Reproductive Health Bill There are 6 bills pertaining to reproductive health and/or population management that have been

filed for deliberation in both the House of Representatives and the Senate for the 15th Congress. The most controversial of these bills is House Bill No. 96 authored by Rep. Edcel Lagman. House Bill No. 96, also known as the proposed "Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2010," will cover the following areas: midwives of skilled attendance emergency obstetric care access to family planning maternal death review family planning supplies as essential medicines benefits for serious and life-threatening reproductive health conditions mobile health care service mandatory age-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education responsibility of local family planning office and certificate of compliance capability building of barangay health workers ideal family size employers' responsibilities multi-media campaign implementing mechanisms reporting requirements prohibited acts penalties The bill is controversial, as it is being opposed by concerned citizens, especially the prolife, pro-family and pro-God groups, regardless of creed or religion. The Roman Catholic Church expresses its opposition against the bill on many counts, most especially the procurement and distribution of family planning supplies for the whole country, when the available evidence from peer reviewed medical journals supports the hypothesis that when ovulation and fertilization occur in women taking oral contraceptives (OCs) or using intrauterine devices (IUD), post-fertilization effects are operative on occasion to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy. Hormonal contraceptives and/or IUDs directly affect the endometrium. These effects have been presumed to render the endometrium relatively inhospitable to implantation or to the maintenance of the preembryo or embryo prior to clinically recognized pregnancy. These make pills and IUDS abortifacient. Pro-life groups, and many professionals in the medical and nursing fields, believe that

physicians and policy makers should understand and respect the beliefs of patients who consider human life to be present and valuable from the moment of fertilization. Patients should be made fully aware of this information so that they can consent to or refuse the use of artificial contraceptives. However, the position of the Catholic Church and the pro-life groups does not mean that they espouse the attitude of "natalism" at all costs, as if the "number" of children, in itself, were the unmistakable sign of authentic christian matrimonial life. The sexual act, properly exercised within marriage only, is ordained primarily to the propagation of life. If there are reasonable motives for spacing births, such as serious medical conditions in the mother, or extreme poverty, then the Catholic Church teaches that married couples may take advantage of the natural cycles of the reproductive system and use their marriage precisely those times that are infertile (natural family planning). Other aspects of the bill being contested by concerned citizens include the classification of family planning supplies as essential medicines when their safety/toxicity profile and legal permissibility are questionable. At the same time, more importance should be given to the prevalent diseases, the top ten leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the Philippines, namely, infections such as pneumonia and tuberculosis. Financial resources allotted by foreign donors to assist the Philippine government programs could actually be better spent towards pursuing health programs targeting communicable diseases than purchasing artificial contraceptives. Very pertinent to the debate about reproduction rights is the right to life. The Philippine Constitution says that the State "shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. If artificial contraceptives are medically proven to induce abortion as one of their mechanisms of action, then procurement and distribution of such family planning supplies are unconstitutional and illegal. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_Reproductive_Health_Bill_in_the_Phili ppines#ixzz22ipVUyEW

Ten Good Reasons to Pass the RH Bill Now In 1998, RH was a bland program that 2 DOH secretaries wished to mainstream into the health system. Now, RH or reproductive health is a byword that has gripped the public consciousness.

Majority have supported RH in endless surveys while congressional and presidential debates have erupted on the issue. Why is there majority support for RH? Many strategic and practical reasons. Here are 10 easy ones: RH DOES 1 Protect the health & lives of mothers The WHO (World Health Organization) estimates that complications arise in 15% of pregnancies, serious enough to hospitalize or kill women. From the 2 million plus live births alone, some 300,000 maternal complications occur yearly. This is 7 times the DOHs annual count for TB, 19 times for heart diseases, and 20 times for malaria in women. As a result, more than 11 women die needlessly each day. Adequate number of skilled birth attendants and prompt referral to hospitals with emergency obstetric care are proven life-saving solutions to maternal complications. For women who wish to stop childbearing, family planning (FP) is the best preventive measure. All 3 interventions are part of RH. 2 Save babies Proper birth spacing reduces infant deaths. The WHO says at least 2 years should pass between a birth and the next pregnancy. In our country, the infant mortality rate of those with less than 2 years birth interval is twice those with 3. The more effective and user-friendly the FP method used, the greater the chances of the next child to survive. 3 Respond to the majority who want smaller families Couples and women nowadays want smaller families. When surveyed about their ideal number of children, women in their 40s want slightly more than 3, but those in their teens and early 20s want just slightly more than 2. Moreover, couples end up with families larger than what they desire. On average, Filipino women want close to 2 children but end up with 3. This gap between desired and actual family size is present in all social classes and regions, but is biggest among those who are poor. 4 Promote equity for poor families RH indicators show severe inequities between the rich and poor. For example, 94% of women in the richest quintile have a skilled attendant at birth compared to only 26% in the poorest. The richest have 3 times higher tubal ligation rates compared to the poorest. This equity gap in tubal ligation partly explains why the wealthy hardly exceed their planned number of children, while the poorest get an extra 2. Infant deaths among the poorest are almost 3 times compared to the richest, which partly explains why the poor plan for more children. An RH law will promote equity in health through stronger public health services accessible to poor families. 5 Prevent induced abortions Unintended pregnancies precede almost all induced abortions. Of all unintended pregnancies, 68% occur in women without any FP method, and 24% happen to those using traditional FP like withdrawal or calendar-abstinence.

