RH Bill’s possible use of abortion should be rejected

On such matters as the RH Bill,  whose nature calls for much debate, listening  in good faith  to varied points of view allows for a more complete assessment of the facts and issues involved —  leading to better decisions and policies for the good of all.

Of one thing  of which there should be no issue, well meaning people on both sides of the RH debate should recognize that they both want only what’s best for all Filipinos. Accusing the other side of bad faith and malice is not going to help any.

I wrote an article in the Inquirer in March 2010 entitled “The Catholic Debate on Condoms” where I supported former Secretary of Health Esperanza Cabral in her position of distributing condoms in order to prevent the spread of the HIV virus which causes AIDS — as against the opposition of CBCP.

Among other things, I wrote: “Rather than for people becoming sick, suffer much and die early, a more humanistic Christian attitude is to provide protection… We cannot have a Church that proclaims love but cannot provide love to AIDS-challenged poor and powerless sex workers. We cannot have a Church that proclaims life but sows the seeds of death by refusing to allow the use of effective practical  means against AIDS..”

Hopefully, these words dispense any thoughts that I am either a blind follower of the Church or an apologist for the CBCP.

What good goals are the RH Bill trying to accomplish?

Certain  couples or families  are not in a position to having more children because of financial, material,  psychological and other inadequacies. Rather than have unwanted neglected children, it is better for them to learn how to use morally acceptable and safe contraceptive methods to avoid unwanted pregnancies. As a result of accomplishing this  good goal — cumulatively, population growth is also controlled.

Obviously, cold turkey abstinence from sex is an option that will not result in pregnancies — but  that   is an absolute impossible choice because of biological imperatives. For healthy men and women — especially for those where the pleasures of lovemaking borders on mystical ecstasy — sex is a big part of what life is about.

So our number one question is:  What morally acceptable  means can be utilized to keep Juana from having another baby which she and Juan do not want and cannot properly care for?

To true believer Catholics, other Christians and many others — abortion at any stage  of fetal development is not morally acceptable.

With the Catholic  faith, once the egg fuses with the sperm, we have a human life with a soul. This dogmatic article of faith is non negotiable. This  is core Catholic belief  — a reality everyone involved with the RH Bill in one way or  another — has to deal with. It is not just a CBCP or Catholic Hierarchy belief — but the actual belief of millions of true believer Catholics.

RH Bill proponents  bringing in liberation theology, micro and macro economics,  population density and whatever else kind of arguments they can throw in — will not alter this basic Catholic belief. Many Catholics hold firm to the position that nothing can  justify using abortion as an instrument of national policy — whether such is meant to control population growth, promote women’s  healthy well being or for economic progress. Abortion to them is murder. Period. Non-negotiable.

“Oh no, that’s not the case, the majority of Catholics do not think as such!” — argues some RH Bill advocates.  To support their contention, like Senator Miriam Santiago,  they  refer  to surveys indicating that 70 percent of Filipinos, a majority of which are Catholic respondents  — had approved of the RH Bill.

Here lies their error. These surveys do not necessarily mean that Filipino Catholics do not subscribe to this core belief of  abortion being unacceptable as a family planning or population control means.

The question repeatedly  asked of respondents in these surveys was:   “Are you in favor of the RH Bill?”   “RH Bill” to the respondents meant population control. We know a huge majority of  rational Filipinos, Catholics or otherwise, wants population control.

The legislative history, the language, the campaigns  of pro and anti RH groups and individuals and even  Malacañang which indicated a qualified support for the RH Bill — affirm that the RH Bill is generally perceived as a population control measure.

Call it what you want, but essentially, at it’s root, it is a population control measure. I see nothing wrong with that. But for marketing purposes,  supporters want to call it by something else — “Reproductive Health”, “Responsible Parenthood”, etc.

Now, supposing the more specific question asked of survey respondents was: “Are you in favor of the RH Bill even if it includes  abortion as a means of family planning or limiting the population?”

Can anyone seriously believe that the results will be the same? Obviously not. I

believe only a  relatively small number will say yes.

