THE CFC ISSUES FINALLY CLARIFIED - POINT BY POINT...
Remember the Couples For Christ Petition against HB5043? You know, the one where they try to mislead people into thinking that the bill can send people TO JAIL just for being pro-life? Well, on a pro-lifer blog, A person named Caffeine Sparks clarifies all the issues for us on her blog. Please send this post to folks who need to know the TRUTH behind the Reproductive Health Bill.
Now CFC = Couples for Christ FFL and afterwards comes the clarification.
CFC: 1. As employers, do you agree to be compelled to provide free reproductive health care services, supplies, devices and surgical procedures (including vasectomy and ligation) to your employees, and be subjected to both imprisonment and/or fine, for every time that you fail to comply? Section 17 states that employers shall provide for the free delivery of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers more particularly women workers. (Read the Definition of Reproductive Health and Rights Section 4, paragraph g, Section 21, Paragraph c and Section 22 on Penalties)
CLARIFICATION: The bill complements already existing provisions in the Labor Code which mandates employers to provide family planning services and incentives to their employees. The labor code also prohibits employers to deny these benefits to women employees to avoid having pregnancy be a reason for employment termination. The bill expands on these provisions by mandating free RH services and commodities to their employees providing of course that employees request them (Labor Code Article 134 (a-b) and Article 137(a1-a3).
CFC: 2. As health care providers, do you agree that you should be subjected to imprisonment and/or fine, if you fail to provide reproductive health care services such as giving information on family planning methods and providing services like ligation and vasectomy, regardless of the patient’s civil status, gender, religion or age? (Read Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Letter a, Par 1 to 5 and Sec 22 on Penalties)
CLARIFICATION: The bill's penalties are primarily geared towards preventing health care providers from refusing to offer RH services based on the client’s personal circumstances. Those who refuse to render services on account of religious convictions will not be penalized provided that they immediately refer clients to others with the same facilities. Provided also that the client is not in an emergency or serious case as defined by RA 8344.
CFC: 3. As a Spouse, do you agree that your husband or wife can undergo a ligation or vasectomy without your consent or knowledge? (read Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Letter a, Paragraph 2)
CLARIFICATION: The bill does penalize those who refuse to perform vasectomy or ligation on a person of legal age on the ground of lack of spousal consent or authorization. Once a spouse has sought these services, it is assumed he or she has done so in consultation with his or her partner. It is no longer within the purview of the law and the state whether he or she has decided to undergo these procedures without the express consent of the partner. A husband does not own his wife's body and vice versa.
CFC: 4. As parents, do you agree that children from age 10 to 17 should be taught their sexual rights and the means to have a satisfying and “safe” sex life as part of their school curriculum? Reproductive Health Education will be mandatory from Grade 5 to the end of High School (see Sec 12 on Reproductive Health Education and Sec 4 Definition of Family Planning and reproductive Health, Par b,c and d)
CLARIFICATION: The bill endorses age-appropriate sexuality education to ensure that young Filipinos have the right information while instilling values for them to exercise responsible decision-making in matters of sex and reproductive health. Section 12 lists the main elements of the proposed sexuality education to be incorporated in school curricula. The bill does not contain specifics on having a “satisfying and safe sex life.”
The following are the general topics to be taken up in sexuality education class mentioned in the bill:
1. Reproductive health and sexual rights
2. Reproductive health care and services
3. Attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development, sexual behaviour and sexual health
4. Proscription and hazards of abortion and management of post-abortion complications
5. Responsible parenthood
6. Use and application of natural and modern family planning to promote reproductive health, achieve desired family size and prevent unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies
7. Abstinence before marriage
8. Prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other STIs/STDs, prostate cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer and other gynecological disorders
9. Responsible sexuality
10. Maternal, peri-natal and post-natal education, care and services
So, yeah. No details on kama sutra.
Also, only teachers who agree to teach sexuality education will undergo training.
CFC: 5. Do you agree that you should be subjected to imprisonment and/or pay a fine, for expressing an opinion against any provision of this law, if such expression of opinion is interpreted as constituting “malicious disinformation”? (See Sec 21 on Prohibited Acts, Par f and Sec 22 on Penalties)
If you answered NO to any of the questions above, then you are not for RH Bill 50433. Read the bill. You will find more objecrtionalble provisions such as losing our parental authority over a minor child who was raped and found pregnant (sec 21, 1, no. 3), reclassifying contraceptives as essential medicines (Section 10) and appropriating limited government funds to reproductive services instead of basic services (Section 23).
