I used to support the RH Bill. I no longer do. By the end of this document, neither would you. I have not supported the RH Bill since I attended a lecture in Megamall about the truth behind it. That lecture truly enlightened me. My only hope is that this holy light of enlightenment passes through your monitor screen, into your optical nerves, and into your heart so it can touch your soul (because the soul is in the heart). My intent here is not to antagonize Pro-RH people, but to enlighten – so listen up, you narrow-minded morons. Open your minds to the real truth…
The RH Bill will put Filipinos at risk of extinction, because, at its very core, the RH Bill is an extension of a secret, global conspiracy – a western attempt – to implement principles of eugenics on unsuspecting, inferior populations in order to exclude them from the human evolutionary process, at the end of which would, at the apex, summon forth THE MASTER RACE. Anyone who failed to see this after the lecture is ignorant. I advise him or her to do his or her research, better yet, do some soul-searching to discover the real truth, because the truth is in our hearts, we just have to listen to it.
Initially, my layman’s interpretation of the RH Bill led me to think that it was just a bill meant to help educate the uninformed about ways to prevent them from fornicating their way to a very bad financial situation. My ignorant mind devised 10 simple points as to why the RH Bill was right.
1. The minimum wage – the lowest an employer can pay an employee – of a non-agricultural Filipino worker is P404.
2. If there were 20 working days in a month (because most people don’t work on the weekend), the average minimum-wage-earning Filipino would earn around P8,000 a month.
3. Let’s call that person, Joey. If Joey, like other human beings, ate food on a regular basis, he will spend around P70/day on food (and that’s a very, very conservative assumption). There are 30 days in a month, so I guess, that would amount to P2,100 a month.
4. But if Joey had a wife that he loved, he might want to feed her too. Feeding her would cost another P2,100 a month.
5. P8,000 – P4,200 = P3,800
6. If Joey and his wife rented a home, or used electricity and bathed from time to time, the amount left from Joey’s salary would be significantly reduced. Let’s say their utility bills and rent amounted to P1800.
7. P3,800 – P1800 = P2,000
8. P2,000 is a lot of money, but I don’t think Joey and his wife should have more than 3 children, right? I mean, I don’t have children, but just by looking at one, I can safely assume that they cost more than P1,000/month. Babies need milk, diapers, toys, immunity injections, baby medicine…
9. From this I deduced that babies cost money. If babies cost money, I theorized that having more babies would cost more money. And from this data, I observed that a person who spent a lot of money on children, but didn’t earn a lot of money, would soon be broke and unable to provide for both himself and his children. Another word for this broke situation is poverty.
10. I theorized that a person can avoid being poor by making less babies. So, I thought that steps should be taken to inform people about this very little known fact. I also thought that the government should make contraceptives accessible so that people who don’t earn a lot can properly manage the little resources that they have. That’s why I supported the RH Bill.
But now I know that I was wrong. And here are some of the reasons why I know that. By the way, before I continue, I must say that this is the truth, guys. In fact, it’s more than the truth. It’s the Catholic truth, which means that it’s truer and more true than the regular truth.
I know that the issue of the RH Bill is not a religious issue, but make sure you pay attention if you want your soul to be saved. Here are some of the things I learned from the lecture I learned:
“The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that the Philippines is overpopulated.”
I agree. I, myself, have observed that the Philippine is NOT overpopulated. In fact, if you use your common sense and think about it, you will realize a few things:
1. We are not overpopulated! Look at the mountains, the jungles, the caves and the ocean floor. There are no people there!
2. If we were really overpopulated, we would have trouble travelling. But if you go to EDSA, there’s no traffic. When you ride the MRT, it’s not packed with people.
3. Students in public schools are well educated because the teacher to student ratio is very low. In fact, because of our low population the government can basically guarantee that all public school students are provided books, notebooks and other school supplies.
“The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that contraceptives are good for mankind and women.”
1. I agree, the RH Bill is not good for women because it might draw a woman away from her one, true, universal purpose – the uninterrupted production of healthy babies.
2. Furthermore, the role of women in society and the universe is to make babies. That’s why God made women. That’s their sole purpose in life. They’re not good for anything else. Ever wonder why there are no women in the clergy? Because they’re not good enough.
3. Contraceptives would allow women to enjoy the benefits of physical intimacy while maintaining a successful and productive career, if she so chooses. That is so wrong. Only men should be able to enjoy that privilege.
4. Women should get pregnant every single time they have sex and only immoral women enjoy sex without the possibility of conception. In fact, a better alternative would be for women, in general, to follow the example made by Mother Mary – to learn how to conceive without having sex.