As such, it is not the case  that most Catholics approve of the RH bill in toto or as drafted even if contraceptive means or methods perceived as causing abortion or described as abortifacient are involved.

It is obvious that well meaning individuals on both sides must work together to arrive at a viable answer for our number one question if we are to have an RH Bill acceptable to most Filipinos.

The heart of the question has to do with the terms “morally acceptable means”. In other words, what kind of contraceptives — pills, mixtures, creams, mechanical devices, methods, etc. — can many true believer Catholics find morally acceptable even if the CBCP and Church hierarchy do not — that can soften their stand against the RH Bill?

The answer is really simple except that getting the parties to agree is a little more complex.

If in the draft of the bill,  the use of contraceptive means that are abortifacient or at least perceived as such — are specifically identified and declared as banned — millions of Catholics are likely to soften their otherwise immovable position.

But pro RH advocates claim: Didn’t the World Health Organization (WHO) say that there is no such thing as abortifacient  contraceptives?

On this issue, such an opinion from a representative of WHO, an organization which  has openly, consistently and for a long time has been  advocating for population control in the Philippines and other third world countries  — is about as credible as a Bishop who says that any and all kinds of contraceptives are abortifacient.

Recently, proponents of the RH Bill inquired from WHO if there are such things as abortifacient contraceptive drugs. On June 6, 2011, a so called “expert opinion” from a WHO representative indicated that hypothetically, certain contraceptive  pills, IUDs and other means and methods  can cause a fertilized egg not to be engaged or attached to the womb which amounts to abortion but that supposedly, there is no scientific evidence that they do. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

On the other hand, In March of 2005, WHO  experts officially endorsed two drugs which they confirmed to be very effective in causing abortion up to nine weeks of   pregnancy — specifically Mifeprestone and Misoprostol. In fact, they listed the two as “essential medicines” – to be specifically used for “inducing abortion”. Google “World Health Organization” plus the name of these two drugs and you can confirm for yourself WHO’s population control agenda based conflicting “expert opinions”.

This is not to say that WHO is engaged in evil schemings. It is simply a  fact that it’s policy makers prioritize population control as one of it’s primarily goals — as well as yes, promoting women’s health. In fact, they mean well. Understandably, since it is goal oriented and it is not a Catholic organization, it has no internal issues about using abortion as an instrument of policy.

Senator Pia Cayetano, in promoting the RH Bill, acknowledges that there are so called abortifacient contraceptive medications. She cited Misoprostol as an example. However, she states that we cannot totally ban them because they can be used as medicine for other purposes specifying  that Misoprostol, while being an abortifacient contraceptive, is also used to stop bleeding.

That should not be a problem. Why not then ban such abortifacient medicines for use as  contraceptives — but not for other good medical purposes. What’s wrong with that?

Some RH Proponents argue: “Abortifacient or not, people should have a choice as to what kind of contraceptives he wants to use.”

Catholic response: “Sorry, I believe you are killing your own child if you do – whether you think me right or wrong. You are not going to do it with my approval or my money to supply the means to do your killing.”

Perhaps if well meaning RH Bill proponents are able to see that it is not fatal to their cause to specifically remove the possibility of contraceptives perceived as abortifacient of being used in connection with the implementation of this bill – the probability that it might become law is very much increased.

There are other clearly non abortifacient  contraceptive pills, devices and other means and methods which are equally effective in preventing  pregnancy. Why  force a contraceptive method  unacceptable to millions that may result in the non-passage of the RH Bill and therefore does not lead to the accomplishment of the end goal? Remember? The good we are trying to do is to keep Juana from getting pregnant and bear an unwanted child using moral and otherwise acceptable means when she and Juan makes whopee.

Catholics, who some say are really heroic, others say stoic, still others say moronic — or all of the above — I imagine, still adhere to the only  contraceptive method acceptable to the Catholic Church – the so called Rhythm Method. Very few I suppose.

