gdp's Comments

Filipino Freethinkers : Sen. Sotto's Dishonest Argument

Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:26:52 +0000

hmm, that is strange. Considering PNoy's heavy public endorsement of 'choice' and 'responsible parenthood', how come he did not direct Sec Ona to align DOH funds according to his policy? Does it mean PNoy did not put the money where his mouth is? Or is it a simple case of scarce funds? The report does not add up.

Filipino Freethinkers : Sen. Sotto's Dishonest Argument

Wed, 7 Sep 2011 13:31:13 +0000

please cite your reference, and assuming so, is that objectionable by itself? How?

Filipino Freethinkers : Anti-RH Spin to Make Your Head Spin

Wed, 7 Sep 2011 13:25:06 +0000

Most of government services have already been devolved to the LGU's with the passage of the Local Government Code in 1991. That is why the DOH directly ships the medicines to them for disposition. Recall that we already have a budget for contraceptives (admittedly small by pro-RH standards), yet the issue of ghost deliveries of contraceptives uncovered by Senate investigation has not been resolved to date. What gives us the assurance that the RH bill allotments for contraceptives won't end up as apparitions either? Better to put the resources to real and tangible health services where it matters. Pay medical personnel to be actually posted in the poor, rural areas where they can attend to maternal care. This for example is a non-controversial measure which we endorse. The utility for pregnancy related health care for the region of ARMM for example is a dismal 20% compared to 97% for NCR. Why don't we concentrate on improving this? MMR has its regional attributes and I don't see anybody delving into it.

Filipino Freethinkers : Anti-RH Spin to Make Your Head Spin

Wed, 7 Sep 2011 12:32:17 +0000

Ok Arm I got you. I never mistook you for anyone else as your professional, incisive style and comments are familiar to me. Challenging the data is par for the course, sneers and gestures aside...we don't parade sensitivity to those as a matter of argument. Why...we been ridiculed for objecting to Medeo's explicit exhibit and we are astounded at the negative attention given to Sotto's sneer which can be interpreted many ways. But that is another story, anyway... There was no downgrading of the importance of MMRs. The redundancy was only being pointed out. Come to think of it, again I take off from my previous comments, what prevents the DOH from addressing it effectively given the current system? I don't recall them having been denied the budget specifically on maternal health concerns, and neither can the RH bill (assuming it is passed into law) be guaranteed of a budget to do precisely the same, same things that DOH is mandated to do with the added impetus of the magna carta law for women behind it? Trying to rationalize it makes my head explode :-)

Filipino Freethinkers : Sen. Sotto's Dishonest Argument

Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:26:43 +0000

It does not say MMRs should be ignored. MMRs are best addressed with the proper prenatal, delivery, and postnatal care. That's what DOH should do, (it is its mandate, right?) and its ever increasing budget is justified on the very premise. When Sotto says "this", I understand it to mean he is referring to the RH bill. Can we not address MMRs without the RH bill? That is what I can glean from Sotto's argument. We already allotted billions to DOH budget precisely to adress MMRs and child care, at least we should make them accountable. Have anyone took the DOH to task? Audited them? Made a performance evaluation of the billions given them for the purpose? Why not...before we consider this bill which seeks to do precisely the same thing that we taxpayers are ALREADY paying DOH to do?

