Philippines Government launches attack on freedom of conscience
House Bill 3773 would punish conscientious objection with imprisonment
Philippines, April, 2005
Friday Fax,
April 29, 2005
Volume 8, Number 19
Copyright 2005 - C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute).
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.
One of the most populous Catholic countries in the world is set to
significantly liberalize its laws on family planning and "reproductive
health" services, stopping just short of outright legalization of
abortion. The proposed legislation, which is likely to pass within months,
sets in place a "comprehensive national policy" that discriminates against
families with more than two children and requires the Catholic Church to
provide sex education in schools and to pay for the sterilizations of its
employees.
House Bill 3773, entitled, "Responsible Parenthood and Population
Management Act of 2005," says, "The State . . . guarantees universal
access to safe, affordable and quality reproductive health care services."
The bill defines "reproductive health care" as "availability and access to
a full range of methods, techniques and services that contribute to
reproductive and sexual health and well-being . . .[including] family
planning information and services."
Brian Cowles, Director of Research at Human Life International,
points out that "the words 'reproductive health' appear 55 times in the
seven-page bill." UN agencies and pro-abortion groups view such words as
including abortion.
While the bill states that "abortion shall remain to be penalized,"Meg Francisco of the Filipine Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc.
says, "The experience of every country that has promoted contraception
shows that abortion will eventually be included." She says that the
"reasons given for contraception are the same as reasons for abortion,"
the two policies are "linked by jurisprudence [such as the] right to
privacy," "and at times, are identical, [since] IUD and the Pill are
abortifacients."
The bill also says that "the State shall encourage two (2) children
as the ideal Family size." The bill does not make two children mandatory,
but says that "Children from these families shall have preference in the
grant of scholarships at the tertiary level." According to Francisco, this
policy "will lead to social stigma for large families . . . [who] would be
considered irresponsible, and their children, unplanned and unwanted."
Francisco also believes that this provision "penalizes the poor, who are
precisely those who need financial aid for college."
The bill sets up mandatory sex education from grades 5-12, with
topics to include "reproductive health and sexual rights," "sexual
identity," and "gender roles."
The Catholic Church is not exempt from this
obligation. Moreover, the bill requires all employers, not excluding the
Catholic Church, to provide free of charge, "reproductive health care
services and devices to the workers." The bill considers such services to
include voluntary sterilization.
Francisco also points out that the bill also prohibits persons "to
act from conscience" because it threatens up to six months imprisonment
for "any health care service provider who shall . . . refuse to perform
voluntary sterilization and ligation" and for "any public official . . .who shall prohibit or intentionally restrict" the provision of services
outlined in the bill.
Two-Child Policy Stalled in Filipino Congress; Lack of Support Cited
C-Fam Friday Fax February 24, 2006.Volume 9, Number 10Copyright 2006 - C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute).
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.
Proposed legislation in the Philippines that would impose radical limits on the number of children that families can have appears to have less support in the Congress than was once reported. But pro-family opponents of the bill warn that it remains on the legislative calendar and remains a threat despite the fact that the proposed act is very unpopular in the majority Catholic country.
In January the Friday Fax reported that some Filipino legislators, arguing that the Philippines needs a much more aggressive policy of population control, introduced a bill that is strikingly similar to the one-child policy of Communist China. The "Responsible Parenting and Population Control Act of 2005" includes a preference in education for two-child families, free access to abortifacients, mandatory sex education for children as young as 10-years-old and imprisonment penalties for health care providers who refuse to perform or provide sterilization services for a population that is 87 percent Catholic and 5 percent Muslim.
At that time one sponsor of the act reported that he had the votes of 135 of 238 members of the Filipino House. It was thought that the bill could be debated and voted on at any time. It now appears that this particular statement was hyperbole. According to Eileen Macapanas Cosby, Executive Director of the Filipino Family Fund, the act was not debated, let alone passed, by the Filipino House last January. Nevertheless, Cosby warns that the bill remains a threat. She said supporters of the "two-child" policy have pressed on. According to Cosby, the act is "still on the schedule" of the House's legislative calendar, listed as "unfinished business," which means that it can be brought up for debate and a vote at any time during the early days of the work-week during any one of the next few weeks.If passed the act would provide for a centralized bureaucracy that would be run by three non-elected officials from NGOs. This new bureaucracy would oversee the implementation of the legislation. Cosby said the bill "paves the way" for "the kind of human rights nightmare that is already" taking place "in China, with its coercive sterilization and contraception practices." She calls the proposed bill "China-lite."
Filipino President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is likely to veto the proposed act if it passes both houses of Congress. As in the American system, the act would then return to Congress where it must receive two thirds of the vote in both chambers to override the veto.