Responsible Parenthood is the new Reproductive Health Bill

Human fetus at 10 weeks
A 44-years old gravid female with previous 6 children was diagnosed with carcinoma in situ of cervix (early stage cancer of womb). So total removal of uterus (womb) with fetus in situ was considered to be inevitable for future health of the lady. The fetus is still alive. The author of this image states that it shows a fetus at 10 weeks gestation (i.e. from LMP), instead of 10 weeks from fertilisation.

Is the name change… significant?

The Responsible Parenthood bill will be one of the priority measures of the Administration, the Palace announced. It a bold step that may finally put to rest, or at the very least give the nation a bill that formalizes the prioritization of our people’s reproductive health.

Early on during the campaign, the President had already spoken in length about his idea of Responsible parenthood, which can be summed up as the following:

  • he is against abortion;
  • he recognizes that we have a population explosion;
  • he is in favor for giving couples the right to choose to manage their families
  • he believes in cases where the couple is too poor or disadvantaged or in no position to make an informed decision, the state must take responsibility
  • he wants all options must be equally presented from natural planning to modern family methods.
  • He believes that parents should play a key role in ensuring that every child they bring into the world will have the opportunity to lead good lives.
  • In October 2010, Deputy Palace spokesperson, Abigail Valte already clarified the Palace position:

    “The President had said that his stand on this issue is for responsible parenthood. We in the administration are not advocating one method over the other. That is what we want to clarify. As soon as the parents make an informed choice on the matter, we would support them,” Valte said, adding that for this reason, “it’s not right to say that the president’s position is pro-life or anti-life or whatever. Predient Aquino is for responsible parenthood.”

    The President’s position is that parents should make an informed choice.

    The phrase, “responsible parenthood” of course is a familiar one for Catholics. The The Roman Catholic Church’s family council programs sums this up as “the necessary condition for human love, and it is also the necessary condition for authentic conjugal love, because love cannot be irresponsible. Its beauty is the fruit of responsibility. When love is truly responsible, it is also truly free.”

    I take it to mean— married or not— that when life is created, the man has got to be responsible for his woman, and that unborn child.

    Edcel Lagman the minority leader from the 1st district of Albay, and an author of the RH bill was quoted by Business World saying, “It [responsible parenthood] is already subsumed in the RH Bill. We are thankful for the President for prioritizing the enactment of an RH bill.”

    Details of the President’s proposed measure of course isn’t clear yet. The President wants national family planning centers. How divergent is it, if at all from Lagman’s bill? Does it take the best of the Lagman bill, and create a bill that will give us a reproductive health bill, however imperfect?

    By renaming the bill, does it give it a fighting chance? After all, the reproductive health bill from the get go, was about giving choice, and responsible parenthood, it would seem be about giving parents the choice of family planing methods.

    What do you think?

    Cocoy Dayao

    Cocoy is the Chief Technology Officer of Lab Rats Technica, a Digital Consulting company that specialises in DevOps, iOS, and Web Apps, E-Commerce sites, Cybersecurity and Social Media consulting. He is a technology enthusiast, political junkie and social observer who enjoys a good cup of coffee, comic books, and tweets as @cocoy on twitter.

    Cocoy is also the Managing Director and Editor-in-Chief of the ProPinoy Project.

    Cocoy considers himself to be Liberal.

    • Bert

      The only way to effectively counter the objections of the Vatican and CBCP is to remove from the proposed RH Bill all stipulations that allow the use of pills and gadgets considered abortifacients.

      Abortion, in cases where the life of the mother is in danger where the chance of survival of the fetus is nil, such as in ectopic pregnancy, or, cases cited by the author above where total removal of the uterus is urgently required due to cervical cancer, should be included in the proposed RH Bill.

      How can the Vatican or CBCP object to that, I wonder.

    • Bert

      The only way to effectively counter the objections of the Vatican and CBCP is to remove from the proposed RH Bill all stipulations that allow the use of pills and gadgets considered abortifacients.

      Abortion, in cases where the life of the mother is in danger where the chance of survival of the fetus is nil, such as in ectopic pregnancy, or, cases cited by the author above where total removal of the uterus is urgently required due to cervical cancer, should be included in the proposed RH Bill.

      How can the Vatican or CBCP object to that, I wonder.

      • cocoy

        I think it is more, CBCP than Vatican.

      • cocoy

        I think it is more, CBCP than Vatican.

    • Bert

      The only way to effectively counter the objections of the Vatican and CBCP is to remove from the proposed RH Bill all stipulations that allow the use of pills and gadgets considered abortifacients.

      Abortion, in cases where the life of the mother is in danger where the chance of survival of the fetus is nil, such as in ectopic pregnancy, or, cases cited by the author above where total removal of the uterus is urgently required due to cervical cancer, should be included in the proposed RH Bill.

      How can the Vatican or CBCP object to that, I wonder.

      • cocoy

        I think it is more, CBCP than Vatican.

    • GabbyD

      my prediction is that the govt funding component will be trimmed down. perhaps eliminated. i remember reading he had some problems with some parts of the bill, so it wont be completely the same.

      • cocoy

        Yep. I’m very much interested to read the Palace’s take on the bill.

      • cocoy

        Yep. I’m very much interested to read the Palace’s take on the bill.

    • GabbyD

      my prediction is that the govt funding component will be trimmed down. perhaps eliminated. i remember reading he had some problems with some parts of the bill, so it wont be completely the same.

