Several students, faculty, and alumni of my Alma Mater University of the Philippines Diliman has recently released a position paper on the Reproductive Health bills being pushed for approval by both Houses of the Congress and supported by the Aquino administration.
After reading the position paper below, I must say that my previous position on this issue has been shattered.
The position paper is below. After reading it, you may click the link that will lead you to the page where you can sign the petition.
POSITION PAPER ON THE RH BILLS
by individual faculty, students and alumni of the University of the Philippines*
As faculty members, students and alumni of the University of the Philippines, we state here the bases of our objection to the Reproductive Health bills (HB 96 and its related bills) that are being deliberated under your supervision.
Given the secular background of UP education, we put forward arguments from reason, to wit:
1. Population is not an obstacle to development. The bills assume that a nation’s population hinders its development that is why they push for the promotion of a two-child policy, massive distribution of contraceptives, sex education (to acquaint young people with contraception), and sterilization, all of which make use of taxpayers’ money. However, as early as 1966, Nobel Prize winner Simon Kuznets’ research has shown that there is insignificant empirical association between population growth rates and output per capita (economic growth). Rather, it is the rate at which technology grows and the ability of the population to employ these new technologies efficiently and widely that permit economic progress. Kuznets saw that the basic obstacles to economic growth arise from the limited capabilities of the institutions (political, social, legal, cultural, economic) to adjust. He argued instead that a more rapid population growth, if properly managed, will promote economic development through a positive impact on the society's state of knowledge. His findings have been confirmed by similar studies by the US National Research Council (1986), the UN Population Fund Consultative Meeting of Economists (1992), Eric Hanushek and Ludger Wößmann (2007), among others.
2. The government has to channel limited funds to job creation and education. The latest report of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) entitled Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2010 notes that the “middle class has increased rapidly in size and purchasing power as strong economic growth in the past two decades has helped reduce poverty significantly and lift previously poor households into the middle class.” Two factors were reported to drive the creation and sustenance of a middle class: a) stable, secure, well-paid jobs with good benefits, and b) higher education. And so, why not create more bills that will strengthen these two factors instead of channeling our limited funds to contraception and sex education?
3. Fertility rates in the Philippines are progressively decreasing. Our Total Fertility Rate (TFR) has declined by more than 50% in less than 50 years: from an average rate of 7 in 1960 to an average rate of 3.1 in 2008. Our TFR is expected to reach the replacement level of 2.1 in 2025 without massive government intervention like the passing of a population control or RH bill. The passing of an RH bill will only accelerate this. The latest November issue of The Economist entitled “Japan’s burden” spells out the effects of an aging population and it would be foolhardy for us as a nation to push ourselves deliberately towards that direction. In 2004, Joseph Chamie, Director of the UN Population Division, reported that 60 countries have TFRs below 2.1 which means that they will eventually experience decline and aging. He asserted that the efforts of these countries to raise fertility rates will not be enough to bring them back to replacement levels. Many of these countries are now asking their people to have more children. Why then are our legislators thinking of cutting down our best asset, our people? Should this push through, future generations of Filipinos will be forced to pay for the mistake of government’s intervention to manipulate a decrease in our population and suffer its ill effects as already experienced by other countries.
4. The government has to channel limited resources to address the leading causes of death. In the latest available Mortality Country Fact Sheet (2006) of the World Health Organization on the Philippines, the following were listed as the main causes of death: lower respiratory tract infections, ischaemic heart disease, tuberculosis, hypertensive heart disease, perinatal conditions, cerebrovascular disease, violence, diarrhoeal diseases, diabetes mellitus and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Can we not channel our limited resources towards curbing these diseases—and violence—instead of using them for contraception and sterilization?
5. Condoms are not a wise investment. We have the lowest incidence of HIV cases after Bangladesh in the ADB report mentioned above, whereas Thailand, which has been regarded as the model in condom promotion, has the highest. European epidemiologist Dr. Jokin de Irala refers to “risk-compensation” as the reason for higher HIV-AIDS incidences when condoms are promoted. Moreover, human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, by far the most common STD and a risk factor for cervical cancer among other diseases, is not prevented by condoms. HPV spreads through skin-to-skin contact, unlike AIDS, and condoms cannot cover all possible infected skin—a fact that is not commonly known. Why spend millions to buy condoms when they are shown to increase incidences of STDs? A government-sponsored nationwide condom distribution will only fatten the pockets of condom manufacturers.