Filipino Freethinkers : Anti-RH Spin to Make Your Head Spin

Wed, 7 Sep 2011 10:50:07 +0000

Wes, Thank you for the explanation. Now my head is spinning :-) Your analysis appears plausible, but then again I am just basing off on what you posted: "Based on official government statistics, an estimated 6.5 to 11 maternal deaths occurred per day in 2010...Using a new statistical model, the World Health Organization (WHO) did come up with a lower estimate of maternal mortality for the country in 2008: 2,100 at the middle of the range, some 5.8 maternal deaths per day. Because of the inherent difficulties in recording maternal deaths, which the WHO report extensively discusses, varying methods which come up with varying but overlapping estimates is not unusual." Would the ordinary citizen understand sisterhood method, statistical method, midpoints, etc., and so forth? The proponents just flaunted the "11 deaths" to the public at every opportunity and pounded on that soundbyte mercilessly. Please do not fault protagonists for the supposed "bad taste", for the MMR issue is capitalized upon as a MAJOR, major issue by the proponents themselves to justify the RH bill. I thought it is fine to question everything in the sacred interest of "freethinking" diba? It would be reasonable to say 6.5 or 5.8 or even 11, as long as the caveats are pointed out. Even in the Senate sponsorship speeches it was not done so, and a clarification is in normal order here. But no, we never, ever heard any and it is amazing that Sotto and the anti-advocates are pilloried for merely questioning the data, and uncalled-for personal insinuations are resorted to.

Filipino Freethinkers : Secularism and the Filipino Freethinkers

Thu, 7 Jul 2011 23:42:18 +0000

"It's noted in the source of the chart.." And what period was the basis of that chart? 21st century? Would it look the same, say a hundred years ago? A thousand? Some things change, some things don't. Did secularism agree on all things since day one? "we rely on reason and science to chart morality and uplift humanity" All secularists agree nicely on their reasoning and interpretation of science? I imagine you guys in serene kumbaya hand-holding all the time then. You folks think you have a monopoly on reason and science? Wait. wasn't Stalin a secularist? How about Lenin? Mao? "God, if he exists, never personally endorsed any religion" Ows? cmon jong, this is a self-contradicting statement. Questioning the existence of God at the same time asserting something on the basis of God's existence. Try another one.

Filipino Freethinkers : Abortifacients and the RH Bill: The Real Relationship

Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:51:20 +0000

So, how much do you think is appropriate? Remember 2.6 billion was already released for Family Planning purpose for the past 3 years even in the absence of the bill. If the RH bill sponsors were already contented with that amount, you think they would still push for the bill? But wait, the 2.6 billion seems to have evaporated into thin air http://www.tribuneonline.org/headlines/20110513he... Hmm, PNoy was quite right in saying "kung walang kurap...". If you claim "carefully balancing needs", the government has already been doing that, not exactly with high marks. Look into the the 2011 GAA and you will find no less than 12 billion in the DOH budget for new appropriations, http://randomthoughtsmusings.blogspot.com/2011/04... which according to Cong Mitos Magsaysay was crafted particularly in line with the maternal health concerns addressed in the Magna Carta for Women. You say "inflated figures". I ask you how much do you think the pro-RH legislators want over and above the current 12.07 B in the GAA and the 2.6 B in FP supplies already being currently granted?

Filipino Freethinkers : Abortifacients and the RH Bill: The Real Relationship

Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:03:21 +0000

Cmon folks, let's face the funding issue squarely. When the RH bill says contraceptives will be classified as "essential medicines" (btw, what does it cure anyway?), the DOH will be forced to stock them in the national drug formulary. Contraceptives will be bought and stocked along with anti-tuberculosis drugs, hypertension drugs, diabetes, cardio, etcetera drugs that combat the top 10 mortality causes. That is the nice trick about the classification. Note that our really essential drugs are already woefully lacking. This will cost. It was Lagman himself who computed 3 Billion in the initial year of implementation, aren't we taking his word for it? Anyway, I thought the amount was peanuts, considering the bill has a LOT of objectives aside from giving out free contraceptives. I'll let you guys to do the math. I count roughly 4.7 million poor males in the 15-49 age bracket, while there are 5 million females in the same bracket. Those are the poor people only. Now how much does pills, condoms, injectibles, etc cost. and how much quantity each would be reasonable to cover the 'human right' to state-funded, no-worry sex of those 9.7 million males and females?

