Dear Professors and Colleagues in the Ateneo, Allow me to address you as friends.

You know that I have nothing against a Reproductive Health Bill. On the contrary, I believe that a more comprehensive Public Health Bill should be legislated to benefit the poor and the marginalized in our country. I appreciate the efforts of our legislators to draft a better version of the Reproductive Health Bill with House Bill 4244: Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development. But I am obliged in conscience to voice my concern over some inconsistencies in the present consolidated bill and to take exception to some of the claims in the petition Pass the RH Bill Now that was circulated among select professors in Ateneo and UP. What are the major, major problematic areas that I find in HB 4244? A. The Beginning of Human Life There are 29 terms defined in SEC. 4 of the Bill, but no definition at all of the meaning of conception. But this is a central issue. When does the conception of human life begin: at fertilization or at the implantation of the embryo in the womb? The medical community seems inclined towards fertilization, that is, when the zygote that is formed possesses all twenty-three (23) chromosome pairs, equivalent to all the genetic material needed to constitute a distinct human being. If fertilization has already occurred (whether in utero or in vitro), then we are dealing with human life, properly speaking, human life which is protected by the Philippine Constitution. Consequently, contraceptives preventing the implantation of an embryo would then be considered having an abortifacient effect, and hence, illegal, according to our Constitution. These should be categorically banned, whether the RH Bill is passed or not.1 Is it too much to ask for a clarification on this non-negotiable principle? B. Freedom of Choice (bis), but no Conscience? The copy of the RH Bill (apparently not the actual HB 4244 but an earlier version) that was attached with the petition repeats this provision: Freedom of choice, which is central to the exercise of right must be fully guaranteed by the State (first mentioned in SEC. 3a, and then again in SEC. 3c2). Forgive me for making this observation, but I could not help but ask: How many of our enlightened citizenry, who answered surveys and even signed petitions, have actually read the latest version of the Bill and noticed inconsistencies and typographical errors? Above all, I was wondering why, while freedom of choice was emphasized, the respect for moral and religious conscience never figured in the list of guiding principles. You will perhaps cite SEC. 28.3a as application of this latter principle: Provided, That, the conscientious objection of a healthcare service provider based on his/her ethical or religious beliefs shall be respected; however, the conscientious objector shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another healthcare service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible who is willing to provide the requisite information and services. One can very well imagine a scenario like this, however Healthcare service provider to patient: Listen, I think it is immoral to do this procedure because it is tantamount to an abortion; but here is someone who could do it for me
1

See Talking Points for Dialogue on the Reproductive Health Bill (July 2010) issued jointly by Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues, Authors: Fr. Eric O. Genilo, S.J., Fr, John J. Carroll, S.J., and Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. 2 SEC. 3c should read: Since human resource is among the principal asset of the country, maternal health, safe delivery of healthy children and their full human development and responsible parenting must be ensured through effective reproductive health care.

So much lip service to respect of ethical and religious beliefs! After all, what makes for authentic human freedom and development: Is it freedom of choice per se, or the activation and development of a well-informed conscience? This is important because it bears on a number of other provisions in the bill, namely: B.1. Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education (SEC. 16): I believe an education in sexuality is necessary, but it is the mandatory nature in this provision that I find problematic. If the Bill passes, and its application is made mandatory to both public and private schools, would this not violate the conscience of Catholic educators who would be compelled to teach parts of the curriculum that they find morally unacceptable? This provision, as a matter of fact, contradicts the first guiding principle of SEC. 3a (freedom of choice) because it violates the freedom of Catholic educators and parents to choose a sexuality education that is consistent with their moral and religious beliefs. Sexuality education, moreover, can only be a humanizing education when it is also an education in freedom and responsibility, when it fosters a sense of human dignity. How do you train teachers for this daunting task, especially since it bears on a matter that is so close to the heart and soul of the human person? Sexuality is so vital an energy, so powerful a force that it would be a challenge for any serious educator to help our young people find ways to channel this energy in ways that are truly lifegiving. I dont see how it is possible to write a comprehensive sexuality and values education curriculum for at least six grade levels (Grade Five to Fourth Year High School) in a years time , even if you have five agencies working together on it. You would know, dear colleagues, as educators in this university, that it takes years to develop a good course curriculum! Unless, of course, our legislators envision simply borrowing the existing education program of SIECUS (the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States). So much for promoting Filipino values! [I heard that some of the public schools in Metro Manila (e.g., Payatas) have been pilot testing the UNFPA and DepEd program Adolescent Reproductive Health (ARH) Through Life Skills-Based Education. You claim that HB 4244 is not a population control bill, but why is the sexuality education program on trial co-produced by the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA)?] Honestly, would you suffer your own children to have to undergo a mandatory sexuality education that is ill-prepared, without your being able to have any say in it as a parent? If an inadequately prepared sexuality curriculum would not be acceptable for your own children, why would it be acceptable to others, especially our poor kababayan? Should we not do our utmost to give our poor kababayan the best of Philippine education since they are the ones who stand most in need of it? Surely you would see it a duty for both legislators and educators to give more careful thought to this mandatory provision and to amend it accordingly? As an educator, I personally find SEC. 16, as it stands, not only morally problematic, but also practically unfeasible. B.2. In similar vein, SEC. 21 on Employers Responsibilities is not only redundant (we already have PhilHealth), but could be a violation of the Catholic conscience of some employers. Again, imagine this scenario at the Health Office: Could the Ateneo (a Catholic Jesuit University) please pay for my vasectomy? B.3. Regarding SEC. 28e on Prohibited Acts: What assures us that the sincere effort to articulate the demands of conscience would not be counted as malicious disinformation? And, IF scientific studies one day conclusively prove that condoms DO NOT effectively protect against Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs), then your own petitions claim (on p. 2) would backfire and be counted against you as irresponsible and malicious disinformation! SEC. 28e should be dropped.

