|
Talking
Points for Dialogue on the Reproductive Health Bill
Issued jointly
by Loyola School of Theology and
the John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues
By Fr. Eric O. Genilo,
S.J., Fr, John J. Carroll, S.J., and Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J
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:
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. It is not specified in the
Constitution 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.
Contraceptives that prevent
the implantation of embryos
• At the center of the controversy regarding abortion and the
RH Bill are IUDs and other contraceptive medications and devices 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 but
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.
Age Appropriate, Value-Based,
Integral Human Sexuality Education
• The mandatory nature of the sexuality education curriculum
proposed by the Bill 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 DEPED 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.
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 polices
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.
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. This provision must have parameters. For example,
if a doctor refuses to administer 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?
Employers' Responsibility
• Employers should not be required to provide in their CBAs
reproductive health services of their employees. To enforce this requirement
would be a violation of the conscience of Catholic employers.
• Proposal: Such a provision is unnecessary because the general
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.
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.
• 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.
Freedom of Speech
• Proposal: 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.
Implementing Norms
• Proposal: 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.
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.
|
