Skip to content

What Kind of “Rights” and “Choice” are You Talking About, Sen. Cayetano?

June 7, 2011

I’ve said many times before that one of the evils of our current Constitution is the perverted, distorted concept of  “rights”. Today, we continue to see and hear politicians who speak about our alleged rights to almost every social welfare to be provided by the government and financed by the country’s taxpayers, namely, the right to education, the right to affordable housing, the right to a subsidized LRT/MRT ride or transportation, the right to health care, the right to reproductive health care, right to full employment, among many others.

The fundamental question that our politicians and advocates of public services and welfare statism tend to evade is, Who will pay for all these services? Instead of giving a direct answer, these advocates of welfare statism resort to equivocation and say, “Well, it is the duty of our government to take care of the poor and of those who need help.”

At whose expense?

Their most common reply is, “no man is an island”– or- “everybody uses public transport and public road, anyway, so why not create your own individualist society if you don’t want to pay your taxes?” 

Actually, their answer is “somehow.”

Somehow, the government will find a way to finance all its public and social services.

Yes, “somehow” always means “somebody.” Somebody or some group of people would be sacrificed or immolated by the government so to serve the welfare and interests of some social beneficiaries. 

Consider the so mediocre a sponsorship speech delivered by Sen. Pia Cayetano in Congress in support of the controversial Reproductive Health bill.

On the separation of Church and State and the freedom of religion.

Mr. President, we, as Senators have our own personal views and relationship with God. This is a part of who we are. Thus, I do not ask that we separate our moral values from our scrutiny of the bill. I simply ask that we remember that our religious views may be different from our neighbors and we cannot use our legislative seat to deprive a fellow Filipino of his legal and constitutional rights to exercise his religion, to make choices within the legal boundaries but based on his own religion and NOT ours.

Time and again, the position of the Church has been discussed as a basis for not supporting this bill, but as Senators, we are tasked to separate our religious beliefs when they interfere with matters that belong to the State. I simply ask that we recognize the right of every citizen to make choices regarding ones reproductive health based on one’s own conscience, moral and religious views.

Just because we are a predominantly Catholic country doesn’t mean we can impose Catholic dogma on every Filipino. That is the job of the clergy and they can do as they please in the Church and its activities with their flock. But, in the halls of Congress, the Constitution is clear, – – there must be a separation of Church and State. If for the sake of argument, 99.9% of Filipinos were Catholic and every single one expressed a certain view, I would still be standing here today to fight for the rights of that 1 Filipino who is entitled to choices based on his religion and not the religion of the majority … because that is the mandate of our Constitution — that we make laws respecting the freedom of religion of all without the Church interfering with matters that should be left with the State.

Following the same argument, if 99.9 % of the population belonged to a different religion, I would still stand up for that 1 Catholic to ensure that his rights were protected and that services and facilities were available to allow him to make choices based on his beliefs. Those are the principles of separation of Church and State and the freedom of religion.

Sen. Cayetano correctly argued that religion is a private matter, but it seems that she does not know and understand that the RH bill, which she strongly supports, is violative of every religionist’s or Catholic’s freedom of conscience and freedom to believe and practice his/her religion.

Under section Section 28 of the bill, any catholic doctor or religionist health care provider who has drawn attention to potentially embryocidal and abortifacent effects of devices and drugs may be accused of providing misinformation to his/her client or patient. Also, any health care provider who would refuse to facilitate or conduct procedures to which he objects for reasons of conscience and of religion may be accused of withholding RH information. Those who refuse, for reasons of conscience and of religion, to provide artificial reproduction to single parents or contraceptives to unmarried persons may also be penalized by the bill if ever it is enacted into law. Even if exemption is limited to a “refusal” for reasons provided in Section 28(3), namely, a person’s marital status, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, or nature of work, no exemption is given for moral objections to morally contentious services and procedures.

Ironically, Sen. Pia Cayetano seeks to brandish herself as a champion of RH rights and of secularism yet she’s miserably unaware that she supports a bill that is violative of some people’s rights and freedom of conscience and of religion. Indeed, this welfarist Senator is neither an advocate of rights and freedom nor a supporter of secularism, as she supports the sacrifice of some group of individuals in order to serve the welfare of the bill’s intended beneficiaries.

