Skip to content

Don’t Vote for these pro-RH Bill Trapos!

April 20, 2010

As the old saying goes, ‘you know one when you see one’. And this is exactly the case as the most ardent advocates of population control have

Source: Editorial cartoon by Manila Standard Today.

Source: Editorial cartoon by Manila Standard Today.

compiled a list of politicians running for public office this May 10 national elections who made an either expressed or implied support for the controversial Reproductive Health bill that would force both employers and doctors to provide RH services to designated beneficiaries against their will.

In an online story published by, Elizabeth Angsioco, national chairperson of the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (DSWP), provided a compiled list of both politicians “with observable favorable position on the Reproductive Health issue.”

According to the badly written paper furnished by this socialist organization, “the listing is largely based on the years of advocacy for the passage of the RH bill and specifically: the political mapping in the House of Representatives done by advocates principally by the Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development Foundation, Inc. (PLCPD), observations and direct dealings with candidates and/or people closely working with them, track record of candidates on the issue and lastly, their public pronouncements.”

MUST-READ BLOG: Reproductive Health Bill: A Fascist Bill!

Excerpt: We have to fight this bill by exposing its many contradictions and evil intents to violate our individual rights and freedom. We are all engaged in a battle of ideas. I oppose this bill not because it’s against the will of God, but because it is dangerous, non-objective and unconstitutional. We are still free to do what we want in this country.”

This bill does not deserve our support. On the face of it, it looks good because it promises to provide the so-called needed services for women and poor people. But if you try to dig deeper into its content and spirit, you would see its perilous imperfections. The RH bill is like a Trojan horse. It is masquerading as a pro-poor program, but in truth and in reality, it is anti-poor simply because in the long run it would affect not just the middle class but the poor it seeks to serve as well.

This bill has three major facets:

First: Social facet. It promises to serve women and the poor, but such a promise is empty, because it would only result in the sacrifice of other social groups, such as businessmen, doctors, and taxpayers, to another beneficiary social group— women and the so-called poor people.

Second: Political facet. The bill empowers the government to impose punitive punishment and excessive amount of fine on violators (e.i., businessmen, doctors and medical personnel, government employees, and anybody who violates the bill). Should they pass this bill, it might stimulate the passage of other welfare state legislation like socialized medicine or universal health care bill. Everybody is talking about the plight of women and the poor, but nobody is giving any attention to the interest of employers and health care providers without whom nobody would have survived. A law that forces doctors to work against their will would definitely trigger medical brain drain in the country.

Third: Economic facet. Since this bill seeks to punish businessmen, it would have a huge impact on the business sector. Most importantly, it might also affect the in flux of foreign direct investment, as foreign investors would be discouraged to do business in the country. Remember that the Philippines, according to 2010 Index of Economic Freedom, is the 109th freest economy in the world. Logic tells us that both domestic investment and foreign investments are important in poverty alleviation.

Now consider this: since the law speaks of providing of RH services to women and poor people, where will the government get the money? The bill speaks of one source of wealth— the business sector that will be immolated and sacrificed for the sake of what our do-gooder politicians call the “common good.”

The bill penalizes businesses that refuse to provide RH care services to their employees. However, the bill is silent as to the second source of wealth— tax money. The government has no magical power to create money or wealth out of thin air. Remember that government spending requires a definite—not potential—source of wealth. It is possible that the government might borrow money from foreign creditors without taxing the people in order to maintain its popularity. But this is a very dangerous option considering the high interest rates that may be imposed by foreign creditors.

On the issue of population management. Are the “population management” programs not provided under the present setup? Are the proponents and advocates of this bill trying to say that today’s families are not given the freedom of choice?

The bill covers the following: (1) Information and access to natural and modern family planning (2) Maternal, infant and child health and nutrition (3) Promotion of breast feeding (4) Prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications (5) Adolescent and youth health (6) Prevention and management of reproductive tract infections, HIV/AIDS and STDs (7) Elimination of violence against women (8) Counseling on sexuality and sexual and reproductive health (9) Treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers (10) Male involvement and participation in RH; (11) Prevention and treatment of infertility and (12) RH education for the youth.