Filipino Freethinkers : Abortifacients and the RH Bill: The Real Relationship

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:39:18 +0000

If the RH bill was all about maternal and child health and nothing besides, it wouldn't create such a controversy. Note that in my very first comment in your previous earlier post, http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/06/16/crossi... I agreed with the 4 provisions you listed, only that they have to be "seamlessly integrated with existing DOH systems addressing the same needs". We have no objection to legislation addressing maternal health and women empowerment. However, one has to question the wisdom (or lack of it) in introducing new legislation that addresses concerns which are already addressed by existing laws, systems and structures. It is allocating precious legislative resources to an outcome that has no value-add. Thus if we concede the redundancy aspect (otherwise the legislators have to state what is the value-add of the RH bill on maternal health and women empowerment that is not already addressed by DOH and MCW), we are left with the essence of the RH bill and I believe you got it pinned down: abortifacients and government funding for contraceptives. The only innovation in the bill is that it will classify contraceptives as "essential medicines", thus it will be entitled to mandated and recurring budgets. Note that the sponsors have already stated that the provision of contraceptives is one (note just one) among the many approaches to addressing poverty. It means all sides can agree there are many approaches. Which approach to prioritize will be a very contentious matter. Countryside development, livelihood programs, education, etc..everyone agrees to them. It is just that the RH bill sponsors insist that the provision of free contraceptives must be a key ingredient in solving poverty. It is a contentious issue with each side presenting contrasting studies. Just today, a report came out with the MMDA planning officer being quoted on the plight of slum dwellers. “You must arrest the root cause, which is uncompetitive rural incomes." http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/18918/slum-trap-for-... With these in mind and our prior comments, I propose that there is only one significant thing that may turn the tide in favor of the RH bill. Is the entitlement to state-funded contraceptives an authentic human right? This question would be along your proposal on what is best to clarify.

Filipino Freethinkers : Abortifacients and the RH Bill: The Real Relationship

Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:43:18 +0000

RCC campaigns on State to accept its position on family planning... They are citizens and taxpayers. It would be a violation of human rights for the State to ignore their demand. 1) The 'Church' campaigning the State is a legitimate exercise. Substitute NGO, political party, cause-oriented group, any legitimate group for that matter to the word 'Church' in that sentence and it would amount to be a legitimate exercise still. Anyone should be free to campaign the State for that is what democracy is all about. Any group should be free to campaign the state, while the state is under no compulsion anyway to follow any one groups' campaign as it sees fit. The State has defied Church campaigns anyway in the past already. I see no reason for concern about Church campaigns. Therefore the Church can campaign among its members and it can also campaign to the State. The Church is campaigning worldwide to all democratic states, what the bishops are doing in the Philippines is no different elsewhere. 2) It is not a human right to be given free contraceptives by the government. Refusal to do so does not constitute a human rights violation on the part of the government. A basic human right must pertain to all persons regardless. In fact you cannot find anything in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that says it is a basic human right for all persons to be subsidized in their option to indulge in frequent sex with contraceptives. It is not the duty of the government to shield its citizens from the consequences of their willful sexual activities even as we note they have the faculty to manage such tendencies without the benefit of subsidies. If those 15% do not want NFP (the only reason being lack of discipline really), then they are free to use contraceptives by buying them on their own. The state has no obligation whatsoever to shoulder the expense of their sexual proclivities. Btw, and why should the state reward lack of discipline?