C. Family Planning Supplies as Essential Medicines (SEC. 10) If essential medicines are those that satisfy the priority health care needs of the population, perhaps we need to scientifically identify these.3 If this priority list does not include Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs), I dont see how it could justify the inclusion of contraceptives as essential medicines, unless, of course, low-risk pregnancy is considered a disease. One of my students, an Environmental Science Major, pointed out in her undergraduate thesis that some oral hormonal contraceptives (i.e., levonorgestrel) can even be harmful not only to the person using it, but also to the environment.4 Incidentally, levonorgestrel (the hormonal ingredient in the morning-after pill) is actually included in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines. Even the World Health Organization, it seems, needs to update its own list of medically and environmentally safe essential medicines. Surely the medical and scientific community could help us on this. Further Suggestions: The section on essential medicine should include a provision for a constantly updated list of medically and environmentally safe non-abortifacient medicines. Correspondingly, SEC. 28 on Prohibited Acts should include a provision against promoting and obtaining the substandard contraceptive products of pharmaceutical companies that would contrive, through unscrupulous individuals and groups, to pass these off as essential medicines, etc. Statement: Unless these problematic portions of the consolidated bill are amended, I do not see how HB 4244, as it presently stands, could pass for good legislation. And I make this appeal to our legislators who rely on scientific evidence when they craft legislative proposals: Could you not show a little more respect for our moral and religious convictions? D. Empowerment of Women and the Poor Please do not get me wrong. I raise these questions not from a purely academic concern. As a Filipina, an educator and a Catholic layperson, I feel morally obliged to demand some basic clarification as well as a deeper reflection in the drafting of this bill. I do believe that our less privileged kababayan deserve the best in education and in health care. But I wonder how we as a people could speak of achieving the broad goals of social equity, poverty reduction, and national development when we are not even sensitized to listen, much less allow the dissent of moral and religious conscience. How could we speak of real concern and compassion for the poor and the marginalized when we cant even protect the most vulnerable human being: the unborn child? How do we truly empower our women when we do not sensitize them to care for the gift and miracle that is human life? I do not think I am alone in voicing these objections. But it is not my wont to circulate a petition to get kakampi among my colleagues. Their position regarding House Bill 4244 is up to their conscience. But because the questions I posed are real questions of conscience, I too deserve a hearing, with or without the backing of Church authorities or ideological group mates. I thank you for listening to my efforts to make my Christian faith dialogue with reason. I have always tried to awaken this search for truth and conscience among my own students, and have been rewarded by their sharing of precious insights regarding the RH Bill, among others. There is much that
3 4

E.g., tuberculosis, pneumonia, diarrhea, bronchitis, influenza, tuberculosis, malaria, dengue, coronary heart disease, etc. My students undergraduate thesis was done under a research grant, not to find evidences against the RH Bill, but to conduct scientific inquiry towards the development of policies and protocols for wastewater treatment facilities. Hence, her hesitation to have her thesis explicitly cited. But, if you are interested, we could ask her permission and she could lend you a copy for your personal perusal and/or refer you to other scientific journals related to the topic.

we could learn from each other and from our students. If there is indeed overwhelming scientific evidence to support the claims of the present RH Bill, this could stand under close intelligent scrutiny. However, many of my students who initially fully supported the RH Bill were obliged by reason to temper their enthusiasm and eventually revised their position when confronted by the inconsistencies they discovered upon a close reading of the Bill. A deeper quality of discourse is achieved when you challenge students to struggle with the text and think for themselves. Stock arguments that either demonize or canonize the RH Bill neither serve intellectual integrity nor respect moral-religious convictions. Polarizations like these are a disservice to both Church and country. The Church hierarchy has been much criticized for refusing to dialogue with those who support the RH Bill. Forgive me for saying this, but I find this way of approaching individual professors in the Ateneo to get signatures for another pro-RH Bill petition a similar refusal of dialogue. You say that the academe has a distinct role to play in achieving social justice and national development. How true! The Pro RH Bill group in this university is very organized in terms of lobbying strategies. Why not put the same effort to bring Church and State, academe and masa, or even the different disciplines in this university to work together to make the benefits of social justice reach the poorest of our poor? You petition says Pass the RH Bill NOW! I ask: WHY pass the RH Bill now when it is clearly in need of REVISIONS? It is our kababayan who stand to profit from a good piece of legislation. It is also the poorest among our poor who will suffer most when we allow our ideological passions get the better of our search for the common good. Unless there is a real effort to attain an intelligent conversation between the Christian gospel and contemporary [scientific] culture with all its plurality and richness, its passions and struggles, its convictions and aspirations I dont think we do ourselves justice as academics in a Catholic Jesuit University. As a final word, allow me to greet you, dear colleagues, mga kapatid: HAPPY FEAST OF THE ANNUNCIATION! Todays feast (March 25th) celebrates the Conception of the WORD in the human womb of MARY.

Yours in Jesus Christ, DR. ARNELLA FRANCIS CLAMOR (Arni) Assistant Professor, Theology Department Ateneo de Manila University