By looking closely at these welfare state promises, these are all available and provided for under the current setup, and that there are existing and open government agencies that can deliver these services. For instance, departments and agencies under Section 4(n), such as the Department of Health, Department of Education, including public clinics, and other specialized government health centers like the Lung Center of the Philippines, Health Center of the Philippines and government hospitals, can be given additional or even special functions only to comply with the supposed social welfare mandate of this bill.

All of the alleged welfare state boons are guaranteed under our present set up. In other words, there is no need to enact this so absurd legislative proposal. However, it is important to note that this bill includes a “pass-on provision.” Its proponents seek to shift the burden of paying for the RH services to employers. By virtue of their success and economic status, employers are being offered to a sacrificial altar to satisfy the reproductive health care needs of a particular group of people. This trend simply means that need now is a claim on slavery.

On the issue of control. Most of the proponents of this bill refused to accept the fact that they want control. 
The proper question is: How can our politicians manage population? And why is there a need to force businessmen to provide RH services to their employees, if population management or control is the primary goal of the bill?

Here’s the list of political candidates who support the RH bill:

For President
Aquino, Noynoy
Prior to becoming a presidential candidate, he had no articulated position. NOT a signatory to the Senate Committee Report on RH BUT mistakenly said that he was. Initially, was openly clashing against the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) on the issue. Keen on providing RH information BUT at best, wary about providing budget for services Recent pronouncements on RH are vague.

Estrada, Joseph
Pro-family planning but unclear on other important RH-related matters

Gordon, Richard
Known as pro-RH but has not CLEARLY articulated his detailed position on key RH matters such as: budget, family planning, RH education

Perlas, Nicanor
Articulated support for RH BUT no concrete position on critical RH matters.

Teodoro, Gilbert
Initially a strong RH supporter and openly clashed against the CBCP. Wife, Rep. Nikki Prieto among co-authors of RH Bill in this Congress. Reported to have backed out from RH but recent pronouncements while softer and vaguer than before are still pro-RH. Nikki Prieto HAS NOT officially withdrawn her RH co-authorship of the Bill.

For Vice-President

Legarda, Loren
Senate RH Bill only moved significantly when she took over as Chair of Comm. On Health. She organized Sub-Comm on RH headed by RH author Sen. Biazon. She signed Comm. Report. NO direct articulation of RH support. Authored a dangerous bill – SB No. 2324 that provides MANDATORY PREGNANCY TESTING for women undergoing cosmetic procedure. This Bill is deemed by women’s groups as violative of women’s right to privacy.

Roxas, Mar
Those who know him say he is pro-RH but so far, has not articulated any clear position.

Yasay Perfecto
His wife has been visible in a few RH-related affairs and has said that Yasay is also pro-RH. However, the candidate has yet to issue a position in public forums.

For Senator

Satur Ocampo

I must add!

Acosta, Neric
Has been consistently and strongly pro-RH through his 3 terms as Representative. Principally authored RH Bills in House of Representatives (HOR)

Biazon, Ruffy
RH Bill co-author. Has been publicly vocal about his position.

Cayetano, Pia
Chaired the Senate Comm. On Health and was the first to make the RH Bill move by calling for Committee Hearings. Has issued pro-RH statements in public forums and media.

Estrada, Jinggoy
Principally authored RH-related bill in Senate. Signed the Senate Comm. On Health RH Report

Hontiveros, Risa
RH Bill co-author. Has been visible in pro-RH activities & issued statements on her position.