This Senator  miserably talks about her alleged strong conviction to “stand up for that 1 Catholic to ensure that his rights were protected and that services and facilities were available to allow him to make choices based on his beliefs.” But it seems that she does not understand that the bill seeks to jail a Catholic or Protestant doctor or health care provider who would refuse to abide by some of the bill’s contentious provisions for reasons of conscience and of religion. Also, it seems that she does not properly understand the concept of “freedom of choice.”

To Sen. Pia Cayetano: Is freedom of choice legally deprived in this country? If not, why support the bill?

Last time I checked, everybody has the right and freedom to buy condoms at any convenience store in the metropolis or to consult with any physician or health care provider.

Last time I checked, everybody has the right and freedom in this country to practice family planning or use any kind of contraceptives.

So what kind of “choice” are you talking about, Sen. Cayetano? Did the past Congress or administrations pass a law that legally prohibits us from making choices, or a political measure that legally negates our rights?

I hope our lawmakers in Congress had the courage to define and identify what they call “right” and “choice.” I hope they had enough courage and sanity to admit that what they want is government-funded rights and choices. Since Rep. Edcel Lagman and Sen. Cayetano argue that RH is a right, they believe that it must be funded and provided by the government at the expense of our taxpayers, of health care providers, and of the economic future of this country.

So what if another lunatic lawmaker passed a bill that seeks to allegedly solve poverty by providing affordable housing  and other services to the poor and the underprivileged simply because this is guaranteed by the Constitution?

Well, why not make our government the provider of everything we need since this is also guaranteed by our semi-socialist Constitution under the most perverted and most distorted “general welfare” clause? Let’s see if this country can survive in just a few months without sacrificing the creators and producers of wealth.

In a previous blog I stated the following, “a right refers to freedom of action in a social context. It does not impose any form of obligation on others. A right to life does not mean that the government or someone is obliged to feed you or give you the basic necessities you need to survive. It simply means you have the right to work and to sustain your life without putting any form of burden on others. If you firmly believe that others are obliged to feed you, it means that those other are condemned to slave labor. The right to liberty does not mean you are entitled to destroy the property of others with impunity and then claim you have a right to do so. In a free society with objective laws, you would be sent to jail for violating other people’s rights. The right to property does not mean others are obliged to give you land or shelter you need; it means you are free to work and earn the fruits of your labor.”

Sad to say, Sen. Cayetano’s speech is littered with lots of contradictions. This confirms my claim that even our lawmakers have a so DISTORTED a concept of rights. They claim that RH is a right so they argue that the government must provide it to them by forcing employers to comply with the provisions of a legislation. Their failure to obey the law would perhaps send them to JAIL. So in other words, the RH bill regards employers or doctors as potential CRIMINALS. Why use force and coercion against them? You, as an employee, have the right to keep your salary and invest anywhere and in any way you can, so that when time comes that you contract a disease or when you get old you’d have something to use or to spend. And since RH is a right, Filipino doctors are legally obliged to obey it.

So what would happen to a Catholic doctor (like a friend of mine) who believes that some provisions of the bill are against her conscience and religion? Does that mean that by refusing to obey the provisions of the RH bill on account of freedom conscience and freedom of religion the government could penalize him? What would happen to him if he refused to rendered the required “pro bono” services required by the bill?

Sen Cayetano and her fellow pro-RH bill solons have to understand the proper concept of rights. Does a right impose any form of obligation on others?Does a right require government funding and positive intervention? Does it mean some entity (e.g., government or a company) or someone has to provide the things you need?

