Talking Points for Dialogue on the Reproductive Health Bill

(HB 96; filed July 1 , 2010)1
Issued jointly by Loyola School of Theolog
and the John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues
Authors: Fr. Eric O. Genilo, S.J., Fr. John J. Carroll, S.J., and Fr.
Joaquin Bernas, S.J.


Introduction: Need for Critical and Constructive Engagement in the Debate
The polarization of Philippine society over the Reproductive Health Bill has
been a source of discouragement and discontent among Filipinos. It is unfortunate
that the debate has focused only on whether the Bill should be passed or rejected in
its present form. Either option would not be good for Filipinos. The Church sees in
the proposed Bill serious flaws that can lead to violations of human rights and
freedom of conscience. It would not be acceptable to pass it in its present form.
Total rejection of the Bill, however, will not change the status quo of high rates of
infant mortality, maternal deaths, and abortions. It is a moral imperative that such
dehumanizing conditions should not be allowed to continue. What is needed is a
third option: critical and constructive engagement. By working together to
amend the objectionable provisions of the Bill and retain the provisions that
actually improve the lives of Filipinos, both the proponents and opponents of the
Bill can make a contribution to protection of the dignity of Filipinos and an
improvement of their quality of life.
The following are talking points and proposals for dialogue and negotiation
on the objectionable portions of the Bill:
Talking Point # 1: The Protection of Human Life and the Constitution
• The Church insists on protection of human life upon fertilization. The question
to be answered by the State is if this is the same position it will take regarding
the protection of human life.
• The Philippine Constitution says that the State will protect the life of the
unborn upon conception (Art. II, Sec. 12). It is not specified in the Constitution
This version has undergone some editing by Fr. Romeo J. Intengan, S.J., in terms of structuring of the
presentation, medical terminology, typography, style, specification of referents, and citation of sources.
whether conception means fertilization or the implantation of an embryo in the
womb. The Constitutional Convention seemed to favor fertilization. The
definition of conception will have a bearing whether contraceptives that prevent
the implantation of embryos would be legally allowed or not. This definition of
conception in the Constitution must be worked out both by medical and legal
experts in order to determine the parameters of what reproductive services can
be provided by the Bill.
Talking Point # 2: Contraceptives that Prevent the Implantation of Embryos
• At the center of the controversy regarding abortion and the RH Bill are
intrauterine devices (IUDs) and other contraceptive medications and devices
(HB 96, Sec. 4:15; Sec. 7; Sec. 9) that may have the possible effect of
preventing the implantation of an embryo, which for the Catholic Church, is
considered an abortifacient effect. [Contraceptives without abortifacient effects
are treated differently in church teaching. They are forbidden for Catholics.
Some other religious traditions allow them.]
• Proposal: The State first has to make a clear position whether it considers the
prevention of implantation of an embryo as an abortion. If the State takes this
position, there must be a careful and scientifically based evaluation of each of
the medicines and devices provided by the Bill. Those contraceptive medicines
and devices which are determined to have abortifacient effects are to be banned
even now and regardless of whether the RH Bill is passed or not.
Talking Point # 3: Age Appropriate, Value-Based, Integral Human Sexuality
Education
• The mandatory nature of the sexuality education curriculum proposed by the
Bill (HB 96, Sec. 13) is a concern for the Church because it would compel
Catholic educators to teach parts of the curriculum that may be unacceptable for
Catholics. The Church is also concerned that the parents’ right to decide on the
education of their children would be denied by such a mandatory curriculum for
all schools.
• Proposal: For the purpose of protecting academic freedom and respecting
religious traditions, should not the right of religious schools to write and
implement their own sexuality education curriculum according their religious
traditions be respected? For public schools and non-religious private schools, an
appointed panel of parent representatives, educators, experts in child
development and psychology, medical experts, and representatives of religious
traditions can write the sexuality education curriculum and the Department of
Education can monitor the implementation. Parents with children in public
schools should have the right to have their children exempted from the sexuality
education class if the curriculum is not acceptable to them. The Constitution
allows religious instruction in public schools only if the parents consent in
writing. Should a similar provision be enacted relative to sexuality education?
The Bill must also respect the conscientious objection of individual educators
who refuse to teach a sexuality curriculum that violates their religious beliefs.
Talking Point # 4: Providing Reproductive Health Information and Services
for a Multi-Religious Society
• Even if the majority of the population of the country are Catholics, our
democratic system should ensure that public policies are not determined solely
by majority vote but also by a careful consideration of the common good of all,
including non-Catholics.