CLARIFICATION: In accordance with the law, the bill does not curtail every individual’s right of free speech. To express disagreement or dissent against the merits of legislation is the cornerstone of any democratic society.
HB 5043 does penalize any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of the Act. This includes such acts as claiming that the bill will punish parents who, in good conscience, disallow their children to attend sexuality education class.
Now re: CFC's claim that contraceptives are ALREADY available in drugstores for everyone so the bill is reduntant:
CLARIFICATION: If you are a family of 8 living on minimum wage, family planning commodities will probably not be high on your list.
This country has a lot of things freely available on the market. Unfortunately not everyone has the economic freedom to buy them.
Fact: only 51.6 percent of currently married (and in union) women of reproductive age practice any kind of family planning (please see NSO and NSCB sites).
Fact: The Philippines has a 15.7 percent "unmet need" which means they express wanting only 2 or 3 children but end up having more for reasons such as lack of access, lack of purchasing power or lack of knowledge (again check NSO and NSCB sites).
Fact: the Philippines has the highest maternal and child mortality for a country of its level of development - and also in comparison with its neighbors.
Fact: the Philippines is 1 of 6 predominantly Catholic countries with no comprehensive reproductive health program. The rest have seen the light.
Fact: Abortion is happening whether the Church acknowledges it or not. 475,000+ annually is the conservative estimate.
Fact: Contraceptive prevalence lowers abortion rates.
THANK YOU SO MUCH SPARKS FOR CLARIFYING THESE ISSUES, SPARKS. I HOPE THIS ANSWERS MANY PEOPLE'S QUESTIONS RE: THE CFC PETITION...
Please spread this post.
Labels: hb 5043
posted by carlosceldran @ 10:34 PM
26 Comments:
Sparks left that passage, too, on my blog a few weeks ago, and as I replied (as well as commented on her blog), let's not call something a fact when it is not a fact.
Let me pick one of the points you wrote here, since many seem to be sure about what they're saying when they assert that contraceptive prevalence lowers abortion rates. Let's learn from the experience of others and refuse to turn a blind eye --
"At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induced abortion in the group which, in general, most frequently uses contraceptives."
-- Dr. A. Kinsey, 1995 Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) Conference
"...women...have come to request [abortions] when contraception fails. There is overwhelming evidence that, contrary to what you might expect, the provision [availability] of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate." ["Sex Education for Bureaucrats," The
Scotsman, 29 June 1981]
-- British Abortionist Judith Bury, Brook Advisory Centres, 1981
"As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate...".
-- Abortionist and international contraception promoter Malcolm Potts [former director of Planned Parenthood of England] 1976 (even as early as 1973) quoted in Sex and Social Engineering by Valerie Riches
Among the comments that preceded Sparks' comment on my blog is the following. It brings up some pretty insightful and legitimate points, worth considering. I'm sure the commenter won't mind my reposting it here:
--------------
1. Reproductive health and sexual rights
2. Reproductive health care and services
3. Attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development, sexual behaviour and sexual health
4. Proscription and hazards of abortion and management of post-abortion complications
5. Responsible parenthood
6. Use and application of natural and modern family planning to promote reproductive health, achieve desired family size and prevent unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies
7. Abstinence before marriage
8. Prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other STIs/STDs, prostate cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer and other gynecological disorders
9. Responsible sexuality
10. Maternal, peri-natal and post-natal education, care and services
Hi there, sparks, thanks for giving the outline. I just wonder, now that these topics will be taught to grade school students, what the implications are. Sure there is abstinence before marriage, but it's also coupled with prevention of STDs. The lessons don't jibe at all. Because if you really meant to instill in the youth the value of saving sex for marriage, you wouldn't need to teach them how to use a condom.
Also, what do they mean when they say reproductive health? Do we take the definition from the Cairo and Beijing conferences? If that's the case, then the course outline is meant to condition the mind of the youth to be open to abortion, nevermind lesson #4.
And sexual rights: maybe this needs an explicit definition as well. (Does it mean we have the right to have sex with anybody? Does the lesson plan cover why that's not a good idea? Where is the lesson on love being more than just sex? Where is the self-giving aspect of sex? Will these not be covered?)
It's easy to think that when one is well equipped with contraceptive information, and makes a decision regarding the matter, one is being responsible. But is it really what responsibility is? To take the sexual act when you want it? Will that make better people of our youth?
Put these lessons within the context of the permissiveness in the media and pop culture. Now, teens on TV are having sex also. Will the lessons then, allow them to realize how special sex is, or will it simply let them think that sex is casual, after all there are contraceptives to assure that no baby results from it.