If all those who want to space or stop childbearing would use modern FP, abortions would fall by some 500,000close to 90% of the estimated total. In our country where abortion is strictly criminalized, and where 90,000 women are hospitalized yearly for complications, it would be reckless and heartless not to ensure prevention through FP. 6 Support and deploy more public midwives, nurses and doctors RH health services are needed wherever people are establishing their families. For example, a report by the MDG Task Force points out the need for 1 fulltime midwife to attend to every 100 to 200 annual live births. Other health staff are needed for the millions who need prenatal and postpartum care, infant care and family planning. Investing in these core public health staff will serve the basic needs of many communities. 7 Guarantee funding for & equal access to health facilities RH will need and therefore support many levels of health facilities. These range from barangay health stations, for basic prenatal, infant and FP care; health centers, for safe birthing, more difficult RH services like IUD insertions, and management of sexually transmitted infections; and hospitals, for emergency obstetric and newborn care and surgical contraception. Strong RH facilities will be the backbone of a strong and fairly distributed public health facility system. 8 Give accurate & positive sexuality education to young people Currently, most young people enter relationships and even married life without the benefit of systematic inputs by any of our social institutions. As a result of just one faulty sexual decision, many young women and men can lose their future, their health and sometimes their lives. We insist on young voters education for an activity that occurs once every 3 years, but leave our young people with little preparation to cope with major life events like puberty and sexual maturation. 9 Reduce cancer deaths Delaying sex, avoiding multiple partners or using condoms prevent genital warts or HPV infections that cause cervical cancers. Self breast exams and Pap smears can detect early signs of cancers which can be cured if treated early. All these are part of RH education and care. Contraceptives do not heighten cancer risks; combined pills actually reduce the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers. 10 Save money that can be used for even more social spending Ensuring modern FP for all who need it would increase spending from P1.9 B to P4.0 B, but the medical costs for unintended pregnancies would fall from P3.5 B to P0.6 B, resulting in a net savings of P0.8 B. There is evidence that families with fewer children do spend more for health and education.

Responsible Parenthood Bill 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 peoples 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:

g couples the right to choose to manage their families to make an informed decision, the state must take responsibility d from natural planning to modern family methods. 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, its not right to say that the presidents position is pro-life or anti-life or whatever. Predient Aquino is for responsible parenthood. The Presidents 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 Churchs 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 Presidents proposed measure of course isnt clear yet. The President wants national family planning centers. How divergent is it, if at all from Lagmans 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?

Responsible Parenthood is not equivalent to the Reproductive Health Bill, it is not birth control, it is not population control. "If we consider the relevant physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have a large family or by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect for the moral law, choose not to have children for the time being or even for an indeterminate period (Humane vitae). If we examine the innate drives and emotions of man, responsible parenthood expresses the dominion which reason and will must exert over them. Everything directly related to the transmission of life participates in the creative power of God; consequently, it should be treated with respect and responsibility. It is important for spouses (according to their respective capacities) to know the mechanism of the female cycle, not to interfere, but to respect these natural processes because they are dealing with "biological laws which involve the person" (Humane vitae) . Knowledge of biological mechanisms "must lead to education in self-control": hence, the absolute necessity of the virtue of chastity and of permanent education in this virtue. (Pope John Paul II) Decision to limit the number of children will depend on:

1) The existence of a serious motive for avoiding the birth of another child; and 2) Respect for the moral law while searching for the most adequate means of avoiding birth. The characteristic sign of a Christian couple is their generous openness to life, to acceptance from God children as gift of love" (Pope John Paul II) as opposed to having a "contraceptive mentality." However, this does not mean that we should have the attitude of "natalism" at all cost, as if the "number" of children, in itself, were the unmistakable sign of authentic Christian matrimonial life. What matters is the integrity and honesty of married life. (J. Escriva)

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_responsible_parenthood#ixzz22ivg14pe