Filipino Freethinkers : Abortifacients and the RH Bill: The Real Relationship

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:42:58 +0000

"In a pluralistic society and recognizing the freedom of those who disagree with Church principles, the Church respects the government's toleration of [tubal ligation, vasectomy, condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps and spermicides] that the conscience of others may not object to and that the law on abortion does not forbid." [tubal ligation, vasectomy, condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps and spermicides] Strictly among these birth control methods, there is nothing that is abortifacient, as far as I know. Although the Church is against these, it is right that the Church may tolerate them in a pluralistic society. The Church however will continue to advocate and evangelize against them whether in the pulpit or in the public sphere, for it is its mission to do. People are under no compulsion either way and will be free to abide or not with the Church's teachings on this. Note the term "respects the government's toleration", which must be distinguished from fair criticism. The government already tolerates these contraceptive methods even without the RH bill. What the RH bill wants is for the State to actively promote contraceptives by using public funds, and that is where the difference lies. Anyone is already free to buy these items without restraints, and private advocacy groups are free to raise funds and give them out freely. The Church will still speak out against the wisdom of allocating public funds in the face of more urgent national priorities, and it is a fair opposition as the objection is of a nature which even strict secularists can identify with.The Church will naturally speak out against it with strong moral underpinnings, but that is still a fair expectation well within its right. For the same reason, other groups of different faiths can voice out their opposition in like manner. Note that certain Muslims groups, non-Catholic Christians, secularists have also voiced out their opposition to the RH bill - not only Catholics.Why do they have to pick on us always? Why so much vile and hatred directed towards the Catholic Church it beats me. Even if the church insists, it is the legislators who get to vote at the end of the day. Why else does Lagman boast of a majority, most of them Catholics even? I hope when you say "recognize the freedom" it is not the equivalent of shutting up. Fair criticism. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religious expression. Churches around the world have criticized governments. There should be no coercion either way. People may strongly voice support for the bill and in like manner people (including the church and other groups) may strongly voice opposition.

Filipino Freethinkers : Abortifacients and the RH Bill: The Real Relationship

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 05:04:41 +0000

The bishop is right from a theological point of view. He is not at variance with Church teaching when he said that. Maybe you meant the Bishops are not emphasizing this point nowadays in the heat of the discussions and maybe you are correct if that is so. But there is no contradiction. Tell me of a more recent church pronouncement that goes against this and I will be glad to clarify. The church recognizes conscience even if it is in variance with its moral tradition, but that does not mean it endorses the variance. It will tolerate those positions that are at variance, but it will constantly and vigorously oppose government policies that coerce the people, especially on matters that go against inherent human rights. The right to be born, once conceived, is one such inherent right. All other rights precede from this right.

Filipino Freethinkers : Abortifacients and the RH Bill: The Real Relationship

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:05:36 +0000

Arm, I do not see anything wrong nor inconsistent with the Bishops' stand in that August 14, 1990 statement. If you read that statement carefully, it was written as a form of "minutes of the meeting". There are 5 essential points of the government presentation (points 4 and 5) which you listed that Bishop Varela simply echoed in the statement. It is just a rundown of the government presentation, not a summary of what was agreed upon. In fact before enumerating, the statement says "In sum, all agreed that the Program is in substantive consonance with the following points: ...: They did not say they agreed wholeheartedy with the program, they said they agreed on an understanding of what the Programs contained as was present. It appears the statement caused some confusion at the time. The subsequent clarificatory letter dispels the misunderstanding 1. The statement is not an endorsement by the Church of the Family Planning Program of the government: 2. The Church, with constant firmness in its long standing teaching, condemns contraception, sterilization, and abortion. This teaching will be reemphasized in the forthcoming CBCP pastoral letter. The statement, contrary to the understanding of some, is neither an agreement nor an accord. Rather, it is a statement which merely identifies points of dialogue, including common and divergent concerns.