Just some of my thoughts! :D
--------------
Okay, that's her comment.
Here's a good read on the bill. It's more of a bird's eye view and I find the blogger to be quite detached in his analysis. It's a more general take on the whole issue, but it's informative.
http://www.filipinovoices.com/the-redundancy-of-rh-bill-5043
The filipinovoices is informative in his own way but he is also effectively rebutted in his comments section too.
And the last few posts and comments you entered are still too slanted in latent Christian righteousness to be of any use to me, My apologies for not agreeing with them.
And the first quotes are referring to studies done in developed countries. It cannot apply to a country like the Philippines where socio economic factors are COMPLETELY different.
I'm sorry, but I am bothered by the concept that teaching sexual abstinence is enough, and that teaching people about contraception and how to protect yourself from STDs isn't necessary.
This is such an illogical, mind-boggling concept that it warrants a flawed but effective analogy: it's like teaching a student how to drive and obey they law without teaching them to wear a seatbelt or other safety precautions, because, you know, they are taught to be "safe" drivers naman e.
It's not just up to the individual. There are always larger environmental, social, psychological factors at work out there. You can teach abstinence in school and in homes and in church all you want, but people aren't confined to these three places only.
There's a BIG world out there, and so many people. It's not realistic and it's not practical and it is downright UNFAIR to DEPRIVE people of vital knowledge like those in the curricula proposed in the RH Bill.
Don't talk to me about the good ol' days when pre-marital sex was supposedly not happening. It WAS happening. And many of these ended in unwanted pregnancies, stunted childhoods, broken families, untimely deaths of ill-informed young mothers.
And it all could have turned out differently if people were ARMED with knowledge. Knowledge is power. And giving people SOME knowledge and withholding other critical info is, indeed, dangerous.
Do we think that our youth are so inherently EVIL that when they hear about methods of contraception and preventing STDs, they will automatically become run out whooping grab the next person they see and have wanton, unbridled, premarital sex.
As if hearing the word "sex" would automatically turn people promiscuous!
Believe me, fear of social stigma and chismis are bigger deterrents to premarital sex and unwanted pregnancy.
And don't tell me I "missed the point" about the statement above. What you said was plain as day. You think people are idiots that need to be given BLINDERS.
I refuse to wear those blinders. And I hope there are more people who feel the same way -- more than those who are so comfortable with theirs.
finally, a decent rebuttal of the confusion spread by couples for christ. thank you for taking the time. i hope people will take the time to understand this bill before condemning it. let them scream heresy.
This is not CFC GLOBAL's petition, this is CFC Foundation for Family and Life's petition. They are two distinct organizations, although FFL used to be part of CFC Global. Therefore, you are quoting the WRONG organization and putting links to the wrong organization.
The website of FFL is www.cfcffl.org. Please do not confuse them with CFC Global (www.couplesforchristglobal.org).
Thank you.
Children anyway inform themselves about sex. The problem is the information they get about sex is WRONG most of the time. When I was 14 years old my classmates were positive that drinking coke and cortal together prevents pregnancy. At the university, I have friends who actually believed that drinking aspirin after sex would prevent them from being pregnant. The result, a lot of my classmates did get pregnant or got someone pregnant destroying their futures. Teaching abstinence only is BS. It will not work. Preventing children from learning about their bodies is wrong because one way or the other they will find out. We could at least make sure that they learn the right things.
Ah. They are separate orgs? Why is it a separate issue from the main one? Did the two factions have disagreements?
Thanks Lance for the clarification.
Actually, I really thought I would never hear from you again. You ran huffing and puffing out of the I SUPPORT THE RH BILL facebook page and now I find you here.
Either way, welcome back and good to hear from you.
Hi Carlos!
Yes, Couples for Christ had a big blow up earlier that resulted in a split. Here is a bit from one of the Inquirer stories that chronicled the tale. Google "Inquirer Couples for Christ” and you will get a whole list of stories on the split.
— Lali
From Inquirer.net:
Since the inception of Gawad Kalinga (GK) in 2003, the Couples for Christ (CFC) organization has been the prime mover of GK providing the indispensable village "caretaker" volunteers and raising the funds necessary to build the GK villages which now number 21,759 homes in 1,253 communities or villages.
In the scheme of things, GK is one of the seven pillars of CFC.
The other pillars are Evangelization and Mission, Pastoral Support, Family Ministries, Pro-Life Ministries, Social Ministries, and Special Ministries. In recent years, some CFC leaders say, GK has taken a dominant place at the expense of the other six pillars. It’s an issue that’s been going around -- subtly -- within the tight-knit CFC/GK community.