Marcos, Bongbong
RH Bill co-author. Known to the RH advocates as pro-RH but is not known to have issued any public statement

Maza, Liza
RH Bill co-author. Has been visible in pro-RH activities & issued statements on her position

Santiago, Miriam
Principally authored RH-related bill in Senate. Signed the Comm. On Health Report. Issued strong pro-RH statements in media interviews. Responsible for the progressive framework provisions of the Senate version of the Magna Carta of women (MCW)

For House of Representatives

  • Ilocos Norte, 1st District
    Ablan, Roque R.
  • Pangasinan, 2nd District
    Agbayani, Victor Aguedo
  • Isabela, 4th District
    Aggabao, Giorgidi
  • Kalinga, Lone
    Agyao, Manuel
  • Isabela, 1st District
    Albano, Rodolfo
  • Camarines Sur, 4th District
    Alfelor, Felix
  • Negros Occidental, 6th District
    Alvarez, Genaro
  • Palawan, 1st District
    Alvarez, Antonio
  • Agusan del Norte, 2nd District
    Amante, Edelmiro
  • Aurora, Lone District
    Angara, Juan Edgardo
    RH Bill co-author but has not issued public statement on the issue.
  • Agusan del Norte, 1st District
    Aquino, Jose II
  • Sulu, 2nd District
    Arbison, Munir
  • Pangasinan, 3rd District
    Arenas, Ma. Rachel
  • Cavite, 2nd District
    Bargaza, Elpidio
  • Lanao del Norte, 1st District
    Belmonte, Vicente Jr.
  • Makati,2nd District
    Binay, Abigail
  • Iloilo, 4th District
    Biron, Ferjenel
  • Masbate, 1st District
    Bravo, Narciso Jr.
  • Apayao, Lone
    Bulut, Elias
  • Davao del Sur, 1st District
    Cagas, Marc Douglas
  • Caloocan, 2nd District
    Cajayon, Mary Mitzi
  • Pangasinan, 1st District
    Celeste, Arthur
  • Zamboanga del Sur, 2nd District
    Cerilles, Antonio
  • Laguna, 2nd District
    Chipeco, Justin Marc
  • Ifugao, Lone District
    Chungalao, Solomon
  • Pangasinan, 5th District
    Cojuangco, Mark
  • Benguet, Lone
    Dangwa, Samuel
  • Maguindanao
    Datumanong, Simeon
  • Batanes, Lone
    Diasnes, Carlo Oliver
  • Zambales, 2nd District
    Diaz, Antonio
  • Sharif Kabunsuan, Lone
    Dilangalen, Didagen
  • Lanao del Norte, 2nd District
    Dimaporo, Abdullah
  • Baguio City
    Domogan, Mauricio
    Co-author and actively involved in the Bill’s promotion. Has publicly articulated his position.
  • Rizal, 1st District
    Duavit, Michael John
    Co-author and helped in the Bill’s promotion in the HOR
  • Lanao del Sur, 1st District
    Dumarpa, Faysah
  • La Union, 2nd District
    Dumpit, Thomas
  • Isabela, 3rd District
    Dy, Faustino
  • Dinagat Islands
    Ecleo, Glenda
  • Sorsogon, 1st District
    Escudero, Salvador
    Co-author and has been involved in
    defending the RH Bill on the HOR floor. Also active in authors’ meetings.
  • Pangasinan, 6th District
    Estrella, Robert Raymund
  • Negros Occidental, 4th District
    Ferrer, Jeffrey
  • Surigao del Sur, 2nd District
    Garay, Florencio
  • Iloilo, 1st District
    Garin, Janette
    One of the main champions in the HOR and has been publicly promoting and defending the Bill.
  • Valenzuela, 1st District
    Gatchalian, Rexlon
  • Sultan Kudarat, 2nd District
    Go, Arnulfo
  • Iloilo City, Lone District
    Gonzales, Raul
    Co-author and actively participated in authors’ meetings on the Bill
  • Mandaluyong, Lone District
