The Challenge that is the RH Bill
by: Atty. Maria Concepci'on S. Noche
Amidst the ongoing debates in the House of Representatives and the Senate and
the continuous discussion on television, radio and in newspapers, let me share with
you some nagging thoughts about RH Bill, n0.w designated as HB 4244.
For simplicity and clarity, I will confine myself to the current version of the bil and not venture into the dark unknown by s'econd-guessing what our legislators may decide to do in the future. I will take off from the statement of Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ in his Inquirer column that the bill will become a law through the exercise of police
power.
Police power is that attribute of sovereignty that enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society. It has the most comprehensive embrace among the inherent powers of the Sltate extending as it does to whatever it is that fosters the "common good." To be valid, its exercise must have a valid public purpose and the means employed to accomplish such purpose must be reasonable, not oppressive nor arbitrary.
Does that mean that the State, through its agencies, can justifiably interfere
with the exercise of the basic human rights to life and liberty and the constitutional rights to free speech and religous freedon-L under the guise of "general welfare?"
Instantly, a glaring discord is obvious here. For how can one claim to champion the
common good when the rights so firmly enslhrined in the Bill of Rights are trampled
upon and sacrificed? As jurisprudence puts it, has the existence of a grave and
immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent been clearly established to warrant the iniringement of these rights?
But before I get accused of putting the cart before the horse, let me point out
some major points.
While the Declaration of Policy of the bill may be replete with defensible
objectives, it is simply that-a statement of objectives that are expectedly noble and laudable. But this behooves us to examine the meat of the bill and determine if the provisions are faithful to the avowed policies.
The Constitution imposes upon the State the duty to "equally protect the life of
the mother and the life of the unborn from conception." The life of the unborn (equally with that of the mother) is entitled to protection at and from conception. And conception here refers to fertilization since these terms were used interchangeably during the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. And this protection to be meaningful should be from any form and degree of harm or injury and deathnot only actual but also any risk or threat thereof. For under our law, a conceived child is endowed with the dignity and worth a~f a human being from his conception and thus is recognized to have the right not only to be born, but to be born well. This necessarily includes the right of the unborn to develop to its full term and not to be expelled prematurely from the mother's womb.
An issue has been raised with regard to certain contraceptives that interfere
with uterine implantation of the developing enibryo and precipitate its destruction and expulsion from the uterus which in medical parlance are known as abortifacients.
Scientific data and findings have been proffered in this regard. This issue has been dismissed by some medical doctors who claim that this action is possible only when there is fertilization which does not occur pr~ecisely because of the contraceptives. In the same breadth, however, they admit that breakthrough ovulation does occur in women taking contraceptives and such incidents have in fact been documented; however, they add that these are very rare.
This denial-admission cannot be recklessly ignored or blithely dismissed
because this puts the life of the unborn child on the line and strikes at the very core of the issues heaped against the bill. The adverse effects of contraceptives on the mother's health which have been supported by data and personal testimonies of victims and their families are serious enough to be summarily dismissed.
Paradoxically, while the bill vows to protect the health of the mother and the child, it shows no respect for life and the fundamental right to life. With the aggressive promotion and widespread dissemination of contraceptives, the bill, in effect, allows and promotes abortion.
Family planning is a matter that concerns and affects the spouses and their
families. They have the constitutional right to participate in the planning and
implementation of policies and programs that affect them. Part of this right is for them to receive correct, complete and clear information not only about the "availability7' of family planning methods and reproductive health services but more importantly, about their nature and effects. There has to be full, honest, and transparent disclosure and dissemination of information and thorough and widespread discussion about these methods and services. As a resu.lt of this exercise, and not privately, the "safe, effective and legal methods" of family planning should be judiciously and prudently determined and identified.. This corlstitutes the essence of free and informed choice. And considering the far-reaching consequences, this exercise should be undertaken before the passage of the bill, not after.
The issue of disregard of religious freedom is no less important. A healthcare
service provider who refuses to provide information or perform health care services on account of religion will nonetheless have to refer the person seeking such care to another provider who is willing to provide the same service or information. Employers are likewise mandated to provide reproduc:tive health services to their employees without mention of religious or ethical considerations. By dangling a criminal penalty of imprisonment and/or fine, believers will find themselves torn between fidelity to God and loyalty to their country. This unjustly limits the right to conscientious objection on the part of health care and medical professionals.
There is also imposition on the freedom of speech for healthcare providers who
knowingly withhold information or restrict dissemination thereof, for any reason.
The abstract proclamations of freedom of religion and expression are
insufficient. To be meaningful, individuals s:hould be allowed to profess and practice their faith by freely seekng and serving God j.n their hearts, in their lives and in their relationship with others. Only in this way can these basic rights be truly guaranteed.
By making reproductive health and sexuality education mandatory for all public
and private schools from grade five to fourth year high school, with a common
curriculum formulated by designated agen.c:ies, the natural and primary right and
duty of parents in the rearing of the youth fc~r civic efficiency and the development of moral character is supplanted by the government which is supposed to assume only a supporting and subsidiary role.
In light of all this, there is no public purpose that justifies the appropriation of public funds for the implementation of the full range of reproductive programs and services. Surely, the government should find better use for our hard-earned money.
Will the Bill undergo an upheaval to pursue a true and genuine public purpose
and adopt means that are reasonably necessixy to accomplish that purpose? I wish I
knew, but I will be bold enough to state that only if and when our legislators come to regard life as the greatest and most precious gift of their Creator to humanity can they sincerely claim to serve the common good.
Unquestionably, the State has a responsibility to seek the common good. In this
capacity, it is legitimate for it to intervene but. certainly, not through authoritarian and coercive measures. In the face of ev-er-changing social conditions that confront us as individuals and as a people, the central question is: What are the requirements that government may reasonably impose upon its citizens and how far should they extend?
As we seek for a genuine balance between the legitimate claims of government
and the rights of those subject to it, we see the need to have a moral approach to the complex and difficult issues that confront our nation and the world today. As
demonstrated by St. Thomas More when he defied the sovereign of which he was a
"good servant" and chose to serve God first, religion has an important place in political process. For indeed, it has been proven time and again that for democracy to be stable, it needs a foundation of moral principles based upon faith and religion.
There is widespread agreement that the lack of a solid ethical foundation for
economic activity has contributed to the recent global financial crisis. Just as "every economic decision has a moral consequence" (Caritas in Veritate, 37)) so too in political field, the ethical dimension of policy h,as far-reaching consequences that no government can afford to ignore.
In the depth of the heart of every human being is a divine yearning for truth, for
goodness and for light. Indeed, as we, Filipi:nos, implore the "aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society and establish a government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good.. ." (the Preamble), how eventually we respond to the challenge that !is the RH Bill will define us as individuals and as a people.