“The RH bill will put Filipinos at risk of extinction!”
1. I agree. If we pass the RH bill, we will become extinct, like dinosaurs. The dinosaurs are all dead. If we don’t want to be extinct, we should not pass the RH Bill. I mean, do you really want to be a dinosaur?
2. In my opinion, it wouldn’t even be far-fetched to speculate that the most probable reason the dinosaurs became extinct was because they used contraceptives.
3. Population decline is just bad for nations. Just look at the countries which have a declining population – Italy, Japan and Singapore. They’re in such a bad shape. The Philippines obviously has a better economy and has a higher literacy rate than these countries. In fact, many Italians, Japanese, and Singaporeans go to the Philippines for work. That only goes to show that a decline in population is bad for the economy.
“Our population is our biggest asset!”
1. In my opinion, people should make as many babies as they can because the population is not a problem. In fact, the more babies a person has, the more assets he has. Forget real estate properties, stock investments, or Jollibee franchises. The real secret to increased wealth is babies.
2. If you have 15 babies, you’re practically wealthy because babies are assets:
2.1 If you need money, you can sell them.
2.2 If you can keep them alive until they can walk, they can one day beg for money in the streets – they’re going to have to anyway because there’s no way in hell you’ll be able to provide for all of them on your own.
3. If ever a person is not able to feed the 15 babies he made, it’s the governments fault, because it’s the governments sole responsibility to make sure that every Filipino baby is fed.
4. The best way a person can contribute to his country is to contribute to its population.
“The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that reproductive education and contraceptives will effectively reduce cases of abortion.”
1. Reproductive/contraceptive education will have no effect on the number of abortion cases. In my opinion, these abortion cases will not lessen because women will continue to have abortions regardless of whether they are pregnant or not.
2. Abortions cannot be prevented. It’s just something that women naturally do. Like shopping, for example.
“The RH Bill is wrong because it will make people participate in extra-marital and pre-marital sex.”
1. By approving the RH Bill, we as a nation, are practically encouraging our people to engage in immoral activities.
2. We must protect our moral values and reject the RH Bill. Because, currently, not a single Filipino engages in pre-marital sex or extra-marital sex. As soon as this bill is approved, Filipino people will run the streets naked and start a national orgy!
3. The root cause of extra-marital and pre-marital sex is one’s exposure to contraceptives. There is just something in contraceptives that people find very arousing.
4. In Western countries, men lure strange women into bed by showing them condoms.
5. If we ban condoms, absolutely no one would engage in pre-marital or extra-marital sex.
“The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that parents don’t teach their children about sex.”
1. The truth is that parents talk to their children about sex all the time. It’s so not awkward. The dad usually tells his children how he takes off all his clothes, does a sexy Tiger growl and makes sweet, sweet music with their mother’s body.
2. Also, a father usually advises his daughter that if she’s going to have sex with her boyfriend, she should use a condom. Sometimes the father even drives the daughter to the boyfriend’s house and waits for the couple to finish.
3. Filipino daughters don’t have sex without the father’s permission. Unwanted pregnancies or teen pregnancies never happen to Filipino girls. That’s why we do not need the RH Bill.
“The RH Bill is a conspiracy.”
1. It’s lies, all lies!
“The RH Bill is wrong because the priest said so, and priests are never wrong.”
The biggest reason why we should not pass the RH Bill is because the priests told us that we shouldn’t. As anyone should know, priests, men of the clergy, should be the authority on sexual and reproductive matters because they have the most knowledge and experience with sex and reproduction. They are true sexperts – legendary masters of erotic affairs. If you are a real Catholic, you would do everything they say, because they’re always right.
ANTI-RH BILL RALLY. Thousands, including Muslims, brave the rain to protest the reproductive health bill at Edsa Shrine. JOHANN GUASCH/CONTRIBUTOR
There is no need for any legislation that guarantees universal access to contraceptives, the so-called reproductive health (RH) care devices, now or ever. Whatever “band-aid” amendments may be proposed by well-intentioned proponents of the RH bill to make it more palatable, the underlying principles behind it are inherently flawed.
The first component of sustainable development is a rate of economic growth that is high enough to contribute, together with appropriate economic policies, to the eradication of poverty. High gross domestic product growth is dependent on a growing and young population as has been stated by numerous international economists and top officials.
The just released Global Competitiveness Report 2012 of the World Economic Forum, like the HSBC 2012 Report, had the Philippines jumping several notches up in economic competitiveness because of our large, growing population.