    Gonzales, Neptali
    Co-author and went against Rep. Susano when she was objecting to discussion in the Plenary.
  • Tawi-Tawi, Lone
    Jaafar, Nur
  • Sulu, 1st District
    Jikiri, Yusop
  • Nueva Ecija, 1st District
    Joson, Josephine
    Former Chair of HOR’s Committee on Women and championed several pro-women laws. Also played critical role for the RH Bill when she was in HOR. Again running for an HOR seat after resting for I term.
  • Masbate, 2nd District
    Kho, Antonio
  • Zamboanga del Norte, 2nd District
    Labadlabad, Rosendo
  • Negros Occidental, 3rd District
    Lacson, Jose Carlos
    Co-author and very visible in authors’ and other strategizing meetings for RH.
  • Davao del Norte, 2nd District
    Lagdameo, Antonio Jr.
  • Albay, 1st District
    Lagman, Edcel
    The RH Bill’s principal author and champion.
  • Tarlac, 3rd District
    Lapus, Jesi
  • Albay, 3rd District
    Lim, Reno
  • Cagayan, 3rd District
    Mamba, Manuel
  • Sultan Kudarat, 1st District
    Mangudadatu, Datu Pax
  • La Union, 1st District
    Ortega, Victor
  • Nueva Vizcaya, Lone
    Padilla, Carlos
  • Bulacan, 2nd District
    Pancho, Pedro
    Co-author but no public pronouncement.
  • Surigao del Sur, 1st District
    Pichay, Philip
  • South Cotabato, 2nd District
    Pingoy, Arthur
    Led the Bill’s passage at the Committee on Health where he was Chair.
  • North Cotabato, 2nd District
    Pinol, Bernardo
  • Tarlac, 1st District
    Prieto-Teodoro, Monica Louise
    Co-author and actively involved in authors’ meetings. Contrary to reports, she has not withdrawn authorship of Bill.
  • Cavite, 3rd District
    Remulla, Jesus Crispin
  • San jose, Del Monte, Lone district
    Robes, Arturo
  • Pasay City, Lone District
    Roxas, Jose Antonio
    Co-author but had no public pronouncements.
  • Cebu, 4th District
    Salimbangon, Benhur
  • Malabon-Navotas, Lone District
    Sandoval, Alvin
  • Abra, Lone
    Seares Luna, Cecilia
  • Bulacan, 3rd District
    Silverio, Lorna
    Co-author and actively involved on the issue
  • Ilocos Sur, 1st District
    Singson, Ronald
  • Ilocos Sur, 2nd District
    Singson, Eric
  • Sorsogon, 2nd District
    Solis, Jose
  • Quezon, 3rd District
    Suarez, Danilo
  • Iloilo, 2nd District
    Syjuco, Judy
  • North Cotabato, 1st District
    Talino-Mendoza, Emmylou
    Co-author and has been very visible in several pro-RH activities including authors meetings. Public articulation has been consistently pro-RH.
  • Marikina, 1st District
    Teodoro, Marcelino
  • Negros Oriental, 3rd District
    Teves, Pryde Henry
  • Iloilo, 5th District
    Tupas, Niel
    Co-author and visible in authors’ meetings
  • Davao City, 3rd District
    Ungab, Isidro
  • Isabela, 2nd District
    Uy, Edwin
  • Western Samar, 1st District
    Uy, Reynaldo
  • Cagayan de Oro City, 1st District
    Uy, Rolando
  • Cagayan, 2nd District
    Vargas, Florencio
  • Camarines Sur, 2nd District
    Villafuerte, Luis
  • Tarlac, 2nd District
    Yap, Jose
  • Zamboanga del Sur, 1st District
    Yu, Victor
  • San Juan, Lone District
    Zamora, Ronaldo
  • Bukidnon, 3rd District
    Zubiri, Jose Ma.
    Co-author and actively involved in authors’ and other strategizing meetings. Also active in advocating with his co-HOR members.