In June this year, the subtlety was gone and what surfaced from the one million-member Couples for Christ organization was an earthshaking temblor that shook it to its core. The headline of a leading Filipino-American newspaper proclaimed: "Split rocks CfC; Meloto quits Gawad." I read the article and nowhere did it say that Meloto quit Gawad Kalinga. However, he did resign as Executive Director of Gawad Kalinga last February but it is my understanding that he’s still at (or behind) the helm of Gawad Kalinga.
Cathy,
It's a pity your friends went through all that.
This makes me realize how crucial character education really is, and it needs to be emphasized even more. Character-building -- decision-making, priority-setting... matters such as this. Working on an environment in which students are given opportunities to develop fortitude, resilience, other-centeredness, temperance. Opportunities, too, to discover and develop talents and skills. In other words, to instill in them high ideals.
Young people can do so much more. They simply need opportunities. And if we think highly of them, it's surprising how much they can end up surpassing our expectations.
"And the first quotes are referring to studies done in developed countries. It cannot apply to a country like the Philippines where socio economic factors are COMPLETELY different."
Carlos, human nature is the same and knows no geographical boundaries or socio-economic classes. By "first quotes" are you referring to these three? --
"At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induced abortion in the group which, in general, most frequently uses contraceptives."
-- Dr. A. Kinsey, 1995 Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) Conference
"...women...have come to request [abortions] when contraception fails. There is overwhelming evidence that, contrary to what you might expect, the provision [availability] of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate." ["Sex Education for Bureaucrats," The
Scotsman, 29 June 1981]
-- British Abortionist Judith Bury, Brook Advisory Centres, 1981
"As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate...".
-- Abortionist and international contraception promoter Malcolm Potts [former director of Planned Parenthood of England] 1976 (even as early as 1973) quoted in Sex and Social Engineering by Valerie Riches
Because if you are, the level of development or the class distinction is irrelevant here because it's human nature that is at the foundation of all these.
It is the contraceptive attitude that is crucial here, the mindset behind the use of drugs and devices that are designed to prevent the possibility of conception. It’s a clear "no" to the possibility of having a child as a result of sex.
To understand the connection between abortion and contraception, one may consider this attitude. Why have some people said that contraception may lead to abortion? I can’t be sure about the rationale behind everyone's words but here’s my take on it:
Where contraception is accepted and actively promoted, abortion cannot be far behind. Why is that? Because the contraceptive attitude is already at work. It’s a definite "no" to children; we don't want a baby, we will not have a baby...how ever one may express this sentiment and whatever the reasons may be. And in some cases, the reasons are valid, and delaying pregnancy would actually be the responsible thing to do. But the means employed by the couple is what counts.
Hence, if instead of exercising self-control they let a birth control drug or device do the job, what will happen if contraception fails? When a couple clearly does not hold a welcoming attitude toward a baby, what is the next step? Getting rid of it, of course.
I'm not saying that this is what every couple in such a situation will do; it's the promotion of the contraceptive mentality that I’m driving at (which HB 5043 is doing).
We can see that this mentality is prevalent in some Western countries, where contraception has been more or less accepted in the mainstream as part of their way of life. So, let's not squander this opportunity to learn from them about the tendencies we humans may give in to -- in this case, what a vehement and absolute "no" to human life leads to.
Giving kids information about sexuality and their bodies won't make them promiscuous. I learned about contraception at age 11 (long story). I went to public school, was raised in a lower class neighborhood, had access to TV (FEN pa nga), had big boobs at age 13 (relevant info yan, ha), yet remained chaste until I was in my late 20s - I am happy to report that I had neither STD nor an unplanned pregnancy. I'd say I did pretty well for a lower class Filipino who learned about sexuality at a young age. I think there are a lot more kids out there who could benefit from information other than the cortal-and-coke variety.
"I'm not saying that this is what every couple in such a situation will do; it's the promotion of the contraceptive mentality that I’m driving at (which HB 5043 is doing). "
Actually, that is exactly what you are saying and exactly what the bill is not about (please find the entries and post it where the bill PROMOTES promiscuity and a loose lifestyle.
Find it and I'll send you a cookie.
If you assume I was referring to "promiscuity and a loose lifestyle" then you assume wrong.
But as an open mind and heart are the path to understanding, I take it you'll come to understand these matters eventually.
So let me get this straight.
Those quotes above -- even if the study or statements don't mention the time frame, the context, the milieu and the number of population studied -- MUST be true for EVERYONE in the universe because of HUMAN NATURE?