    • GabbyD

      my prediction is that the govt funding component will be trimmed down. perhaps eliminated. i remember reading he had some problems with some parts of the bill, so it wont be completely the same.

      • cocoy

        Yep. I’m very much interested to read the Palace’s take on the bill.

    • Anonymous

      Abortion was never a part of any version of the Reproductive Health bill, so the CBCP’s pontificating to stop RH because of abortion was total subterfuge via propaganda.

      The Vatican was truly fighting two items — “family planning” and “sex education”. (The CBCP echoes the Vatican messages). The Vatican says “no” to condoms, the pill, IUD’s and any method other than taking temperatures and watching the stars as the approach to family-planning.

      “Sex education” in schools, the Vatican says “NO” to. Teaching teenagers about the role of condoms regarding HIV/AIDS and STDS, the Vatican says “NO” to. Mentioning “condoms”, the Vatican says “NO” to.

      The Vatican has a very narrow definition of “responsible parenthood”. “Responsible parenthood” is presented only in relation to what to do when there is a pregnancy. The Vatican ignores the desire of parents to plan the number of children and the spacing of the children — the Vatican wishes that the word “condom” and “IUD” do not get mentioned when parents with 3 or 4 children ask for advice on how to plan spacing of and manage the size of the family.

      Maybe, in the end, the CBCP has gotten the message that the Vatican-position (on use of condoms and IUD’s and on sex-education for teen-agers and uninformed adults) is being rejected by Filipinos-in-Pilipinas, and this rebranding from Repro-Health to “Resplonsible parenthood” is so that the CBCP can report to the Vatican that the Pinoy-bishops did get some things stopped.

      Abangan ang susunod na kabanata.

    • Anonymous

      Abortion was never a part of any version of the Reproductive Health bill, so the CBCP’s pontificating to stop RH because of abortion was total subterfuge via propaganda.

      The Vatican was truly fighting two items — “family planning” and “sex education”. (The CBCP echoes the Vatican messages). The Vatican says “no” to condoms, the pill, IUD’s and any method other than taking temperatures and watching the stars as the approach to family-planning.

      “Sex education” in schools, the Vatican says “NO” to. Teaching teenagers about the role of condoms regarding HIV/AIDS and STDS, the Vatican says “NO” to. Mentioning “condoms”, the Vatican says “NO” to.

      The Vatican has a very narrow definition of “responsible parenthood”. “Responsible parenthood” is presented only in relation to what to do when there is a pregnancy. The Vatican ignores the desire of parents to plan the number of children and the spacing of the children — the Vatican wishes that the word “condom” and “IUD” do not get mentioned when parents with 3 or 4 children ask for advice on how to plan spacing of and manage the size of the family.

      Maybe, in the end, the CBCP has gotten the message that the Vatican-position (on use of condoms and IUD’s and on sex-education for teen-agers and uninformed adults) is being rejected by Filipinos-in-Pilipinas, and this rebranding from Repro-Health to “Resplonsible parenthood” is so that the CBCP can report to the Vatican that the Pinoy-bishops did get some things stopped.

      Abangan ang susunod na kabanata.

      • cocoy

        Well the president has always said he was for “responsible parenthood,” if the rebranding is all that it takes for a RH bill to gets passed, then maybe it isn’t such a bad thing. Re: CBCP saving face, doesn’t hurt that the rebranding does that as you say.

      • cocoy

        Well the president has always said he was for “responsible parenthood,” if the rebranding is all that it takes for a RH bill to gets passed, then maybe it isn’t such a bad thing. Re: CBCP saving face, doesn’t hurt that the rebranding does that as you say.

    • Anonymous

      Abortion was never a part of any version of the Reproductive Health bill, so the CBCP’s pontificating to stop RH because of abortion was total subterfuge via propaganda.

      The Vatican was truly fighting two items — “family planning” and “sex education”. (The CBCP echoes the Vatican messages). The Vatican says “no” to condoms, the pill, IUD’s and any method other than taking temperatures and watching the stars as the approach to family-planning.

      “Sex education” in schools, the Vatican says “NO” to. Teaching teenagers about the role of condoms regarding HIV/AIDS and STDS, the Vatican says “NO” to. Mentioning “condoms”, the Vatican says “NO” to.

      The Vatican has a very narrow definition of “responsible parenthood”. “Responsible parenthood” is presented only in relation to what to do when there is a pregnancy. The Vatican ignores the desire of parents to plan the number of children and the spacing of the children — the Vatican wishes that the word “condom” and “IUD” do not get mentioned when parents with 3 or 4 children ask for advice on how to plan spacing of and manage the size of the family.

      Maybe, in the end, the CBCP has gotten the message that the Vatican-position (on use of condoms and IUD’s and on sex-education for teen-agers and uninformed adults) is being rejected by Filipinos-in-Pilipinas, and this rebranding from Repro-Health to “Resplonsible parenthood” is so that the CBCP can report to the Vatican that the Pinoy-bishops did get some things stopped.

      Abangan ang susunod na kabanata.

      • cocoy

        Well the president has always said he was for “responsible parenthood,” if the rebranding is all that it takes for a RH bill to gets passed, then maybe it isn’t such a bad thing. Re: CBCP saving face, doesn’t hurt that the rebranding does that as you say.