  • Quezon City
    Bautista, Herbert
    Played a critical role in the passage of the QC RH Code.Defensor, Mike
    Said that he is for RH in ANC debate.
  • Manila
    Lim, Alfredo
    DID NOT REVOKE Atienza’s anti RH EO 003 BUT ‘allowed’ NGOs to work and provide RH services in Manila

  • Makati
    Aquino, Agapito
    Clearly said that he favors providing public funds for artificial contraceptives.

  • Cebu
    Soon-Ruiz, Nerissa
    Co-author and one of the leading HOR champions of the RH Bill

  • Davao City
    Duterte, Sara
    Very visible in RH activities and played a leading and critical role in the recent passage of the City’s RH Code version.

  • General Santos City
    Custodio-Antonino, Darlene
    Co-author and one of the strongest champions of the RH Bill at the HOR.

  • Tabaco City, Albay
    Lagman-Luistro, Krisel
    For reelection. Championed RH Bill when she was in HOR and has implemented RH programs in her city.

  • Cavite, Rosario
    Ricafrente, Nonong
    For reelection. Has been supportive of RH and implemented various important RH programs especially for those in poverty.


  • Aurora Province
    Angara-Castillo, Bellaflor
    For reelection. Championed RH Bill when she was in HOR. She led the passage of the very first local RH Code in the country. Known as an RH champion nationally and internationally.
  • Albay
    Salceda, Joey
    For reelection. Has been openly and publicly articulating his pro-RH position defying GMA’s anti-RH line even as he is known to be her ally.


NO To RH Bill!

22 Comments leave one →
  1. April 20, 2010 3:38

    Great job.

    I remember Erap saying explicitly that the state should not be involved in anyway with this. Surprising to see his son so involved in its advocacy.

    • October 1, 2010 3:38

      A father’s opinion is not necessary his son’s.

  2. Neigyl R. Noval permalink
    April 28, 2010 3:38

    There are good things about this bill. But, there are also bad things in it. However, the
    bad things prevails–that is the reason why I will present the bad things. You need to
    have a copy of the RH Bill on sight for you to be guided accordingly.
    Here are the irregularities of the RH Bill. Please read this carefully so that you may be
    aware of this:

    Section 2. First paragraph: “…respect for life in conformity with internationally
    recognized human rights standards.”
    –> Why not in conformity with the Philippine standards? Why international? Do we need to follow other countries way of population control and reproductive health? Or are we undermined or enslaved by the first world countries? Philippines is known for its good and kind people like being hospitable, which other countries are seeking to learn. We have our own standards.

    Section 2. Third paragraph: “…sustainable human development is better assured with a manageable population of healthy, educated and productive citizens.”
    –> If you love our country, or if you love other people, you will see that this
    statement may promote euthanasia, divorce, etc. If you don’t see it, seek more of its
    meaning. It lies beneath the underneath. There will be an unequal distribution of wealth. Don’t you see it?

    Section 3. (a): “In the promotion of reproductive health, there should be no bias for
    either modern of natural methods of family planning;”
    –> Nothing in this bill that promotes the natural family planning.

    Section 3. (e): “The limited resources of the country cannot be suffered to be spread so thinly to service a burgeoning multitude that makes the allocations grossly inadequate and effectively meaningless.”
    –> Whoa, more money for the rich! If you look at this bill only on its presented
    purpose and overlooking its effects, then we have a problem. You see? This promotes more wealth for the rich.

    Section 3. (f): “Freedom of informed choice, which is…”
    –> What is meant by informed choice? Does it mean everyone is free to watch x-rated films? How about the kids? How about a demonstration in class? Oh, it’s our choice! We are free to be informed of it. Really?

    Section 3. (g): “While the number and spacing of children are left to the sound judgement of parents and couples based on their personal conviction and religious beliefs…”
    –> This statement is contradicted by Section 10.
    Continued: “…such concerned parents and couples, INCLUDING UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS, should be granted…”
    –> This includes minors, and lovers not capable of being a parent. This promotes
    pre-marital sex, non-marital sex, abortion, promiscuity, fornication, incest, etc.
    Anyway, we are free to do it!
    Continued: “…and should be guided by qualified State workers and professional private practitioners;”
    –> Why are church leaders not included? Why do priests, bishops, nuns, etc not

    Section 3. (j): “Development…that seek to uplift the quality of life of the people,
    more particularly the poor, the needy and the marginalized;”
    –> What assurance will the poor benefits? Please reflect on this. Is it really for the
    quality of life?

    Section 3. (l): “Respect for, PROTECTION and FULFILLMENT of REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH RIGHTS…not only the rights and welfare of adult individuals and couples BUT THOSE OF

    –> What reproductive health rights for the adolescents and children? Children are
    included, whose mind are not yet mature enough! This may promote a dirty knowledge about this to the children. Parents will be responsible for this.