20 Comments leave one →
  1. josefusjoselitus permalink
    June 9, 2011 3:38

    Sa House of Representatives alam nating kung may gusto man sa rh bill, may di rin gusto, at may wala ring pakialam. Sa senado gayon din, may gusto, may ayaw at may kung sige, sige kung di, e di. Pero wag nyo namang sabihing karamihan sa mga pinoy gusto sa rh bill! Papaano ba ang isang tao gusto sa isang bagay na di naman niya alam at naintidihan? Halimbawa, may dala akong survey questionaire at isa sa nakasaad na tanong doon ay, “May alam ka ba’ng paraan sa plano ng pamilya?”.Sagot dito e maaring meron, wala masyado, o wala. Kung ang tanong naman ay ganito, “Sapat ba ang serbisyo patungkol sa health, reproduction and family planning?”Maaring oo, di gaano, di sapat ang sagot. Ngayon, ang mga sagot ba dito’y sapat nang batayan para sabihing kailangan ng rh bill? Ito pa, kung ang tanong ay talagang patungkol sa rh bill papaano ngayon i-formulate ang tanong? Alangan namang ganito, “Gusto mo ba na may rh bill”? Papaano ngayon yan maging reliable ang sagot na yes or no kung di naman alam o naintindihan ng aking respondents ano yong rh bill?
    Ito ngayon ang MALAKING TANONG: PAPAANONG ALAM NYO NA KARAMIHAN NG PINOY AY GUSTO NG RH BILL?
    Sen. Pia and company, you reflect on this:(Situation involving ordinary pinoy)
    Ordinary pinoy 1- Mabuti pala yong rh bill kasi klaro na doon ano yong mga contraceptives na pwedeng gamitin na di na tayo kailangan pa’ng mag-isip baka abortive ito
    Ordinary pinoy 2-Kakatakot naman yan, di ba’t ang alam natin na ano mang bagay na nagko-curtail sa natural na proceso ng buhay ay kasalanan sa Diyos lalo pag ginamit mo’y contraceptive medicines halimbawa pills at iba pa?”
    Ordinary pinoy 1-Papaano mali yon ang sabi ng rh bill basta wala pa sa fertilization e di pa yon abortion?
    Ordinary pinoy 2-Bahala ka basta ako buo ang paniniwala ko na labag sa kautusan ng Diyos ang ano mang paraang kikitil sa proceso ng buhay.
    (Situation involving doctor and other health/medical practitioners who happened to be deeply religious)
    Client – Prescribe me a medicine or medicines that would stop cells from being fetilized.My mating with a partner was still less than two weeks now.
    Doctor-I’m so sorry but I cannot with my conscience give you what you desire esp that I know it could either be within the fertization process or already fertilized now (In the doctor’s heart is a conviction to live his faith).
    Client- Thank you, but I would report this matter to the authority

    Please reflect specifically in view on what you amplified as rights, freedom of choice.

    Another thing to reflect on is “When life begins”. Is justifying contraceptives (as not life-curtailing when the use or application it is not within the fertilization as justified intellectually/scientifically) not a show of human arrogance before God?

  2. Joseph Perez permalink
    June 9, 2011 3:38

    Vincent if ever I be jailed for my Anti RH Bill stance I will gladly share the cell with a “perceived enemy” such as you It will be an honor for me to do so🙂

  3. June 10, 2011 3:38

    Best post I have read against Cayetano so far. Thank you.

  4. lovellespice permalink
    June 10, 2011 3:38

    well written…! I don’t know if you would take this a compliment, but you have articulated my conservative political stance better than I could ever wish..

  5. lahingpinoy permalink
    June 13, 2011 3:38

    Catholic bishops threatened PNOY’s admin with a tax-boycott. What is your take on this? BTW, I read some of your works here and I felt relieve you are very much aware of the hidden agenda (Welfare State) of the RH-bill. Pro-Rh bill supporters call it “conspiracy theory”.

    • June 13, 2011 3:38

      A mere “threat” not to pay tax does not constitute any crime. Unfortunately, we have laws designed to penalize anyone for not paying his taxes.

      As to “welfare state”, it’s NOT even a hidden agenda. It’s there. Just read the bill and understand the concept of welfare state. If you understand that concept and read and grasp the intents and provisions of the RH bill, then you’d find out that it’s not a conspiracy theory and it’s the pro-RH bill who have been spreading sick, disgusting lies and conspiracy theories.

      In regard to this matter, I don’t agree with the position of the Catholic Church. If you want to know why, read the rest of my anti-RH bill blogs.

    • Jayme permalink
      June 14, 2011 3:38

      This is what I hate the most about Filipinos. They always claim the right to pick whatever “right” they want to fight for even if that particular gift does not exist to begin with. The right to be rich. The right to double-standard living. The right to claim all advantages while having the right to dismiss disadvantages as act of oppression.

      It isn’t the subject of the argument but I find it amusing on how politicians pull it whenever a camera is rolling.

  6. jakeyr permalink
    June 15, 2011 3:38

    A right exercised by a person in a social context must contain some degree of obligation on the person exercising the right and on the members of the society, including governments/states. where that person chooses to exercise the right. There will always be a middle ground wherein governments will have to obligate a person to exercise some form of social responsibility for fellow citizens.
    By the way, a lawmaker who will call for affordable housing for all is not a lunatic. Your adding the word affordable means that the beneficiary will pay for it. If you had omitted affordable, then i will agree that the lawmaker is a lunatic.