6. Oral Contraceptive Pills (OCPs) have been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as Group 1 carcinogens. OCP use has been associated with an increased risk of premenopausal breast cancer in general (an increment of 19%) and across various patterns of OCP use, with the highest risk observed among those who use OCPs for 4 or more years before their first pregnancy (an increment of 52%), according to a 2006 meta-analysis of over 34 studies dating back to the 1980s. Corroborating these data was the landmark 2002 randomized controlled trial by the Women Health’s Initiative which pointed to a 26% higher risk of breast cancer for post-menopausal women who had received hormone treatment in addition to 41% more risk of cerebrovascular disease, 29% more risk of myocardial infarction, and 112% more risk of pulmonary embolism. Another study by Moreno et al. in the Lancet also points to an increased risk of cervical cancer with OCP use. And lastly, OCPs have also been shown to increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases, especially venous thrombosis and ischemic stroke. Will our government legislate a bill that will use taxpayers’ money to further expose women to all these risks?
Our main argument boils down to this: that it is the State’s duty to order society by promoting the well-being of its citizens. Thus, it is a disservice to legislate what constitutes harm to its people. We pointed but a few of the studies showing the harmful effects of contraception to society, the family, the youth and women’s health. While it is true that the State cannot stop people from using contraception, since they may personally choose to expose themselves to its risks, it is not the State’s job to facilitate access to what is harmful.
What the government should do is craft laws that prevent people from harming themselves or more positively phrased, help them develop themselves and society. We urge the legislators to dump the contentious and flawed Reproductive Health bills and to pass more bills strengthening the Filipino family, protecting its citizens against the risks of contraception, defending the scientific fact that conception begins at fertilization, providing essential medicines for the main causes of death, making quality education more accessible to Filipinos, and providing more jobs.
Click this link if you want to sign the petition.
And if you support the cause for information dissemination, please do share my blog entry. Thank you guys.
Thanks for this post! Glad that someone is actually reading it before dissing it. Once it's read, you can't really diss it anymore.
ReplyDeleteHi Tim, thanks for your blog post. Like you, I was not also very clearly against the RH bill. The paper is very credible. Why not spread it to more people and ask them to sign? J.R.
ReplyDeleteCheck this out: http://www.thepinoyconnection.com/2010/12/on-the-%E2%80%9Cposition%E2%80%9D-of-the-university-of-the-philippines-on-the-rh-bill/
ReplyDeleteMy reply:
Warmest greetings! I believe UP as an institution has not taken an official stand but I wish to raise three things regarding the points made by Pecier Carpena Decierdo, BS Physics graduate and UP Diliman Alumnus.
(1) “If UP is an institution that values intellectual freedom, it must know that its faculty, students and alumni will take different and often conflicting sides on any issue…”
If said position paper positively identifies itself as an “official” UP position, there is cause for concern. However, if the position is held by a group, members of which consist of UP faculty, students and alumni, I see nothing wrong.
Here’s a group of people, all of whom are coming from UP, who took a position on the RH issue. The position may not be held by ALL UP personnel like you or me. But I would like to believe that the people behind the position paper are ALL from UP. If that’s a fact, so be it, right?
It is similar to a case where, say, a group of economists from UP take a stand and favor the bill. These economists are from UP. They do not necessarily represent the entire UP community but they do come from UP.
It’s absolutely OK to express a position and we can agree to disagree. That’s academic freedom. At least that’s how I understand it.
(2) “Let us fight against this disgusting dishonesty and desperation of the opponents of the RH Bill!”
The people behind the position paper presented their arguments with citations. It is interesting to see counter-arguments to their claims backed up by citations. That is academic. That is scientific.
(3) If the authors of the position paper are telling the truth, that’s intellectual honesty. One has to prove them wrong or mistaken.
---
Thanks for the post, Tim!
Thanks J.R. and Sorbetero_Mygs for reading it. Spread the word. Share this blog. LOL
ReplyDeleteHi!
ReplyDeleteI also signed this paper.
It is very encouraging to know that the pro-RH group has no monopoly in the university. :)
You're an amazing writer :) Really nice. Your opinions are well written and i enjoyed reading this.
ReplyDeleteThanks a lot for spending time to read my blogs.
ReplyDeletehahah,in my own opinion, we really need RH Bill, but maybe, not now. instead, our dearest chief executive and legislators should focus on major aspects and problems in our society. they should focus on how to improve our education system (especially), and many more...
ReplyDeleteThanks noelboo. For me, I believe that the RH bill needs to be rewritten in such a way that it will really address the issues on reproductive health properly and appropriately. but the fear of doing that is we might just be reiterating and repeating what present laws on reproductive health provide.
ReplyDelete