Population control, however, will backfire and cause the acceleration of our falling fertility rate. Many pro-RH proponents harp on the dangers of population explosion. They have not learned from the lessons of the last two centuries of unparalleled economic progress in many countries of the East and the West that have disproved the Malthusian theory of perpetual poverty caused by the so-called geometric growth of population.
The unlimited capacity of the human mind to discover new resources and technologies has overcome the “limits to growth” that sowed fears in the last century.
Some of the greatest minds of the 20th century such as Nobel laureates Simon Kuznets and Michael Spence; Dr. Mahbub ul Haq, creator of the development index; and resource specialists Colin Clark and Julian Simon have shown through cross-country studies and long-term analyses of the economic experiences of developed countries that population growth was a positive stimulus to economic progress and that it was surpassed by the growth in real income.
Economists who purport to show the opposite have for their sample very few countries. They also have access to data over a relatively short period compared with the studies showing that there is no correlation between population growth and the spread of mass poverty, which is due to erroneous economic policies and failure of good governance.
Even those few countries in which there is some evidence that birth control policies temporarily helped in boosting economic growth in the short run are now regretting their fertility reduction programs. Well-known are the attempts of the leaders of Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Japan to appeal to their women to bear more babies.
Premarital sex, abortion
Since material well-being is not the only component of human development or happiness, there is another problem that widespread use of contraceptives can unleash. The findings of Nobel laureate George Akerlof who, despite his protestations that he was in favor of abortion and artificial contraception, demonstrated with empirical evidence that the “reproductive technology shock” led to an increase in premarital sex, and due to contraceptive failure, also in unwed mothers, children without fathers and other societal ills.
A 2009 University of Pennsylvania study, titled “Sexual Revolution,” showed that premarital sex in the United States ballooned from 0.06 percent of women in 1900 to 75 percent today as contraception provided the youth the ease of sex without “cost” or responsibility.
False sense of security
This same link with premarital sex was also suggested by the studies by JE Potter in Brazil, and clearly seen by the work of Dr. Edward Green in Africa. Green, former director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard University, affirmed that “condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa,” citing studies at the Lancet, Science and British Medical Journal and explaining that the availability of condoms led to earlier and riskier sex by creating a false sense of security.
As the contraceptive mentality sets in (contra = against; conception = beginning of human beings), a negative view of human beings is promoted. A 2011 study in the scientific journal Contraception showed that the rise in contraceptive use in Spain also saw a jump in abortion rate. This link—both logical and empirical—has been acknowledged by leaders of the abortion industry, such as Malcolm Potts, the first medical director of International Planned Parenthood.
Only five nations in the world still prohibit abortion. A hundred years ago all nations did. It was acceptance of contraception that changed their minds. This will happen here, too, if we accept contraception.
Another serious flaw in the RH bill is the sweeping generalization about “unwanted pregnancies.” Scientific studies in the United States, especially those by Lant Pritchett of Harvard University, have seriously questioned the assumption made by pro-RH bill advocates that unwanted pregnancies among married women are rampant. The finding of social scientists is that mothers have the number of children they want.
Surveys in the Philippines that purport to show that there are many mothers among poor households, who regret having given birth to some of their children, are suspect. These surveys are usually funded by international organizations that have a strong bias for population control.
It is no secret that in the Democratic National Convention, the Obama administration made it clear that there will be continuing support for abortion. One does not have to be paranoid to assume that if President Obama wins a second term, he and his Secretary of State will continue to target countries like the Philippines to spread their culture of death.
Besides being part of an ideological interpretation of “women’s rights,” such aggressive campaign to promote reproductive health (which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton averred “includes access to abortion”) continues the US-supported worldwide program that was unleashed by the National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests.
Considering the revelations about the participation of foreign interests in lobbying for the RH bill, any version of it will be suspect.
Let us not be naïve. Only last year, Green, through his book “Broken Promises,” exposed in brilliant detail how the West’s AIDS establishment disowned scientific evidence that wide condom use was in fact ineffective in stopping AIDS in Africa, and how those who dominate it—the homosexual ideologues, population controllers and condom suppliers—worsened the epidemic and betrayed the developing world.
Taking away funds for poor
Besides being the antithesis to sustainable economic growth and human development, the RH bill also unwittingly goes against inclusive growth, i.e. economic progress that benefits the poorest among the poor.
It misdiagnoses the reason households of larger family sizes are poorer than those with fewer children. Studies have shown that households with larger family sizes are poorer not because they have too many children but because their heads are the least educated. This should lead policymakers not to convince these poor households to have fewer children, but to invest more resources in their education, especially the women, a proposal that is strongly supported by the studies of Economics Nobel laureates Amartya Sen and Gary Becker.