• The Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church rejects any imposition
of norms by a majority that is discriminatory of the rights of a minority: (#422)
“Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community
might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition
must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other
religious groups;” (#169): “Those responsible for government are required to
interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines
of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the
community, including the minority.”
• It is the duty of various religions to teach their faithful and form their
consciences about what their religious tradition allows and prohibits with regard
to family planning. It is the duty of the government to provide correct and
comprehensive information on all non-abortifacient (as defined by law) family
planning methods that are available. Consciences will thus be better equipped to
make informed choices according to their religious traditions.
• Proposal: There can be two separate parallel programs for providing
information and training, one for NFP and another for artificial methods of
family planning (with separate budgets). The separation of the programs will
ensure that NFP will get adequate funding and those trainers who wish to teach
only NFP for religious reasons will not be forced to teach artificial methods.
The conscience of health workers and trainers should be respected. If a Catholic
health worker or trainer conscientiously objects to teaching contraception
methods, he or she should be allowed to teach only NFP methods.
Talking Point # 5: Limits to the Anti-Discrimination Provision
• The current Bill prohibits the refusal of health care services and information
based on a patient’s marital status, gender or sexual orientation, age, religion,
personal circumstances, and nature of work (HB 96, Sec. 22, a, 3).
• Proposal: This provision must have parameters. It should properly address
such questions as the following:
- For example, if a doctor refuses to insert an IUD to a minor who requests for
it, would that be considered age discrimination?
- Should the provision apply equally to both in the public and private health
care providers or shouldn’t private practitioners have more leeway in
practicing their medicine as they see fit?
Talking Point # 6: Employers' Responsibility
• Employers should not be required to provide in their CBAs reproductive health
services of their employees (see HB 96, Sec. 18). To enforce this requirement
would be a violation of the conscience of Catholic employers.
• Proposal: Such a provision is unnecessary because the general Philippine
Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) medical coverage, which is
mandatory for all employees, provides for such reproductive health services
upon request of the employee. This allows employers with religious objections
to contraceptives or sterilizations to avoid direct formal cooperation in the
provision of such family planning methods to their employees.
Talking Point # 7: Contraception as Essential Medicines in Government
Health Centers and Hospitals
• The Church’s objection to this provision is that it appears to treat pregnancy as
a disease (see HB 96, Sec. 9)..
• Proposal: The question of whether contraceptives are essential medicines
should be resolved by a panel of objective medical experts such as the
Philippine Medical Association. What contraceptives actually prevent diseases?
It would be helpful to be able to present cases where the use of a contraceptive
is a medically indicated treatment for a particular disease or emergency
situation. If some contraceptives are ultimately decided as essential or
emergency medicines that should be stocked in government health centers and
hospitals, no contraceptives with abortifacient effects are to be allowed.
Talking Point # 8: Freedom of Speech
• The Bill’s provision that penalizes malicious disinformation against the
intention and provisions of the Bill (HB 96, Sec. 22 e) is quite unclear as to
what “malicious disinformation” means. This unclarity could result in the
prosecution and legal punishment of those who dissent in good faith and for
reasons that are at least intellectually arguable, from the views and positions of
those who advocate the Bill in its present form, and who publicly express that
dissent.
• Proposal: clear and fair description of “malicious disinformation”: The
Bill’s provision that penalizes malicious disinformation against the intention
and provisions of the Bill should be refined by a clear description of what
constitutes “malicious disinformation,” or failing that, the provision should be
scrapped.
• Proposal: role of major religious traditions in the crafting of implementing
norms: The committee to be in-charge of the Bill's implementing norms should
have representatives from major religious traditions to ensure that the rights of
people of various faiths would be protected.
Epilogue: Respectful Dialogue in a Spirit of Charity
The above proposals are intended to generate constructive and respectful
dialogue leading to concrete actions that would correct the RH Bill. It is hoped that
the parties involved in the RH debate would move away from hard-line positions
and consider negotiations as a more positive step towards working for the good of
all Filipinos, with special consideration for the unborn, the youth, women and
families in difficult circumstances.
Finally, we can turn to the following Christian maxim as our guide in our
search for answers and solutions regarding the RH Bill: “In essentials, unity; in
non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” For things pertaining to
protecting human life and dignity, we need to come to a consensus for the common
good; for things that can be left to individual decisions without violating human
life and dignity, we need to respect freedom of conscience of every Filipino both
Catholics and non-Catholics; in all our discussions, we need to speak and act with
charity and understanding as members of the same human family and community.