I look at the experience of a Catholic man who takes his faith seriously. He recounts:

“After our first child, my wife and I decided that we should do some family planning. Okay I said, ‘we have to use the Rhythm Method, that’s the only non-sinful method according to the Catholic Church.’ That meant calendaring the days that she was fertile and those that she was not. It also meant abstinence and no messing around on certain days.

I tried my best – really tried – to be a good Catholic in that context. After a few days of deprivation, there I was, horny as hell, lying beside my pretty 22 year old sleeping wife,  watching TV – a virile well meaning young Catholic man trying to keep his raging hormones from overcoming his will.  My raging hormones prevailed. That night ended in marital rape with full unqualified spousal consent – to the delight of all parties concerned.

We tried it again and again – the Rhythm Method, that is. Result: Three more lovely kids – whom of course I don’t regret having. But the bottom  line is: Rhythm only works for a minuscule percentage of couples who I believe either have inert  libidos or the iron will power of saints.”

Notwithstanding the Church’s admonition that the only morally acceptable birth control  contraceptive is the Rhythm Method — I truly believe that many good Catholics resort to other contraceptives which they personally find to be morally acceptable — as long as they are not abortifacient.

Like that Catholic man, they know that the Rhythm Method is humanly unrealistic and just does not work. Show me a couple  who used only the Rhythm Method for family planning and I’ll show you a family with 15 or more kids.

However, if the RH Bill becomes a reality, there  might be a relatively  few who may be health workers who truly believe that the Rhythm Method is the only morally  acceptable  means of contraception and as such out of conscience –  refuse to prescribe any other means and also refuse to refer the client to another case worker  who will do so. As such, even this refusal to refer to other case workers should not result in criminal penalties.

I, like many,  want the RH Bill passed. But we must deal with the reality that millions of our fellow Filipinos  are sincere Catholics who are against contraceptives which they believe cause abortion. It is right to respect those beliefs.

Instead, why not just specifically exclude the use of perceived abortifacient contraceptives. What harm is there in doing that? The end goals of the RH Bill are still accomplished if this is done since there are equally effective contraceptives which are not abortifacient.  On the other hand, there is a strong probability that the  RH Bill will not pass if  proponents refuse to accept the reality of core Catholic beliefs which millions adhere to.

Demonizing the CBCP or the Church Hierarchy and accusing them of bad faith, of being anti poor and of being the main architects in  putting a monkey wrench on the good intentions of the RH Bill proponents are not going to work.  (The same thing goes with the negative ways that some anti RH proponents demonize well meaning pros).

Catholics are just not going to be persuaded by these accusations knowing that there are so many sincerely good people among the religious who are simply expressing their Catholic faith and the fact is that the Catholic Church has no malicious intent to be anti-poor. It is in fact the biggest Charity and biggest education provider in the world.

Given all of the above, if RH proponents do not give a deeper thought and respect to the reality of core non negotiable Catholic beliefs –  millions of true believer Catholic  Filipinos will continue to oppose it. The raging debate will just continue causing passions to heat on both sides. RH Bill proponents should instead push for  the following amendments to gain Catholic layman support:

1.  The RH Bill should declare the non-use of actual or possible abortifacient contraceptive medications, devices, means and  methods considered as actually causing abortion or has a likely probability of causing abortion.

2. The removal of any criminal penalties against anyone, who out of conscience refuse to carry out any action whatsoever  in connection with the implementation of the RH Bill.

Postscript: At this time, many are giving much thought on how best  to manage sex education for Filipino children and at what age it should start. Another related issue is: Should not the parents instead educate their children as they know them more and can better control their overall situation? These issues, I believe also require much thought.

Note: The California State Bar honors Atty. Ted Laguatan as one of the best lawyers in   the U.S. He is one of only 29 lawyers officially certified as  Expert Specialist in Immigration Law continuously for more than twenty years. He also does accident injuries, wrongful death and complex litigation cases. For communications (San Francisco area): 455 Hickey Blvd., Suite 516, Daly City, Ca 94015. Tel 650 991-1154 Fax 650 991-1186 email  [email protected]