    • June 15, 2011 3:38

      As to this statement: “A right exercised by a person in a social context must contain some degree of obligation on the person exercising the right and on the members of the society, including governments/states. where that person chooses to exercise the right. There will always be a middle ground wherein governments will have to obligate a person to exercise some form of social responsibility for fellow citizens.”

      For every human being, a right is the moral sanction of a positive — of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights. To abstain from violating the rights of others is NOT an obligation to be taken by anyone. It simply means you have no right to violate others’ rights or impose any form of obligation on others. You cannot say, “We have an obligation not to violate the rights of others.” Why call it obligation. Why not call it “RESPECT”.

      As to this statement: “By the way, a lawmaker who will call for affordable housing for all is not a lunatic. Your adding the word affordable means that the beneficiary will pay for it. If you had omitted affordable, then i will agree that the lawmaker is a lunatic.”

      This is my full statement: “So what if another lunatic lawmaker passed a bill that seeks to allegedly solve poverty by providing affordable housing and other services to the poor and the underprivileged simply because this is guaranteed by the Constitution?”

      My statement remains the same. If you’re OK with a law that seeks to ensure the AFFORDABILITY of housing products, how will the law make it happen and at whose expense?

      To make housing products affordable, such a law must require the following:

      1. Price control;

      2. Set a price limit;

      3. A bureaucratic fiat that regulates the selling of housing products;

      4. Government subsidy.

      At whose expense? In the case of 1 to 3, at the expense of anyone who’s in the housing or real-estate business.

      In the case of 4, at the expense of every taxpayer. And you have the NHA that takes care of that. Perhaps a lawmaker who proposes such a law is not lunatic; he’s insane…

  7. GreenGoblin permalink
    June 19, 2011 3:38

    http://blogwatch.tv/news/the-rhbill-hb-4244-and-authors’-amendments/

    Please read. Kthanksbye.

  8. Fred permalink
    September 13, 2011 3:38

    She totally forgot that “1 Catholic” could be a health practitioner/provider, and went on talking about alleged rights, which to her mean services and facilities. You can’t be a pro-rights if you defend one’s “rights” but neglect another’s.

    By the way, Froi, in case RH Bill becomes a law, do you think this will have an impact on employers’ preference on men over women employees due to RH benefits? I tried to go over the Bill but couldn’t find what RH benefits exactly are employers mandated to provide their employees. Benefits, of course, entail costs. While the Bill pushes for Gender Equality and Equity, wouldn’t the bill rather provide justification for more “inequality” in terms of employment?

    • September 13, 2011 3:38

      I think so. That would be one of the negative impacts of the bill if it ever becomes law.

      Yes, those provisions forcing employers to provide services to their employees had been deleted. But remember that there’s are provisions empowering DOLE to make implementing rules and mechanisms. In effect, the bill would delegate powers to DOLE and DOH and other agencies to make rules and regulations and additional implementing mechanisms.

  9. Riza permalink
    October 7, 2011 3:38

    Not only are the doctors forced to practice against their beliefs, the doctors are also denied the right to exercise better judgement to seek the better and safer option for the patient.

    • kamote permalink
      October 13, 2011 3:38

      I kind of like this thread. This is way better than the rabid RH fora that I’ve seen. I’m a PRO-RH guy (hence a lunatic — teehee), but I’ve been looking around for some rational anti-RH thoughts.

      I don’t think doctors are denied their right to exercise better judgment if the bill gets passed. The SOP, I think, is for the doctor to inform the patient of all the possible procedures that are out there, then the patient chooses a procedure he/she is most comfortable with.

      Of course, the opinion of the doctor bears the most weight, but he has first to lay out the pertinent procedures that the patient can choose from.

      • kamote permalink
        October 13, 2011 3:38

        I changed my mind. I’ve read some of the articles in this site, and I got the feeling that the author of this blog is full of angst and of himself. Angst and self awareness are okay, but they tend to mess up a nice conversation.

      • October 13, 2011 3:38

        And the morons who support the bill are not full of angst and of themselves? Nice try moron.

Trackbacks

  1. Filipino Freefarting Hippies for Palamunin Culture « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. Filipino People Need Jobs, Not RH! « THE VINCENTON POST
  3. PNoy’s Malthusian/Marxist Economist: ‘PH must manage its population and decrease its dependency rates’ « THE VINCENTON POST
  4. What Kind of “Rights” and “Choice” are You Talking About, Sen. Cayetano? - VINCENTON BLOG

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: