 the following:

“This method (natural family planning), as the only one supported by the official Church for the last how many decades, has not worked effectively in our country, as far as control of the population is concerned. Just to single out one reason, among others: For so many poor, uneducated couples, learning NFP as the only means of family planning is too difficult, cumbersome, and needs much discipline and spirituality. Many are not able to make it. The poor are already deprived of so many things, and to deprive them of love-making when they spontaneously feel like doing so is to make their lives even more miserable.

“… Aside from NFP, other means of family planning may be used, provided they are not abortive, and responsibly used for a morally valid reason. Examples of these are the use of the condom or the taking of contraceptive pills. This moral position is also pro-life, in the sense of pro-quality-life. Each life brought into this world deserves to be raised in a dignified, human way that the parents are capable of, according to God’s design, and not left to a ‘bahala na’ attitude.”

HB 17 underscores that the role of the State shall be limited to providing the enabling environment through information and access but the informed choice belongs to women and couples.

In the same manner, the Church should provide additional information and access to its endorsed natural family planning methods to complement government’s efforts but should not impose its conservatism nor threaten the faithful with reprisals.

It is important to keep in mind that: (1) neither the State nor the Church should impose its will on the preferred family planning method; it is ultimately the woman or couple who would have to make that informed decision; (2) family planning promotes planned pregnancies, planned pregnancies prevent the need to resort to abortion; and (3) moderation of population growth speeds up socio-economic development.

Moreover, population officers must always keep in mind that beyond merely being an effective way for couples and women to achieve their fertility goals and thereby regulate high population growth rates, family planning has a multiplier effect that will result in numerous other benefits for the family.

The principal benefits from being able to make informed family planning decisions are: (1) lower infant and child mortality; (2) better health for mothers and children; (3) improved quality of child care; (4) higher human capital investment at the family level that would lead to bigger investments in health and education; (5) increased income-generating and educational opportunities for women that will, in turn, benefit them and their families; (6) better developmental outcomes for children since smaller-sized families assure that they would be better nourished physically, emotionally and intellectually; and (7) significantly lower abortion rates.

A population policy like HB 17 that is comprehensive, rights-based and national in scope will:

• Holistically address the development needs of the people, more particularly that of women and children;
• Center on the wellbeing of the people;
• Recognize the close inter-relationship between population and development;
• Prioritize investments in human capital primarily through health and education;
• Promote gender equity, women empowerment and responsible parenthood; and
• Provide universal access to all medically safe and legally acceptable methods of family planning ranging from the natural to the modern.

It is clear then the goals of HB 17 and your role as population officers are complementary and transcend the mere reduction of unwanted fertility and managing unbridled population growth. Because responsible parenthood is about ensuring the total wellbeing of our children even as reproductive health is more about health and basic human rights than it is about sex and religion.

Our common purpose should be firmly anchored on the twin objectives of promoting truly responsible and responsive parenthood among Filipino parents while advancing and safeguarding the reproductive health of all Filipinos. Both these objectives will ensure people’s right to make informed choices that will help uplift their lives and those of their children. Making all forms of family planning services and commodities available and accessible will mitigate the adverse health consequences of high fertility on both mothers and children and empower parents with the opportunity to better invest in the future of their children even as they help government achieve sustainable human development.

With the invaluable assistance of population officers like you, who are in the forefront of the country’s reproductive health campaign, the passage of HB 17 will pave the way for the creation of an environment where women and couples are given the opportunity to make informed decisions regarding the number and spacing of their children without coercion or fear of reprisal or even the threat of eternal damnation — an environment that enriches, rather than diminishes choices; an environment that upholds the rights of people and helps increase their opportunities to lead fuller, more meaningful lives; and an environment that encourages truly responsible parenthood.

I urge you all to support the passage of this long-delayed measure and help counter the demonization of a bill which, deep in your hearts, you know is a beacon of hope for women and couples who want the ability to have only the number of children they can support, nourish, educate and love as each child deserves to be treasured and cherished.

Dios mabalos po saindo gabos.