Therefore, repeating myself, if the RH Bill is passed and kids are taught about contraception, they will AUTOMATICALLY have promiscuous, pre-marital sex and use contraceptives and then, as an inevitable step in case contraception fails (which is a low percentage if used properly), will have induced abortion?
AUTOMATICALLY? ALWAYS?
Because that is basically what sunnyday and many other anti-RH Bill people are saying. Not even implying it, SAYING that FOR SURE this will be the outcome, without doubt.
Are we to believe that human nature would ALWAYS choose induced abortion even with other choices like keeping the baby or giving the baby up for legal adoption?
Would human nature ALWAYS choose death over life?
What an illogical, elementary view on life in general! If this were true, the world wouldn't exist as long as it has. We would have wiped ourselves out a long time ago.
And what a scare tactic to pull on people: "Hala! If the RH Bill is passed, magpapa-abort na lagi ang mga babae; makikipag sex na kaagad ang mga binata at dalaga!"
Are they hearing themselves? This is the ONLY point of contention of those against RH BILL. Nothing more, nothing less.
If we are as moral and religious as we claim we are, this bill wouldn't make anything worse and would be applied only to the appropriate situations.
good comment neva, that is what's really getting into me. the basis of thinking that free contraceptives and sex education will lead to promiscuity is something that is contrary to a fundamental Catholic teaching--that humans are created in the image and likeness of God and therefore are inherently good.
and then yes, there's the fear-mongering and illogical arguments and blatant lies.
and then there's this thinking that contraceptives and knowledge of sex is bad, it's the same thinking that guns and the knowledge of building nuclear weapons is bad. c'mon people, these are mere objects and by themselves are not inherently good nor bad. what is good or bad is the intention and the method of the person who uses these objects.
maybe they meant these objects are dangerous, and that's more precise. but you see, danger can be avoided and again that boils down to the person who uses these objects.
Sexual abstinence is the solution... in La-La Land.
Of course education about sexual and reproductive health should be accompanied by education about values, ethical choices, etc., but the latter fall more within the responsibilities of parents, families, churches. If parents, families, churches fail to teach their children the values they want to impart, why should they compound their failure by stopping the schools from teaching the scientific facts? That's no reason to stop the RH Bill!
Carlos, I've been out of commission for a bit (got busy at work so couldn't follow my favourite blogs), but have been meaning to add my 'bravo!' to the kudos you've been getting for the fantastic advocacy you've done for the RH bill. I actually had no clue about it till you wrote about it in your blog, and I've been following it from a distance ever since. Now I've just learned Janette Garin is going to be a panelist at a conference I'm attending as an observer at the Assemblee nationale tomorrow, so I'll try to thank her in person as well. Enlightened citizens like you redeem that place, which otherwise would be a land of benighted bishops!
Good thing you posted this.
We took up reproductive health in 5th grade. I don't think anyone of us took it THAT seriously at that time, but the information sticks (assuming students do pay attention in class) and you remember the things you've been taught, especially when you hear about teen pregnancies, STDs, etc., or when you find yourself in a certain situation.
I'm all for education. It's always good to be informed, but in the end, it's always the person's own decision--the Church or the government can't change that.
(BTW, I've always wanted to join your tours. Hopefully I'll be able to do so soon. :))
"As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate...".
...at iba pang mga quotes from the 80s from much discredited data.
Fota, this is typical of people whose brains cannot process new knowledge!
In fact, in countries where abortion is legalised and heavily regulated, abortion rates are low compared to the Philippines.
And why should the Church be SO SCARED OF PROMISCUITY. It as a FAILING ON THEIR PART if catholics ARE NOT AS DEVOUT as they think. Eh kung bawal sa kanila premarital sex and they so believe it for religious ek-ek, the RH bill cannot stop them from making sexy time anoh. Pwede ba.
Hay naku.
wow! thank you very much for the info... there are certainly a lot of misconceptions and black propaganda against the bill... and thanks to people like you who take time to enlighten other people... man, i was too lazy to write about it on my own blog.. hehe...
Those who would lie and distort in the name of morality should be ashamed of themselves. They need to first look at the black marks on their own souls before looking for badness in others.
just to clarify, CFC is NOT equal to CFC-FFL.
CFC-FFL was what the break-away group led by Frank Padilla are calling themselves now.
CFC-Global is what you call the original CFC organization from which Frank et.al. broke away from. the same CFC whose social arm, is the Gawad Kalinga. (http://defendingCFC.blogspot.com)
Post a Comment
<< Home