Improve basic education
Government should divert whatever is budgeted for contraceptives to improving the quality of basic education among the poor. Poor households, especially in the rural areas, choose to have more children because human beings are their only resources, especially considering the failure of the state to provide farmers with infrastructure.
The poor farmers will suffer manpower shortages in their labor-intensive farming if they start imitating the rich in having only one or two children. The same applies to those millions of households that have at least one of its immediate members working abroad. Seducing them to have fewer children could very well leave them even more destitute, as publications of the UN and Asian Development Bank have predicted.
Disseminating a contraceptive mentality among the poor unmasks a condescending and elitist attitude that the poor should not be allowed to multiply. This policy is dangerously close to the eugenics practiced by authoritarian leaders like Adolf Hitler.
Considering that the competitive advantage of the Philippines in the global economy is its young, growing population, a really propoor economic strategy should allow the poor to choose to have as many children as they wish and then to generously support them with infrastructure, educational and technical skills training, and microcredit support, among other things, so that they can turn their children into truly productive resources.
Those who support the RH bill refer to surveys purporting to show that there is a large demand for free contraceptives among the poor. As mentioned, these surveys are suspect because they are funded by international agencies advocating contraception and abortion. Questionnaires are formulated to influence respondents to give the desired answers.
A recent consumer survey conducted among the C, D and E households (constituting more than 60 percent of households) by SEED Institute, a field research group, came out with more objective data about the demand for contraceptives among mothers in poor households in Metro Manila.
The survey was conducted to identify the consumer patterns of the poor with the intention of giving guidelines to profit-making firms and social enterprises about what goods and services could be tailored specifically to the needs of the poor. The respondents (all mothers) were asked to list down the top three goods or services that they most wanted the government to provide for free after they exhausted their resources to meet their most basic needs. Among more than 20 goods or services on their wish lists, there was no mention whatsoever of “free contraceptives.”
The Philippine Medical Association also asserted that the goal of reducing maternal and child deaths “could be attained by improving maternal and child health care without the necessity of distributing contraceptives. The millions of [pesos] intended for contraceptive devices may just well be applied in improving the skills of our health workers.”
Provoking moral crisis
Several religious groups, Muslim, Protestant and Catholic, oppose the RH measure on moral grounds. Belying pro-RH surveys, these groups, together with other people of goodwill, have rallied by the thousands in many cities and towns around the country, and have contributed in winning post-debate polls on national television.
The Imam Council of the Philippines, leaders of our 4.5 million Muslims, pronounced that contraceptives “make us lose morality.” Throughout the centuries, the Catholic Church has taught that contraception is intrinsically evil. Pope John Paul the Great wrote that contraception “leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love.”
It is, therefore, advisable that Congress refrain from passing a law that would oblige citizens who adhere to their religion to fund an item which they consider immoral. Considering the strong arguments against the RH bill based on secular sciences, it would be prudent for the state not to provoke a religious-moral crisis among a large majority of the Filipino population.
Need for virtue
Lastly, two Asian intellectuals spoke of the virtue needed by a nation. Speaking of the “crime” of contraception, Mahatma Gandhi taught: “Even as many people will be untruthful and violent, humanity may not lower its standard, so also, though many, even the majority, may not respond to the message of self-control, we may not lower our standard.”
Jose Rizal wrote: “Only virtue can save! If our country has ever to be free, it will not be through vice and crime, it will not be so by corrupting its sons, deceiving some and bribing others, no! Redemption presupposes virtue, virtue sacrifice and sacrifice love!”
(The 19 authors are Dr. Bernardo Villegas, Ph.D Economics [Harvard University]; Maria Conception Noche, Alliance for the Family; Frank Padilla, CFC-FFL; Rolando de los Reyes, Courage Philippines; Dr. Eleanor Palabyab, Doctors for Life; Alan Dacanay, Families against the RH Bill; Dr. Angelita Aguirre, Family Media Advocacy Foundation; Leonardo Montemayor, Federation of Free Farmers; Evelina Atienza, Kababaihan ng Maynila; Joseph Tesoro, Live Pure Movement; Eric Manalang, Pro-life Philippines; Jemy Gatdula and Felipe Salvosa, Pro-life Professors; Dr. Raul Nidoy, Science and Reason for Human Beings; Maribel Descallar, Teodora: In Defense of the Authentic Woman; Kiboy Tabada, UP for Life; Luis Buenaventura III, YUPamilya; Anthony Lumicao, Youth United for the Philippines; and Anthony Perez, Filipinos for Life.)
Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.
TAGS: Legislation, Population, Poverty, reproductive health, RH bill