    Section 3. (m): “…as abortion remains a crime and is punishable, the government shall ensure the women seeking care for POST-ABORTION COMPLICATIONS shall be treated…and compassionate manner.”
    –> This is again contradicted in Section 10. The bill doesn’t only contradicts the Law
    of Nature but violates the bill itself as well. Post-abortion complications in this
    statement is only an admission that abortion really has complications.

    Section 4. “Definition of Terms”
    –> This may not be that heavy but redefining the common understanding of everyone does not need to be defined.

    Section 4. (b): “…which enables couples and INDIVIDUALS to decide freely and
    responsibly the NUMBER and SPACING OF THEIR CHILDREN…”
    –> “Individuals.” Does this mean that unmarried couples have the right to have
    children? I’m using my common sense here. You should use yours also.

    Section 4. (c): “Reproductive Health – refers to the state of physical, mental and social
    –> Why spiritual and moral well-being not included here?
    Continued: “This implies that PEOPLE are able to have a SATISFYING and SAFE SEX LIFE, that they have the CAPABILITY TO REPRODUCE and the freedom to DECIDE if, WHEN AND HOW OFTEN TO DO SO, provided that these are not against the law.”
    –> Take note of the phrases that are in UPPERCASE. People to have satisfaction includes the youth, unmarried, homosexual, etc. And, they may decide when and how often to do so? How about teenagers doing it every minute on the grassland? It is not against the law as long as no one saw them.

    Section 4. (d): “Reproductive Health Rights – refers to the rights of INDIVIDUALS and
    couples to DECIDE FREELY AND RESPONSIBLY the number, spacing and timing of their
    –> Again, the ‘individual’ word. Does this bill really promotes population control in
    which I can decide freely and responsibly the number of children? Suppose I receive great pay, I can raise about 15 children. What a population control! This bill is too vague.

    Section 4. (g): “10. Male involvement and participation in reproductive health.”
    –> Number 1 to 8 of this section may be considered okay. But on 10, how will I be
    involved and participate with reproductive health? Isn’t it obvious that this refers to
    sex? Take note that on Section 4 (c) doesn’t include the spiritual well-being.

    Section 4. (h): “…relevant information on all matters relating to the reproductive
    system its functions and processes and human sexuality…”
    –> This may promote promiscuity in education.
    Continued: “…developing NECESSARY SKILLS to be able to distinguish between facts and myths on sex and sexuality…”
    –> How? Doing actual sexual intercourse in class? What necessary skills? Does it mean the techniques, the positions and the likes? Does it mean the class will have a film showing on pornographic films?

    Section 10: “Contraceptives as ESSENTIAL MEDICINES – hormonal contraceptives,
    intrauterine devices, injectables and other allied reproductive health products…shall
    be considered under the category of ESSENTIAL MEDICINES…”
    –> This is the most interesting part. Contraceptives are now considered as ESSENTIAL MEDICINES–not only an ordinary medicine but an ESSENTIAL medicine. We can buy condoms the same way we buy Biogesic. Teenagers can buy those too at an affordable price. Better advertise it so that small children will learn too and if possible imitate it through experiments and practice for better reproductive health learning and to master the NECESSARY SKILLS as depicted in Section 4, h.

    Section 12. (g): “Abstinence before marriage”
    –> How can this be promoted when the unmarried are allowed to have sex and reproduction (See Section 4)?

    Sections 22 – 27:
    –> If this become a law, people like me who loves humanity will have no choice to obey it. One reason for peoples immorality may be from this law.

    I know you are tired of reading my sharing. That only proves that this Bill has many
    irregularities. Erase all those above mentioned parts on the Bill, and the Bill may
    become better for the people and will be logical too.

    • zaru permalink
      May 3, 2010 3:38

      Thanks for your comment about RH bill. I learned a lot from you. I say No to RH bill.

  3. malou permalink
    April 28, 2010 3:38

    i am comparing this bill to a recyled expired gift containing a Bomb beautifully wrapped for juan dela cruz.