Filipino Freethinkers : Abortifacients and the RH Bill: The Real Relationship

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:52:08 +0000

Arm, I will address this response to you and Jong. Please do not fault us for being extra wary and careful of the not-so-obvious matters in this bill. Jong maybe right in his legal analysis but it does not give us any comfort. The recent passage of the Magna Carta for Women is already a lesson. We fought to include the word "ethical" in the final version because we eerily found agenda similarities in the RH bill. By providence we managed to squeak it in, amidst the tantrums of Lagman. You guys tell me why Lagman was hopping mad over the word "ethical". The final provision in question now reads: "safe, legal, effective, ethical means of family planning". Something like that, I am just quoting from memory. Please understand that a dominant principle in statutory interpretation is that: what is not expressly prohibited is allowed. Interpreters do not have the liberty of prohibiting beyond what the statutes expressly declare so. If the words have plain meaning, then the literal interpretation is preferred. If it has an ambiguous meaning, the surrounding words are taken and if that is not enough, the context of the entire bill is taken into account consistent with the intention of the majority legislators. The spirit always prevails. There is no such thing as consensus in legislation. All bills are passed by force of majority. We will be vigilant all throughout. This is a corollary of the deer hunter principle and our attitude is consistent. with that. Finally I want to cite a bible verse to buttress my argument, the very first time I will be doing so and I hope you two do not recoil. In Matthew 10:16, Jesus told us :"Behold I am sending you out as sheep among wolves. Therefore be meek as doves but wise as serpents".

Filipino Freethinkers : Abortifacients and the RH Bill: The Real Relationship

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:54:16 +0000

Arm, we are tackling too many issues all at once and most above do not have any bearing on Jong's article here. That is why I suggested to move the discussion to your other post. I kindly request you to choose which one is relevant to the post here and which ones are relevant to your other post. I would gladly go along with your assessment and hope I will have the time to address them all. Ang daming sanga ng discussion natin I defer to you to choose one or two that is most relevant to Jong' post here.Thanks.

Filipino Freethinkers : Abortifacients and the RH Bill: The Real Relationship

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:53:08 +0000

1. The FDA's laxity in enforcement of regulations should not be construed that abortifacients are legal under the law. 2. Please cite concrete examples. If certain manufacturers don't warn of adverse endometrium effects, while other manufacturers do so (with essentially the same formulation) then something is awry. FDA should get to the bottom of this. 3. I have maintained time and again that contraceptives have secondary effects that inhibit implantation in the event of breakthrough ovulation. As to the legal system: Art 2 Sec 12. Why can't we ever come to terms on this aspect even if we disagree on our divergent premise? Again, our constitution prevails over any external 'expert' opinions. 4. I can't see any reference to CBCP's 1990 statement in Jong's article. 5. What is the theory and what is the scientific basis for the theory? LAM is nature's way of postponing ovulation while the mother is nursing. When the typical six-month period for LAM is over, the mother goes back to her normal reproductive pattern.

Filipino Freethinkers : Abortifacients and the RH Bill: The Real Relationship

Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:59:45 +0000

and btw, look at the PDR. The Physician’s Desk Reference is the most frequently used reference book by physicians in America. The PDR, as it’s often called, lists and explains the effects, benefits, and risks of every medical product that can be legally prescribed. The Food and Drug Administration requires that each manufacturer provide accurate information on its products, based on scientific research and laboratory tests. This information is included in the PDR. This is the PDR’s product information for Ortho-Cept, as listed by Ortho, one of the largest manufacturers of the Pill: Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus, and changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation. The analogy on bridges do not apply. There is no willful trade-off of the value of life between the means and ends. Bridges are specifically designed to consider the safety and the well-being of those who cross it as well as those who don't.

Filipino Freethinkers : Abortifacients and the RH Bill: The Real Relationship

Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:57:11 +0000

Arm, The burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies. Thus, it is the duty of the party alleging the case to prove it. This is a widely accepted legal doctrine in the Philippines. At any rate, we only need to look no farther than the manufacturer's statements themselves. In a study of oral contraceptives published in a major medical journal Dr. G. Virginia Upton, Regional Director of Clinical Research for Wyeth International (one of the major birth control pill manufacturers), says this: The graded increments in LNg in the triphasic OC serve to maximize contraceptive protection by increasing the viscosity of the cervical mucus (cervical barrier), by suppressing ovarian progesterone output, and by causing endometrial changes that will not support implantation. ("The Phasic Approach to Oral Contraception," The International Journal of Fertility, volume 28, 1988, page 129.)

Filipino Freethinkers : Abortifacients and the RH Bill: The Real Relationship

Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:21:22 +0000

note: "the deliberations during the enactment"