Having written in opposition to the RH Bill/Law ongrounds of Faith and Morals, enough, it seems, may have beensaid in that regard with our 12 June 2011 GRAINS OFALMIGHTY GOD and, tangentially, 12 June 2013 ENNOBLINGSOLIDARITY.
Kindly allow this shift of burdens to legal issueswith thanks to the Honourable Supreme Court for herinitial, hopefully extended, burst of wisdom: stayingthe hands of RH Law implementers with the Court'sprovidential "TRO."
It is submitted that the RH Law seems, in many significantrespects,
inconsistent with the Constitution and evencontradicts itself.
We respectfully, yet earnestly, note thefollowing unsettling observations and related questions :
The RH Law adopts the
Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act". But are not theterms distinguishable from each other? Does not the law,therefore, have two distinct intendments and thereby inviolation of the Constitutional-Law jurisprudence that a statuteshould have only one title? And that is so because althoughReproductive Health may be an incident of parenthoodResponsible parenthood does not necessarily involve
?The law appears to be opaque as regards its real purposes.
“Reproduction” connotes intended birth or, under imperative
circumstances, its avoidance.
But it seems very, very clear thatthe law is only concerned with avoidance of birth -this is very,very clear from the fact that in defining the terms
“Reproductive Parenthood” and “Reproductive Health” the
related provisions make absolutely no mention of the word,
And in provisions that mention “pregnancy”,