    • April 28, 2010 3:38

      More blogs on the socialist RH bill

  4. Rey permalink
    May 3, 2010 3:38

    I say NO! to this bill

    No, because it is against morals and the commonly held belief that the procreative processes is to be between husband and wife. The State must not interfere.

    No, because it is missing the point. It won’t solve the population issue but rather escalate it. The real problem is maldistribution of resources and the EDUCATION of our people with regards MORALS, religion and Sound Science in relation to rearing a family.

    No, because of the current government’s incompetence to implement the bill. I really doubt if ALL of the provisions of the bill will be enforced. Almost sure, many would abuse it – the government powerless to prevent this.

    No, because (appealing to logic) it is self-defeating. Its like saying to a teenager “Here’s a condom. It’s free. We are not encouraging you to have sex yet but in case you change your mind, YOU HAVE A CHOICE.” A Choice! Wow, as a teenager, I really have a choice! Now, that’s the problem. What if the choice of the teenager is NOT TO USE IT? What would the STATE do? I would tell you, they would say, well, the constitution grants freedom but it does not have the power to force anyone’s opinion.

    A CHOICE!? An Alternative!? And that would solve the population problem? Are we out of our minds! More alternatives would mean more opportunities for abuse and misuse.

    No, because ALL major religions denounce it. The Bible, Koran, Torah etc.. condemns it. GOOD conscience cannot bear it.


    I believe it is not enough for us to not vote for those who are pro-RH. We are a democracy. I think there are times we need to take matters into our own hands. I believe we need to confront our legislators (anyway, we are the ones they supposedly are trying to serve) in forums, blogs, signature campaigns etc… . Let us let them know our stand. And if they DO NOT SERVE OUR INTERESTS, come election time, WE WILL ELECT ANOTHER.

  5. Rey permalink
    May 3, 2010 3:38

    …………….Still, it is not enough to say no We must have a YES!

    A truly scientific and morally sound YES! – A counter bill that is. An alternative bill. I think CBCP and other groups can help in the making of this bill.

    Let us stretch our creative minds. If we have laws already in existence. Let us reinforce them.

    Let us have a bill that will encourage Parents to exercise their right and responsibility to teach their children with regards having and rearing children. And one THAT WILL ENCOURAGE MORALITY, Fidelity to spouse, and a strong family (one with a Father-with a stable job, a Mother and children-well educated and well fed).

    Let us go back to basics.

    A well-crafted study can be conducted, not merely a statistical survey, a few less reliable studies and the opinion of a handful of so-called experts. And this can be one of the basis of this bill.

  6. May 5, 2010 3:38

    “President Joseph Estrada believes that uncontrolled population growth is a source of poverty. An Estrada Administration will support the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill and work towards fulfilling our country’s commitment to the Millennium Development Goal of achieving universal access to reproductive health by 2015.”

    Just saw this in his website. I am very disappointed.

    • May 5, 2010 3:38

      It’s hard to choose among a pack of evils…

  7. Enrique permalink
    May 9, 2010 3:38

    The supporters of the RH bill follow the logic that raising three childres is easier than raising one. I will not argue with words, but do this. Go into your local shantytown and observe the number of children that are not given enough care by parents who cannot provide.

  8. Enrique permalink
    May 9, 2010 3:38

    The people against the RH bill follow the logic that raising three childres is easier than raising one. I will not argue with words, but do this. Go into your local shantytown and observe the number of children that are not given enough care by parents who cannot provide.

    • amie permalink
      August 1, 2010 3:38

      ADMIN: THIS PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATED HIPPIE IS BANNED. You can argue properly without dropping your manners. Are you even EDUCATED?

  9. October 6, 2010 3:38

    I’m a catholic, but I’m a pro-RH Bill filipino.. I say YES to it..
    If we wanted PNoy to make a difference, let’s try to abide his plans for the Philippines, specifically, the growing population of our country. The catholic church acts like the ‘komunista’–civil disobedience!!
    ~~If God wanted to give LIFE, He will.. but if that LIFE didn’t LIVE, then, it is part of His will..
    Let’s help the Philippines!! Let’s be more practical!! God will understand..
    RH Bill is the first step in attaining the recovery of our nation..
    Be a PRO-RH Bill citizen, be a christian, be practical, be MORAL!!

