Creative-Accounts Engineer at IdeasXMachina (IXM)
Instructor- University of Asia and the Pacific
The RH Bill, fashioned as a vanguard of women’s rights and freedom, actually suppresses the rights and the freedom of certain individuals – be they a man or a woman – to act in conscience. I am for women’s rights. But I don't think the RH Bill promotes authentic women’s rights if its provisions include trampling on certain individual rights.
A few months back, my dad had a car accident. He was brought to the Philippine
General Hospital. My mom, being the affable woman that she is, got a chance to
talk to several doctors in PGH. She even got to talk to one of the
higher-ranking doctors. And, guess what, she brought up the issue of the RH
Bill. She asked the doctor about what the PGH needs. The doctor told her that
they need a lot of things, but they are certainly not asking for
contraceptives. They don't need those. That’s why majority of the doctors in
the PGH are not for the RH Bill.
In a similar note, one of my friends is acquainted with someone who did
volunteer work at the Tondo General Hospital. This guy saw how many pregnant
women were not attended to properly because of lack of doctors, nurses, and
rooms. Some of these women even had to give birth right along the corridors of
the hospital.
No wonder many women die in childbirth. It’s certainly not childbearing itself
that is the problem. As I mentioned previously, it’s the lack of equipment and
personnel.
Will contraceptives help these women? Perhaps. Because by then maybe there
would be no more women coming in to these hospitals.
But, just like a festering wound, one does not cure it by putting a Band-Aid.
In doing so, one would simply stop paying attention to the wound.
Will contraceptives help these women? Not at all. It simply covers the real
wound – that our public hospitals are suffering from a lack of amenities and
personnel.
So, when Senator Pia Cayetano pointed out during a senate debate on Senate Bill
2865 (the
Pro RH Bill Sen. Pia Cayetano |
counterpart of House Bill 4244 - PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE POLICY
ON RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD, REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, AND POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES) that an average of 11 mothers day everyday, what her
calculations failed to explain are the circumstances around why these mothers
die. She, perhaps deliberately, made it seem like they die because of giving
birth per se. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Senator Cayetano is
putting a covering the real wound.
This brings me to my second point. Previously, I tried to cover why I am
anti-RH Bill on the basis of the P3 BILLION allotted budget for contraceptives.
Here I will attempt to explain that the RH Bill has provisions that go against
the very foundations of a democratic society: individual freedom.
Going over the texts of both versions of the RH Bill from the House of
Representatives and the Senate, one particular provision is similar to both.
Sec. 28 of HB 4244 is about the acts prohibited by the bill. In Sec. 28 a), the
bill talks about how healthcare service providers have the right to refuse
giving programs and devices on reproductive health based on their beliefs and
religious freedom, but they are required to refer their patients to those who
would make these services available to them.
It seems fair enough. However, Sec. 28 b) and c) does not give the same right
of “conscientious objection” to public officials and private employers who
prohibit making available these reproductive heath services to their
constituents and subordinates.
And the penalty?
HB 4244, Sec. 29 says: “imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six (6)
months or a fine of Ten Thousand (P 10,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P
50,000.00) or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the
competent court; provided that, if the offender is a public official or
employee, he or she shall suffer the accessory penalty of dismissal from the
government service and forfeiture of retirement benefits. If the offender is a
juridical person, the penalty shall be imposed upon the president or any
responsible officer” (emphasis added).
The Senate version, SB 2865, contains a similar section on prohibited acts.
Sec. 18, b) and c) cover public officials and private employers. Sec. 19 states
the same penalties as mentioned in HB 4244.
So what has happened now to the religious freedom of public officials and
private employers?
Freedom of Religion compromised |
This does not need much of an explanation. A public official or a private
employer who does not provide contraceptives to his constituents or his
employees, perhaps because of his religious convictions, are penalized. So now,
these individuals cannot follow their conscience? They cannot profess and live
by what they believe in because the RH Bill states that they will be penalized
for doing so. Clearly, the RH Bill contains parts that disregard the freedom of
certain individuals. Article III, Sec. 5 of the 1987 Constitution of the
Philippines states that: “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be
allowed.” Religious profession is not limited to public worship. It includes
being able to freely live by what you believe in.
The RH Bill, fashioned as a vanguard of women’s rights and freedom, actually
suppresses the rights and the freedom of certain individuals – be they a man or
a woman – to act in conscience. I am for women’s rights. But I don't think the
RH Bill promotes authentic women’s rights if its provisions include trampling
on certain individual rights.
It is hard to ignore or belittle such a provision in the RH Bill. If made into
a law, for sure many good public servants and private employers are going to
lose their jobs. Worse, they might even go to jail.
In the words of an old Black-Eyed Peas song, “Whatever happened to fairness and
equality?”
1 comment:
good one bro! keep it up! don't let the Pandora's box open.
Post a Comment