Yes, I'm a Catholic, but this set of reasons gave me a proud heart at the note that I'm not alone at the fight against RH Bill. Even some secular atheists hate it. Why?
Section 3 of the RH Bill contained its “Guiding Principles“, these are my rebuttals to each of the principles
1. Freedom of choice is already in the bill of rights.
2. No such thing as reproductive health rights in the constitution’s bill of rights. Rights of individuals – of all ages and genders and freedom of association are already respected in the bill of rights. Although I concede that while Article II Section 15 states that “The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them” it does not necessarily follow that the state should engage in massive public spending when there are better superior market-driven options. It also brings the equal protection clause of Section 1 of the Bill of Rights into the picture – why limit the protection to Reproductive Health only when there are other higher causes of morbidity and mortality. ?
3. “Responsible parenting is already provided for in our educational system. Improve the curriculum and increased access to education is a better solution.
4. Safe delivery of children is a function of enforcing standards of safety – not more hospitals and free hospitalization”
5. The poor and marginalized must be empowered and provided with jobs so they can afford reproductive health care services and supplies
6. The state will create a condition favorable to jobs so that people will have less time for procreation, have better education, and can afford contraceptives.
7. This is a big waste of money. All these programs are sources of corruption. Bidding of conduct of seminars, meetings, supplies for conduct of these studies, programs, from start to finish is already front loaded with “SOP”. The fact of the matter is with orwithout state intervention – changes in women’s atittude have led to a reduction in fertility worldwide.
8. The provision of information materials is big business – This is another waste of money. Ad production, printed material production – from pre-bid to awarding to payment – this is already front loaded with SOP. The supplies will be cornered by the congressman – and will be used for patronage politics – without reducing poverty – and fertility rates declining nonetheless.
9. Philippine NGOs are a burden on taxpayers. In contrast Western NGOs are funded by private donors. Private donations is not a known Filipino trait.
10. Treatment of abortion casualties are already being provided for in various hospitals.
11. Gender equality and women empowerment are best felt when women have careers and jobs – and exercise their choices. An RH Bill does not provide for careers and jobs that can empower women.
12. The grossly inadequate allocation of resources is a function of economic policy not reproductive health.
13. Development boils down to this – create producers – not beggars.
14. Economic liberalization addresses the needs of people more comprehensively – to include reproductive health.
= = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.S. Indonesia allows up to 67% foreign ownership of hospitals – in the Philippines, foreigners can’t go beyond 40% ownership.
Source: http://antipinoy.com/no-need-for-rh-bill-the-view-of-an-atheist-secular-filipino/
Now, there's a reason to reject this bill... No need for more words. These are enough. Well, we can give these reasons to our friends at Congress so that, instead of interpellating for morality's sake, we may also use some pieces of their rationality and logic.
How about that? ;p
No comments:
Post a Comment