    • martin permalink
      November 24, 2010 3:38

      hahaha…quite interesting. A catholic to be real one I guess is to go against this Bill, or at least the unnecessary parts. Well, I’m not one of your race. I prefer to be agnostic. But I love to be against that Bill for my sisters. Please do read the whole Bill.

      I didn’t vote for Noynoy either, but I do support him, but not with things that are of so less importance. Let’s prioritize what’s on the main list. Poverty, yes it is indeed a great problem, but the Philippines has never been a poor country. Go all over the country to see that for yourself. We might focus our attention on the word “poverty” only in Manila.

      Corruption, if Noynoy wants to make a difference, this is one thing he should be doing against in his year term – he’s not a superman. For the Church, well, perhaps you can clean first your monasteries then go for a genuine moral advocate. It’s hard to listen to people preaching love but not a slightest sense of it is found in their actions. Peace.

  10. October 10, 2010 3:38

    I’m a catholic, but I’m a pro-RH Bill filipino.. I say YES to it..
    If we wanted PNoy to make a difference, let’s try to abide his plans for the Philippines, specifically, the growing population of our country. The catholic church acts like the ‘komunista’–civil disobedience!!
    ~~If God wanted to give LIFE, He will.. but if that LIFE didn’t LIVE, then, it is part of His will…………..
    better not to RHB

  11. December 8, 2010 3:38

    This RH Bill is already redundant. Don’t we have laws for the “common good” or laws for women and children? The answer should be simple enough: IMPLEMENTATION and education. We don’t need a new bill for this JUST YET. Maybe it could be implemented in another country but to implement it here in the Philippines where most people are conservative, is not the best idea i’ve heard. And ss others saw, there are many irregularities concerning this Health Bill. The public’s eye needs more proof/evidence that this bill would be for the good of the country altogether with the Filipinos needs. Should this really be a priority when there are bigger issues concerning Philippines (like our mountainous loans)?

    However, another point would be that people should be more OPEN MINDED about this issue. Overpopulation has its ominous effects from food to work. SEX EDUCATION to be taught to schools – elementary … high school… would be about POPULATION or DEMOGRAPHY… something like those. NOT CONSUMMATION or the process of safe sex,no?


  12. December 15, 2010 3:38

    I wished to say that it’s awesome to know that somebody else also pointed out this as I had trouble finding the same information elsewhere. This was the first place that told me the answer. Many thanks. Regards, Maryjo.

  13. Yuri25 permalink
    March 28, 2011 3:38

    “you know one when you see one” – Right I see many2 Damaso Priest.
    “Faith makes all things possible. Love makes them easy” – so why worry and intimidate

    Thats why there is a 1 child policy in China because many2 poor people are growing very fast and alarming. Even US supported it.
    Priest should teach and not be a Dictator. Church should not involve because it is against God gift of freewill and state.

  14. May 16, 2011 3:38

    its a no,because its against our religion islam.and apart from that, we dont encourage the teenagers to used condom.

  15. Pro RH permalink
    June 18, 2011 3:38

    Lahat ng mga anti rh bill ay either ignorante, bulag sa katotohanan o nabubuhay pa sa panahon nila Abraham at Flintstones.Bat ba tayo naghihirap, diba dahil kung sino pa yung mahihirap, sila pa yung maraming anak.Common sense naman dyan lalo na sa CBCP na mga hypocrite. Mga tanga pala kayo eh wag nga kayong makialam sa makakabuti sa bansa natin. Panay salita kayo eh wala naman kayong ginagawa para makatulong sa over population natin.Kaya nga forever na tayong ganito na hindi makakaahon at aasenso.CBCP- Corrupt Bishops & Cheating Priests!


  1. RH Bill’s Fallacy of Overpopulation-Poverty Dichotomy « THE VINCENTON POST

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: