This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
eMagazine for Faith, Family and Life
Volume 3 Issue 11 First in Time, First in Right November 2011
Extra! Extra! Extra!
INTERNATIONAL DECEPTION AT WORK!
CFAM exposes forked-tongue strategy by New York law firm
Getting governments to accept language that will change meanings later
Couples for Christ Foundation for Family & Life USA
Adolf Hitler once called purification of the Aryan race what we now know as the Jewish holocaust, in the Balkans they call ethnic cleansing what is really genocide. It’s deliberate, insiduous and effective. CFAM exposed the CRR strategy eight years ago and today when you say reproductive health, you actually mean abortion but without its intrinsic murderous consequences and obnoxious connotation.
Vague, dangerous verbal engineering in stealth
By Paul Nowak New York, NY (LifeNews.com) December 6, 2003-- The Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (CFAM) that it has obtained internal memos from the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) detailing the strategy to develop international pro-abortion laws that can be imposed and enforced throughout the world -- ultimately government financed abortion on demand worldwide. "Most of their work is getting governments to accept language that will change meanings later," said Austin Ruse, CFAM president. "For instance, they like the phrase ‘reproductive health’ instead of ‘abortion’ -- if they used ‘abortion’ they'd likely lose. When it comes to enforcement, that term can be used to refer to abortion."
by all policy makers. CFAM plans to unveil more on the CRR memos over the next two weeks. In addition, CFAM has provided the document to select organizations, and sometime next week it will be make it generally available to the public. Ruse told LifeNews.com that while the strategy disclosed in the document is "nothing new" to his organization, it is a "smoking gun" belying the tactics proabortion groups have denied for years -- tactics that he called "primarily deception." Such is the strategy summarized in the 60-page document that was sent to CFAM from an anonymous source. The document states that CRR’s "overarching goal is to ensure that governments worldwide guarantee reproductive rights out of an understanding that they are bound to do so." This goal includes the international establishment of the "inalienable nature" of "sexual rights," including "sexual autonomy" for girls, specifically "reproductive information and services, such as abortion, without parental notification or consent," ac"The memos appear to confirm long-standing fears cording to Sylvia. Such policies and international laws of some legal scholars that international negotiations on could be enforced on governments, nullifying their sovhuman rights laws are no longer conducted in good ereignty over such issues. faith, and that national sovereignty is jeopardized by CRR plans to employ a three-step strategy to achieve such negotiations," wrote Douglas Sylvia, Vice President their goal. of CFAM, in the first of a series of three regarding the First, they hope to take advantage of accepted memos released Thursday. international rights, referred to as "hard norms," In an interview with LifeNews.com, Austin Ruse, and expand the interpretations to embody elecalled the CRR a "very radical and very powerful" proments of the pro-abortion agenda. abortion law firm located in New York, and said the "Thus, CRR claims to have found, or "grounded," a document, which summarizes the conclusions of right to abortion in the right to life, right to health, even strategic planning meetings held by CRR in late right to enjoy scientific progress," noted Sylvia. October, is "vitally important" and should be read
November 2011 Page 3 "[They] are all leaders in the struggle for an international right to abortion-on-demand for adolescents and women," said Sylvia. "They have been pleased that the CEDAW Committee, the committee that oversees nations' compliance with the Convention, has repeatedly told nations to legalize abortion." Such previous actions by the pro-abortion groups are why Ruse isn't surprised by the strategy described in the document, but feels that the "blueprint" is crucial. Recent developments, he added, make the international pro-abortion agenda a rising concern. "We are in a post-Lawrence world," Rose said, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which declared laws banning sodomy to be unconstitutional – a decision based in part on foreign laws and decisions. "This is Armageddon for Roe V. Wade," Rose told LifeNews.com. "If it were to go back to the Supreme Court now, other countries laws would be considered in the decision." The Lawrence decision, now allows pro-abortion groups to "encourage out Court to accept foreign decisions."
In the documents, CRR states that this technique is preferred because "There is a stealth quality to the work: we are achieving incremental recognition of values without a huge amount of scrutiny from the opposition." The next step in the plan is to create new international laws, termed "soft norms," that mention abortion and sexual autonomy. If presented and repeated enough, such laws may become hard norms – ones that can be considered binding for nations. "Soft norms accumulate in a host of international and regional settings, including through the European Court of Human Rights and UN compliance committees," CFAM said in announcing the memos. The final step in CRR’s strategy is to enforce the new laws on resisting nations – "supporting efforts to strengthen existing enforcement mechanisms, such as the campaign for the International Criminal Court and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. (CEDAW)" According to the UN website, CEDAW, approved in 1979, "is often described as an international bill of rights for women. Consisting of a preamble and 30 articles, it defines what constitutes discrimination against women and sets up an agenda for national action to end such discrimination." CEDAW refers to abortion as a "medical procedure … needed by women" and states that "it is discriminatory for a country to refuse to legally provide for the performance of certain reproductive health services for women." CEDAW has garnered support from many proabortion groups for this reason, including Planned Parenthood Federation of America, who criticized President Bush for his lack of support, and called his refusal to sign it "a testament to his overall contempt for women and his steadfast refusal to respect their fundamental civil and human rights." In November, nineteen pro-abortion organizations sent a letter to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte, calling the recent U.S. resolution to boost the role of women in national governments "lip service" to women's rights, simply because it failed to promote CEDAW. "CEDAW offers not only words, but an enforcement mechanism for implementing steps towards equality," including "numerical and timebound" quotas, according to the NGO’s letter, meaning that the Convention, and its agenda to make abortion more readily available, has the same binding power of international law.
Pro-Abortion Law Firm threatens LifeNews over Secret Memo Story
By Paul Nowak Helena, MT (LifeNews.com) December 12, 2003 — The Center for Reproductive Rights, a pro-abortion law firm, has sent a letter to LifeNews.com threatening legal action against it. The letter complains about a LifeNews.com story regarding a pro-life organization that received internal documents written by the firm detailing its strategy to develop international pro-abortion laws that can be imposed and enforced throughout the world.
The Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (CFAM), a pro-life group that lobbies at the United Nations, announced earlier this month that an anonymous source sent it a copy of a 60-page document summarizing the conclusions of strategic planning meetings held by CRR in late October. In a story published by LifeNews.com, an independ-
ent news agency specifically devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community, the documents were called a "smoking gun" belying the tactics pro-abortion groups have denied for years. The story prompted CRR President Nancy Northup to fire off a cease and desist letter to LifeNews.com asking the pro-life news outlet to return copies of the internal memos and to pull the story from the www.LifeNews.com web site. "The Center demands that you immediately … cease and desist from any further dissemination, by whatever means, including written, email, fax, oral, or electronic, of the CRR Confidential Documents, or any information derived from, or in any way based on, the CRR Confidential Documents," Northup’s letter said. Steven Ertelt, Editor and CEO of LifeNews.com, says the news service has no intention of complying. "At the heart of the first amendment right to free speech is the ability of the media to report the truth," Ertelt said. "It’s about time that the radical pro-abortion, anti-woman agenda of groups like this be exposed and brought to light. It’s not our problem if abortion advocates are embarrassed by their words or actions."
A GOEBBELS CLASSIC:
‘ If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventu‐ ally come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to re‐ press dissent, for the truth is the mor‐ tal enemy of the lie, and thus by ex‐ tension, the truth is the greatest en‐ emy of the State.”
Washington, DC -- A leading pro-life Congressman has placed internal documents from the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) into the Congressional Record. The action makes the documents publicly available in light of threatening letters CFAM and LifeNews.com have received seeking to stop the dissemination of the materials. The Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (CFAM), a pro-life organization that lobbies at the United Nations, announced earlier this month that an anonymous source sent it copies of a 60-page document summarizing the conclusions of strategic planning meetings held by CRR in late October. Pro-life Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) entered the memo Joseph Goebbels was a German politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 into the Congressional record on Wednesday making it permanently a matter of public record. to 1945 and is one of Adolf Hitler's closest associ‐ It is critical that both the American and foreign pubates and most devout followers. lic are made aware of these documents because they
Congressman enters Pro-Abortion Docs in Congressional Record
November 2011 Page 5 documents. The man refused to tell Westin who he was working for and also refused to leave a telephone number causing Westin to assume the man was a CRR investigator posing as a reporter. Citing first amendment protections and the fact that the memos are now part of the Congressional Record, neither groups has assented to CRR’s demands. At the same time, analysis of the documents continues to reveal startling details of both the means and long-term goals of the abortion-advocacy group. Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), who introduced the memos into the Congressional Record, notes that “One of their strategies is to manipulate international norms to force countries to do what CRR wants.” In the memos, CRR states that “there are several advantages to relying primarily on interpretations of hard norms. As interpretations of norms acknowledging reproductive rights are repeated in international bodies, the legitimacy of these rights is reinforced. In addition the gradual nature of this approach ensures that we are never in an ‘all-or-nothing’ situation where we may risk a major setback.” Smith highlights the fact that, in these memos, intended only for CRR and its pro-abortion allies, CRR candidly mentions that this strategy has not yet worked. According to Smith, “Thankfully, they admit that they have not been successful so far in twisting the international definition of human rights to include the killing of unborn children through abortion. They disclose that, in their opinion, ‘…there is no binding hard norm that recognizes women’s right to terminate a pregnancy.’ And ‘…the global community has fallen short of recognizing a right to independent decision-making in abortion, providing us with relatively few short norms.’” Smith also describes CRR’s domestic goals, “CRR has programs to work with major medical groups to oppose parental involvement in abortion decisions and to ‘debunk the extent of parental rights currently recognized.’ They have programs on forcing hospitals to do abortions and on forcing taxpayers to use state and federal funds to pay for abortion. They even go so far as to target Pregnancy Resource Centers.” John O’Neil, a pro-life advocate from California, also notes that CRR acknowledges that it intends to undermine laws mandating the reporting of child abuse for what CRR labels “non-abusive sexual relations,” which appears to mean that CRR intends to fight age of consent laws, the primary goal of groups such as the North American Man Boy Love Association.
shed new light on the schemes of those who want to promote abortion here and abroad, Smith said. It is especially important that policy makers know, and more fully understand, the deceptive practices being employed by the abortion lobby, Smith added. The documents confirm CRR’s strategy to develop international pro-abortion laws that can be imposed and enforced throughout the world. They also validate long-held suspicions that abortion advocates lobby diplomats to include phrases such as reproductive health in treaties and other international documents. Later they define such innocuous phrases to include an unfettered right to abortion. In their own words, these documents demonstrate how abortion promotion groups are planning to push abortion here and abroad, not by direct argument, but by twisting words and definitions, Smith said. CRR states that this technique is preferred because, There is a stealth quality to the work: we are achieving incremental recognition of values without a huge amount of scrutiny from the opposition. These lower profile victories will gradually put us in a strong position to assert a broad consensus around our assertions. We have to fight harder, be a little dirtier, one CRR trustee says. These documents are important for the public to see, Smith explained, because they expose the wolf donning sheep clothing in an attempt to sanitize violence against children. These papers reveal a Trojan Horse of deceit.
Intimidation campaign spreads beyond C-FAM
By Douglas Sylva, Ph.D
(NEW YORK - C-FAM) December 19, 2003—As news of the Center for Reproductive Right’s (CRR) top secret memos to establish international abortion and “sexual” rights spreads within the public policy community, CRR has stepped up its campaign to silence critics by threatening more groups with lawsuits. Organizations including Focus on the Family and LifeNews.com have received letters similar to the one sent to the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, ordering them to “cease and desist” further discussion of the subject, to return all copies of the memo, and to provide CRR with a detailed list of all groups and individuals informed by the organizations about CRR. A man posing as a reported also quizzed JohnHenry Westin, editor of the Canadian-based Life Site News, demanding to know when Westin received the
THESE ARTICLES REQUIRE SERIOUS REFLECTION BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS
The CRR doublespeak plague is now in the Philippines in the form of the ‘Responsible’ Parenthood Bill
The Reproductive Health Bill of 2010, is now called the Responsible Parenthood Bill of 2011. Before this shift, it has been filed and re‐ filled in earlier sessions of the Philippine Congress, known by other names. The main intent of this bill is to accept condoms, pills, IUDs and other contraceptive devises as “essential medicines and sup‐ plies” in order to qualify them for public funding. The problem is if Congress does enact it into a law, pregnancy would necessarily be defined as a disease. If pregnancy becomes a disease, then it can be aborted. But the Philippine Constitution protects the life of the unborn from conception, thus prohibiting any and all forms of abortion. Thus the Reproductive Health or now Responsible Parent‐ hood bill is not only irresponsible but grossly unconstitutional.
Unmasking CRR’s dicey fingerprints in the RH bill
The bill . . . includes some provisions that are for a National Policy on Reproductive Health and Population and Development (SB 2378).1 not specific to health care workers and institutions. However, they affect fundamental freeBackground Health care delivery doms of all citizens, and they are indicative of Health care is delivered in the Philippines by both the public the broader social, legal and political environand private sector. In 2005, 702 hospitals and health facilities were ment within which the law will operate if the bill operated by the government2 and 1130 by the private sector,3 including religious denominations. Citizens are free to obtain private passes. health insurance, but all must enrol in the National Health InsurCommonly known as the Reproductive Health ance Program (NHIP),4 which is ultimately to become "one universal health insurance program for the entire population."5 Act (the RH Act or RH Bill), the consolidated The Program is administered by the Philippine Health Insurance bill now being debated in the Philippines is an Corporation (PhilHealth), a government owned and controlled coramalgamation of earlier proposals, including The poration. PhilHealth establishes and monitors standards and, Reproductive Health and Population and Development within the terms of the National Health Insurance Act of 1995, determines policies for payment of claims.6 It also accredits health Act of 2010 (HB 0000096) and the Act Providing
November 2011 Page 7
care institutions and practitioners and processes and reimburses claims for health care provided by them. About 90% of health care providers have been accredited,7 a fact that incidentally demonstrates the importance and influence of the public health insurance plan despite the numerical predominance of private facilities.
that are not specific to health care workers and institutions. However, they affect fundamental freedoms of all citizens, and they are indicative of the broader social, legal and political environment within which the law will operate if the bill passes. Among these: The law will establish "reproductive health" as "a universal basic human right," though such a right is not recognized elsewhere Population policies [Comment 1], and the claims would make the statute internally in. . .government involvement in family planning and consistent [Comments 7, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20] population control has become part of the normal soThe law will establish a legal right to artificial reproduction by cial, political and health care landscape in the Philipsingle persons [Comments 1, 3, 7, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20 ], includpines. ing those who claim a "gender identity" unrelated to their natural sex [Comment 2, 13]. The ground for the bill has been cleared over a peThe state will be expected to guarantee and advance the rights riod of forty years by laws and population management the law purports to grant, and to eliminate policies and programmes aimed at reducing fertility in "discrimination."[Comment 3, 4] the Philippines. It may suppress religious or moral expressions, policies or pracWhile apparently ineffective in reducing population tices that are deemed to "infringe" the exercise of purported 'rights' growth, the programmes have resulted in the establish- [Comment 4] The law will formally legitimize government control of ment of a national infrastructure of ministries, offices "reproductive health care" as a means to realize political or ideologiand officials responsible for implementing government cal goals. [Comments 2, 9] population and family planning policies. A "certificate of compliance" issued by the local Family PlanForemost among them is the Population Commisning Office will be required to obtain a marriage licence [Comment sion (POPCOM) and related agencies, including the De- 24]
partment of Health (DOH). Thus, government involvement in family planning and population control has become part of the normal social, political and health care landscape in the Philippines. [ Appendix "A"] Religious considerations . . .the bills in their present forms would likely cause significant problems for Catholic health care facilities and an undetermined number of Catholic health care workers. Other religious groups would be affected to the extent that they share the outlook of the Catholic Church on the ethics of reproductive health care.
Over 80% of Filipinos identify themselves as Catholic, which probably accounts for the fact that abortion is illegal in the country and the constitution requires that the state protect the lives of both mother and unborn child from the moment of conception.8 However, reported attitudes and practices indicate widespread rejection rather than acceptance of Catholic teaching on contraception and sterilization.[Appendix "A"] Thus, Catholics who adhere to Church teaching on these subjects, while they may have the support of their bishops, are probably minorities within the health care professions and within their faith communities. On the other hand, the number of hospitals operated by the Catholic and bound by its pastoral directives against contraception and contraceptive sterilization is not insignificant. [Appendix "A"] It will be seen that passage of the bill in its present form would likely cause significant problems for Catholic health care facilities and an undetermined number of Catholic health care workers. Other religious believers and facilities would be affected to the extent that they share the outlook of the Catholic Church on the ethics of reproductive health care.
The "RH Bill" of 2011: Specific Provisions
An early incarnation of one of the earlier bills would have seen the imprisonment of health care workers who declined to provide contraceptive sterilization for reasons of conscience, and Catholic institutions would have been compelled to provide or pay for contraceptives and sterilization to their employess.9 Such flagrantly coercive measures do not appear in the present bill, but their absence does not betoken an attitude of accommodation.
In the first place, the bill claims that reproductive health care is a "human right" [Comment 1]. While this claim is inherently problematic and also gives rise to very troublesome internal inconsistencies in the bill [Comments 3, 7, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20], it creates even more serious problems for the exercise of freedom of conscience or religion.
The "RH Bill" of 2011: General Provisions
The bill now before the 15th Congress includes some provisions
. . .the general claim of rights . . .would, if accepted, leave no principled basis upon which to exempt any health care institution or health care worker from a requirement to provide contraception, contraceptive sterilization, or even potentially embryocidal or abortifacient drugs and devices. For if it really were a "human right" to be given contraceptives or contraceptive sterilization, it would follow that anyone who refused to provide them would be guilty of a human rights violation. Moreover, it is contrary to sound public policy to permit violations of authentic human rights based on appeals to religious or conscientious convictions. We do not, for example, admit a defence of religious freedom in cases of racial discrimination, nor do we accommodate racial prejudices.
Thus, the general claim of rights made in the bill would, if accepted, leave no principled basis upon which to exempt any health care institution or health care worker from a requirement to provide contraception, contraceptive sterilization, or even potentially embryocidal or abortifacient drugs and devices.[Comments 15, 17] This reasoning has been accepted elsewhere. For example, the Ontario Human Rights Commission holds that "secular service providers cannot claim that the performance of their job functions is an expression of their deeply held religious beliefs,"10 and is of the view "that doctors, as providers of services that are not religious in nature, must essentially 'check their personal views at the door' in providing medical care."11 Note that one of the requirements for accreditation by the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation is "recognition of the rights of patients."12 Thus, the declaration of rights in the RH Bill would enable PhilHealth to deny accreditation to any health care facility that refused to comply with the Act for reasons of conscience. 'Discrimination' Within the context of rights claims and accusations of discrimination, it is important to note that the bill will make it an offence to "[r]efuse to extend health care services and information on account of the person’s marital status, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, or nature of work." Activists have alleged that physicians who, for reasons of conscience, decline to provide contraceptives or restrict them to married persons, or who refuse to provide artificial reproduction for single people and patients identifying themselves as homosexuals, are guilty of professional misconduct and discrimination.13 [Comment 35] It is reasonable to believe that such accusations will be made in similar circumstances against Filipino health care workers if the RH Bill passes in its present form. This provision lends itself to partisan misuse. . . Neither the quality of public discourse nor the provision of health care will be markedly improved by giving "reproductive rights" activists the opportunity to send those who disagree with them to jail. Providing 'information' It will also become an offence to withhold or restrict the dissemination of information concerning "reproductive health" and access to reproductive health services, or to deliberately provide "incorrect information" about such services [Comment 34]. This provision lends itself to partisan misuse. Reciprocal accusations of spreading "incorrect information" are frequently heard in heated polemics about "reproductive health care," and objectors have been accused of withholding
information simply because they declined to provide contact information for providers of morally controversial services. If dissemination of incorrect information or improper withholding of information is a problem in a given case, it would be safer, more productive, and less inflammatory to deal with it through remedial or disciplinary measures after a careful investigation by professional authorities. Neither the quality of public discourse nor the provision of health care will be markedly improved by giving "reproductive rights" activists the opportunity to send those who disagree with them to jail. Unspecified agendas Interpreted broadly, these sections provide a general warrant for a wide range of government action. The bill also politicizes the concept of reproductive health, so that state control of "reproductive health care" can become a means to realize political or ideological goals. The Department of Health and its local offices will take the lead in enforcing the Act, and, in addition to specified functions, is authorized to undertake any functions it deems necessary to attain its purposes.[Comment 31] The Commission on Populationon (POPCOM) will act as a kind of super-secretariat. Under the terms of the bill it will integrate a reproductive health and population "agenda" into the fabric of the nation [Section 25]. It is further charged "to ensure active and full participation of the private sector and the citizenry through their organizations," something which goes beyond mere "facilitation." This appears to envisage a form of universal conscription and to permit coercive measures to ensure compliance. [Comment 33] Interpreted broadly, these sections provide a general warrant for a wide range of government action. Further, the bill politicizes the concept of reproductive health, so that state control of "reproductive health care" can become a means to realize political or ideological goals. [Comments 2, 9] These parts of the bill are likely to present a serious challenge to fundamental freedoms if it becomes law. Universal compliance and enforcement All accredited health facilities, including denominational institutions, will be made to provide contraceptives, potential embryocides, abortifacients, and contraceptive sterilization, or assist patients who seek them. [Comments 7, 14, 15, 17, 21, 31, 36] Section 21 of the bill would force employers of 200 people or more to provide employees with contraceptives, potential embryocides, abortifacients, and contraceptive sterilization. There are no exceptions for em-
November 2011 Page 9 who, for moral reasons, refuses to perform contraceptive sterilization does so because he believes it to be wrong, not because his patient is a man or woman. Thus, the accommodation permitted by the bill would be worthless in most of the cases in which it would be needed. Even if a personal characteristic is related to an objection (as in the case of refusing contraceptives to an unmarried patient), the objection is not to the patient. Instead, the objector seeks to avoid vicarious moral responsibility for something done by the patient (extramarital sex). An objector willing to risk public obloquy and prosecution might claim an exemption in such a case, but would then be required to refer the patient to a willing colleague. However, referral and other forms of facilitation also raise the problem of complicity, and objectors may find the requirement unacceptable. Thus, the exercise of freedom of conscience is made impossible or ridiculous, and exposes those who claim the exemption to prosecution for human rights violations. It is not clear whether this part of the bill has been deliberately constructed as an obstacle to conscientious objection, or has simply been badly drafted. The shape of things to come? The RH Bill is supported by the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), a powerful American activist organization has been involved in "reproductive rights" litigation in the Philippines.14 Once described in internal documents15 as organization “comprised largely of economically advantaged white women,”16 the Center has a worldwide network of associates dedicated to achieving its objectives. Among them is the legal enforcement of what it describes as inalienable sexual rights.17 The ultimate goal of the CRR is to establish what it calls “hard norms” - treaty-based international laws18 that recognize access to abortion as a fundamental human right -even though internal memos demonstrate that it is aware that no such right exists.19 It plans to develop a “culture of enforcement” that will compel governments to respect this purported ‘right’20 and enforce it against third parties - physicians and other health care workers.21 The Center works to suppress the exercise of freedom of conscience by health care workers and to prohibit the exercise of freedom of conscience and religion by religious denominations operating health care facilities.22 . . .the RH Bill promises much more in this respect than could be hoped for in the United States. . . where
ployers who object to such services for reasons of conscience: no exceptions even for denominational employers. The Bill's sponsors have requested that this section be deleted. However, it seems clear that they intend to use Section 33 of the RH bill and the Labour Code to do this nonetheless. [Comment 26] The government will have a duty to 'ensure access' to morally controversial services, products and procedures. This is likely to conflict with freedom of conscience among health care workers.[Comments 3, 7, 28] The state may impose training requirements that will exclude conscientious objectors from health care professions.[Comments 25, 26, 29] Professional regulatory authorities will be given additional powers that may be used to restrict the exercise of freedom of conscience and discipline or expel health care workers who object to state policies for reasons of conscience. [Comment 30]
The "RH Bill" of 2011: limited or worthless exemptions
As previously noted, the rights claims made in the bill leave no principled basis upon which to exempt any health care institution or health care worker from a requirement to provide contraception, contraceptive sterilization, or even potentially embryocidal or abortifacient drugs and devices. . . . the exercise of freedom of conscience is made impossible or ridiculous, and exposes those who claim the exemption to prosecution for human rights violations. It is not clear whether this parts of the bills has been deliberately constructed as an obstacle to conscientious objection, or has simply been badly drafted. Section 28(3) contains the only provisions for accommodation of freedom of conscience or religion. Many of the procedures and services identified in the bills are morally controversial, but this section does not allow religious or ethical objections to any of them. [Comments 35, 36] Instead, it allows health care workers and institutions to claim an exemption only if they assert that they have refused to provide health care or information because of a patient's marital status, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, or nature of work. In other words, the bill offers accommodation only to those willing to face denunciation for unjust discrimination. Conscientious objection normally occurs because a health care worker is unwilling to be morally complicit what he believes to be in a wrongful act, not because of a personal characteristic of the patient. A physician
attacks on freedom of conscience and religion would be strongly opposed. . . .the suppression of the freedoms of denominational health care institutions of the sort found in this bill has been soundly rejected by the European Union. While the RH Bill of 2011 explicitly affirms that abortion is illegal in the Philippines, in every other respect it is consistent with the Center's goals. Indeed, the bill promises much more in this respect than could be hoped for in the United States, the Center's homeland, where attacks on freedom of conscience and religion would be strongly opposed. It is also noteworthy that the suppression of the freedoms of denominational health care institutions of the sort found in this bill has been soundly rejected by the European Union. [For details of the proposal for suppression of freedom of conscience, see PACE Resolution . . .Endangers Freedom of Conscience of Medical Practitionerss; for decision, see Resolution 1763 (2010): The right to conscientious objection in lawful medical care] Elsewhere, however, the passage of the RH Bill would set a precedent that the Center and its global allies would surely exploit, and it is not unlikely that similar bills are in preparation elsewhere. It is thus reasonable to believe that the Philippines RH Bill of 2011 presents, perhaps only in outline, the shape of things to come. Notes 1. Congressman Edcel Lagman introduced the Responsible Parenthood and Population Management Act of 2005 (House Bill 3773) in the 13th Congress.39 During the 14th Congress, Lagman introduced The Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2008 (HB 5043) to the House of Representatives. It was largely reproduced in a similar and concurrent bill in the Senate (Senate Bill No. 3122), but neither bill passed. 2. Philippines Department of Health, Bureau of Health Facilities and Service, Distribution of Licensed Government Hospitals and Other Health Facilities by Service Capability/Authorized Beds, by Center for Health Development, by Province/City (2005) (Accessed 2010-0930) 3. Philippines Department of Health, Bureau of Health Facilities and Service, Distribution of Licensed Private Hospitals and Other Health Facilities by Service Capability/Authorized Beds, by Center for Health Development, by Province/City (2005) (Accessed 2010-09-30) 4. Republic Act 7875- National Health Insurance Act of 1995, Section 1 (l), Section 6 (Accessed 2010-09-17) 5. Republic Act 7875- National Health Insurance Act of 1995, Section 5 (Accessed 2010-09-17) 6. Philippine Health Insurance Corporation, Promoting Quality Health Care in the Philippines. (Accessed 2010-09-18). Section 10 of the Act lists services deemed "medically necessary or appropriate" and Section 11 lists those that are excluded from coverage, subject to actuarial investigations by the Corporation. 7. Philippine Health Insurance Corporation, Promoting Quality Health Care in the Philippines. (Accessed 2010-09-18). 8. The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines,, Article II, Section 12 (Accessed 2010-09-29) 9. Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, "Family Planning Bill in Philippines Paving Way for Legalized Abortion." Friday Fax, Volume 8, Number 19, 29 April, 2005 10. Submission of the Ontario Human Rights Commission to the College
of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario regarding the draft policies relating to establishing and ending physician-patient relationships (14 February, 2008) (Accessed 2010-09-30) 11. Submission of the Ontario Human Rights Commission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Regarding the draft policy, "Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code." (Accessed 2010-0930) The professional regulatory authority for physicians drafted a policy to comply with this demand, but removed the most contentious language after an outcry from the public and the medical profession. See Responses to Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code 12. Republic Act 7875 National Health Insurance Act of 1995, Section 33(e): Minimum requirements for accreditation. (Accessed 2010-09-18) 13. Canning, Cheryl, "Doctor's faith under scrutiny: Barrie physician won't offer the pill, could lose his licence." The Barrie Examiner, 21 February, 2002. Gold, Polo Black, "California Court comes out: the bioethics of Benitez." The Hastings Centre, Bioethics Forum, 22 August, 2008 (Accessed 2010-09-30) "A physician’s denial of services or refusal to provide a woman with information relating to contraception or abortion, for example, would be discriminatory based on sex, as only women can become pregnant." Submission of the Ontario Human Rights Commission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario regarding the draft policies relating to establishing and ending physician-patient relationships (14 February, 2008) (Accessed 2010-09-30) 14. Center for Reproductive Rights, A right to contraception in the Philippines (Accessed 2010-09-30); The RH bill:Ending Manila City's war on women. (Accessed 2010-09-22) 15. CRR documents obtained by the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (CFAM) were entered in the United States Congressional Record (p. E2535 to E2547) on 8 December, 2003, to forestall efforts by the Center to suppress dissemination of the documents through litigation. They are available on the Project website. CFAM, "Secret Memos Reveal Worldwide ProAbortion Legal Strategy," Friday Fax, 5, December, 2003. Vol. 6, No. 50 The documents cited herein are:
• International Legal Program Summary of Strategic Planning: Through October 31, 2003 (E2535) ο ILPS Memo # 1- International Reproductive Rights Norms: Current Assessment (E2535-E2538); ο ILPS Memo #2- Establishing International Reproductive Rights Norms: Theory of Change (E2538-E2539). ο Domestic Legal Progam Summary of Strategic Planning Through October 31, 2004 (E2539) ο DLPS Memo #1- Future of Traditional Abortion Litigation (E2539-2540); ο DLPS Memo #2- Report to Strategic Planning Participants From Systematic Approach Subgroup (E2540-E2541). ο DLPS Memo #3- Report to Strategic Planning Participants From “Other Litigation” Subgroup (E2541-E2542). ο Program Strategies and Accomplishments (E2543)
November 2011 Page 1 1 THE THREE “VITAES”, THE NEED FOR ADULT CATECHESIS ON LIFE ISSUES
ο The Center for Reproductive Rights: Summary and Synthesis of Interviews (E2543-2546) ο The Center for Reproductive Rights Board of Directors Primary Affiliation Information (E2547) 16. Which the “Other Litigation Subgroup” believed undermined the credibility of the CRR with respect to the interests of “women of colour.” DLPS Memo #3, E2541) One of the Center’s trustees also expressed concern that much of the funding from individuals was coming from donors over 60 years old ( The Center for Reproductive Rights: Summary and Synthesis of Interviews, E2546) 17. “. . .both the ICPD Programme of Action and the Beijing PFA reflect an international consensus recognizing the inalienable nature of sexual rights.” ILPS Memo # 1, 2537 18. “Legally binding or ‘‘hard’’ norms are norms codified in binding treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) or the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)” ILPS Memo # 1, E2535 19. “. . . there is no binding hard norm that recognizes women’s right to terminate a pregnancy. To argue that such a right exists, we have focused on interpretations of three categories of hard norms: the rights to life and health; the right to be free from discrimination; those rights that protect individual decisionmaking on private matters.” ILPS Memo #1, E2536 20. “The ILP’s overarching goal is to ensure that governments worldwide guarantee reproductive rights out of an understanding that they are legally bound to do so.” International Legal Program Summary of Strategic Planning: Through October 31, 2003 (E2535) “Our goal is to see governments worldwide guarantee women’s reproductive rights out of recognition that they are bound to do so.” ILPS Memo #1, E2537; ILPS Memo # 2, E2538. “The Center needs to continue its advocacy to ensure that women’s ability to choose to terminate a pregnancy is recognized as a human right.” ILPS Memo # 2, E2539 “Advocates use of enforcement mechanisms can help cultivate a “culture” of enforcement . . .” ILPS Memo #2, E2539 Pursuing the notion that abortion is part of “the fundamental rights strand of equal protection” is one of the suggestions in the report of the “Other Litigation” Subgroup, DLPS Memo #3, E2540. To establish abortion as a “fundamental” right would give it precedence over less “fundamental” rights in cases of conflict. 21. The norms offer “a firm basis for the government’s duties, including its own compliance and its enforcement against third parties.” ILPS Memo #2, E2538 22. Letter from Wanda Nowicka (ASTRA) and Christina Zampas (CRR) to the E.U. Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights, 12 October, 2005. (Accessed 2010-10-01) Letter from Wanda Nowicka (ASTRA) and Christina Zampas (CRR) to the European Commission (Androulla Vassiliou and Robert Madelin) 24 April, 2009. (Accessed 2010-10-01)
Papal wisdom confronting modernist attacks
We need wisdom. The late Holy Father, Pope Paul VI said, the lack of wisdom is part of the difficulty of properly understanding our sexuality, and of life itself. We don’t see the whole vision that God intended, without wisdom. In our times there are three Church documents with the word Vitae, that is - of life. They are: Humanae Vitae, Donum Vitae, and Evangelium Vitae. It is interesting to note that the three documents were written by three different Popes. Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae on July 25th,1968. On March 25th, 1995 Pope John Paul II issued Evangelium Vitae. The man who signed the third document, Donum Vitae, issued by the Declaration of the Congregation of Faith, on February 22nd, 1987 , was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, and God approved that document by making him Pope Benedict XVI. So do we need any more authority as to the wisdom contained in these three documents, whose authors were three Popes? Yet you might ask, why are there three documents? Is not one document about “life” sufficient? The reason, that three were written instead of one, is because the Church was responding during the past forty years, each time the culture of death grew. In the Sixties, the culture of death began attacking Marriage itself and the process of Pro-creation. Pope Paul VI responded by writing the encyclical, Humane Vitae. By 1987 human life in the womb from conception to birth was under attack, so Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI responded by writing Donum Vitae, “The Gift of Life”. Finally by 1995, human life was under attack not only in the womb, but from the womb to the grave itself. And so Pope John Paul II said: we now have a veritable culture of death. So what do we do? And so he gave us the “Gospel of Life” or Evangelium Vitae. And so you must read all three in order to know the Church’s wisdom on what is wrong with the “culture of death”, and how to live the “culture of Life”.
SENATE PRESIDENT ENRILE:
RH bill not about health but population control
In last week’s debate, Enrile pointed to Section 9 of the RH bill that mentions “Family Planning Supplies as Essential Medicines,” providing that the National Drug Formulary “shall include hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectibles and other safe, legal and effective family planning products and supplies…” The RH bill requires that these products “shall also be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national and local hospitals, provincial city and municipal health offices, including rural health units.” Enrile said that he was not ac-
By Cathy Yamsuan
Philippines Daily Inquirer September 12, 2011 - Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile has warned that proponents of the reproductive health (RH) bill have “cleverly” packaged it as a health measure when it is clearly about population control. “RH is a deception. They are calling it a health bill when health should discuss sickness and medicines. What is the therapeutic or medicinal value of a condom? Or that of a birth control pill, an intrauterine device or an injectible (contraceptive),” Enrile said in an interview. Enrile also wondered why these were the terminology being used although what was being discussed was a health bill. “I think the real purpose is to control the country’s population through birth control that’s why they (proponents) are advocating this in the guise of a health bill,” he said. “Our notion and understanding is that this bill is a clever device to put in the population as a centerpiece but cleverly
masked as a health measure… called ‘reproductive health,’” he said.
cusing the sponsors of the bill of any ill intention. But he explained that marketing the RH bill as a health measure was misleading. “”(I)t appears to us that this is a well-contrived bill, it masked the very purpose for which it was presented to Congress for consideration…Are we talking here of human development? The fact is that the bill is unclear (on this issue and also) unclear on many things. And that is why it is our duty to expose this vagueness and to ask reasons for the vagueness,” he added. Enrile said he would dare the RH bill’s principal sponsor, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, and cosponsor, Senate family, women and youth panel chair Pia Cayetano, when the debates resume to present
PHOTO COURTESY OF THE PHILIPPINE CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, reflecting on the RH bill
“a reputable medical practitioner… that will certify (at the risk of) his professional reputation and ethics that condoms, pills, IUDs, including injectibles are medicinal and have therapeutic values.” But Cayetano countered that the RH bill “establishes a reproductive health policy. That is the driver. And in effect, it improves the quality of lives of the people, they reduce their family size.” She also said the Department of Health as implementing agency of the RH bill was prohibited from practicing or tolerating abortion.
November 2011 Page 1 3
“This now suggests to me that at the bottom of this bill this is a measure to control the population of the country. Why is DOH not telling us that it is anticipating that it will involve such a huge amount of funding coming from tax money? We have to scrutinize this bill very carefully. This might be a trap for the country.” Enrile recalled that the Marcos regime did not entirely implement a US-funded population control program, as it was a US foreign policy dictate. True enough, the declassification in the 1990s of the National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests, written by former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1974, showed that the Philippines was among 13 countries targeted for depopulation to protect American commercial interests. “This bill is unfair to the Senate. MANILA, Oct. 5, It does not tell us what it wants to 2011–It took a Lito Lapid to do. Maybe I’m dense or not as intelligent as the sponsors of the bill but finally reveal one of the promy impression is this bill is not canLapid pointed out that even at RH lobby’s well-kept secrets: did enough on what is its real purthe gargantuan price tag of the P3 billion per year, slum dwellers pose,” he said. proposed contraceptive welfare could already be sent back to the In response, Cayetano again reprovinces and given their own land program. sorted to appeals to emotion, nearly over a 10-year period. The Pampango senator, ridishedding tears in describing the “[Iyan ay] sapat na halaga para culed by the pro-RH side for bigyan ng lupa ang squatter sa prob- situation of poor families and mothers dying of childbirth – ignoring insya,” he told Cayetano. his inability to debate the recent studies that maternal deaths The gargantuan RH budget “reproductive health” (RH) have gone down by more than 80% prompted Senate President Juan bill’s proponents in English, since the 1980s. Ponce Enrile to interject, asking managed to eke out the figure Cayetano said part of the fundwhy DOH officials did not mention Tuesday from one of the meas- the amount in budget hearings. ing would go to “basic” and “comprehensive” facilities, or birthure’s sponsors, Sen. Pia Enrile blasted RH proponents for not being transparent on the real ing centers at the community level. Cayetano. Senate Majority Leader Vicente After hemming and hawing, purposes of the bill, pointing out “Tito” Sotto III, however, said such Cayetano admitted during inter- that billions of pesos in taxpayers’ facilities have long been put up in money could go only to artificial pellations on Senate Bill 2865 the communities, even without an birth control and that this could all that the Department of Health boil down to “tawaran” or haggling. RH bill. ( CBCP for Life)
Lapid uncovers a can of worms: P14 billion for 2012 RH budget!
(DOH) had asked for P13.7 billion to implement the RH bill for the year 2012 alone – an amount bigger than the individual budgets of the departments of energy, finance, foreign affairs, justice, labor, science, tourism, and trade. The figure also dwarfs the budgets proposed for the Office of the President and Congress, as well as for the entire Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. The revelation of the huge RH budget is the latest in the string of exposes to hound the pro-RH lobby, which had earlier been found to be using outdated data on maternal deaths and abortion. RH proponents had long been saying that the budget would only be P3 billion annually.
PRO‐RH BILL LOSING DEBATE:
Cayetano naivete exposed
MANILA, Philippines, September 12, 2011 - Sen. Pia Cayetano yesterday defended a provision in the Reproductive Health (RH) bill that some critics claimed would effectively legalize abortion in the country. “The intent of the RH bill is to uphold the Constitution and in no way tolerate or allow abortion to come in through the back road or behind the scene,” said Cayetano, (its) principal sponsor. Cayetano was reacting to the issues raised by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III in pointing out provisions in the proposed law that would in a way approve abortion.
Enrile said over dzBB radio yesterday that he is ready to debate anew this week over the provisions of the bill, including those that he described as “deception” since RH bill is disguised as a health measure. “I am tracing history where the laws started so that the public may know. What is baffling here is, I am wondering why the press – both print and media – are not reporting on these issues as they should, and in the same way
RH body to decide which regions to contracept, which regions to sterilize
said in Filipino. Lapid raised the matter of side effects and birth defects as a result of using contraceptive pills, revealing that his third child died of a heart ailment at age nine. Lapid said his wife decided to take pills after the birth of their second child, but still got pregnant. “[Ang sabi ng duktor], pag umabot ng [14 years old], magtatagal. Pero umabot ng [9 years old], naMANILA, Oct. 5, 2011 – matay ang bata, inatake sa puso,“ More hidden details of the Lapid narrated in the vernacular. “reproductive health” (RH) bill are “Namatayan ako ng anak dahil unraveling, with Sen. Pia Cayetano diyan sa pills na iyan,” ( I lost a son revealing on Tuesday that a central because of those contraceptive pills. body will determine which regions Lapid also questioned why more in the Philippines should use conchildren are having cleft lips and traception and which regions should palates, and more women are giving be sterilized. Under interpellation by Sen. Lito birth to twins, triplets, and quadruplets. Lapid, Cayetano initially said the Lapid asked: “Magagarantiya distribution of artificial contracepninyo kaya na walang mangyayari sa tives would depend on the requests kababaihan? Magagarantiya ninyo of local government units. Later on, Cayetano said that if an kaya?” Cayetano made a blanket denial area’s average age is low, policymakthat pills cause birth defects, and ers won’t recommend vasectomy. added that cleft palates or cleft lips “Pills will be recommended so the time during which there will be are due to the mother’s poor nutrition. no pregnancy is temporary,” she A monograph released just this
year by a working group under the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) made an “overall evaluation” that “oral combined estrogen–progestogen contraceptives are carcinogenic to humans.” The 2011 report classified the pill as a “Group 1” carcinogen, which means the highest level of evidence of cancer risk. The study showed pills can cause cancer of the breast, in-situ and invasive cancer of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the liver. Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile told Cayetano that the anti-RH side does not want to stop the use of artificial contraceptives. “Ang tinututuluan namin ay ang intervention ng Estado kung saan bibigyan sila ng bilyong halaga ng condom at pildoras para ‘di mabuntis ang kababaihan,” (What we are against is government intervention using billion of public money just to prevent pregnancies), he said. Enrile said “Who will determine who will give birth?” implying that this decision is better left to spouses and not the government. (CBCP for Life).
as they report on anomalies (in government),” Enrile said. Enrile suggested the interest is not that much or there were attempts to control the release of information through the media to prevent a thorough discussion on the issues. “...It’s a deception. They are projecting it as a health bill. If it’s a health bill, it should discuss sickness, and cure. What are the medicinal values of condom, IUV, and birth control pills? What are those injectibles, other than safe, legal, effective family planning products and supplies? If this is a health bill, why are these terminologies in this bill?” he asked. As far as Enrile is concerned, he believes that no country that adopted such laws on controlling population was able to deal with the problem of an aging population and/or economic growth. “Tell me, which country in the world had implemented a similar measure and succeeded? The answer to poverty is not population control but investments and creation of jobs,” Enrile said. “Those are the solutions. Not tinkering with the work of God. You create investments, you create jobs,” he added. Enrile noted that Indonesia, Malaysia and the United States and even Mexico did not gain their perceived goals despite having similar provisions in their respective countries. Citing Japan as an example, Enrile said the Japanese economy is in a precarious situation because of an ageing population. “What is the experience of Germany – they are being Arabized. In France, it’s the same thing,” he said. Enrile said the real purpose is to control the population through birth control not disguising it as a health bill.
Enrile and other senators were pointing out the provisions of the bill, particularly paragraphs (i) and (j), which read: “Section 3, (i) While this Act does not amend the penal law on abortion, the government shall ensure that all women needing care for post-abortion complications shall be treated and counseled in a humane, nonjudgmental and compassionate manner. “Section 3, (j) Each family shall have the right to determine its ideal family size, Provided, however, that the State shall equip each parent with the necessary information to all aspects of family life, including reproductive health, in order to make that determination.” Sotto expressed his belief during interpellations last week that some groups might take advantage of the provisions to introduce products that technically prevent conception. “To me, they are pushing for this bill because they will inculcate in us that certain means of abortion are medically safe procedures, feasible, and will eventually be considered legal,” he said. If enacted into law, Sotto argued this might mean that if a certain family wants only two children but the mother will become pregnant, the State shall equip that parent with the means to abort the child. Cayetano, on the other hand, said there is nothing in the provisions of the proposal that says abortion will be an option. “That is absurd, that is not a logical conclusion,” she said. “We (sponsors of the bill) made it very clear that it is not… it is very clear. So let us not read into the bill what is not in the bill,” Cayetano said. Pro-life groups, on the other hand, urged international organiza-
tions to stop supplying lawmakers what they called “outdated statistics” to influence the government’s reproductive health policy. “Questioning the data peddled by pro-RH groups is far from belittling the problem of maternal deaths. The issue at hand is the pro-RH lobby’s emotional and exclusive use of ‘11 maternal deaths a day’ to scare lawmakers into spending billions of pesos in taxpayers’ money for its contraception and sterilization agenda,” the group Filipinos For Life (F4L) said in a statement. F4L said pro-RH groups have long attributed the statistic to foreign entities like the Guttmacher Institute and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), but have apparently switched to data from the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) that said new studies showed a substantial decline in maternal mortality since 1980. The group said lawmakers should have been informed ahead of floor debates that the numbers have changed significantly. “Thanks to poor research by the RH lobby, they were caught using old data,” the F4L said. Sen. Joker Arroyo, for his part, said both sides are studying very hard to defend their positions. “This RH bill, the vote there would be a close vote, it would be… it could go either way because everyone is listening to the arguments… the debates are very intelligent so far,” Arroyo said. “They (senators) have spoken they have really researched about the subject. And the nice part about it is that there is no reference at all to religious considerations, moral questions. It’s all on the need to control the population…and I think this will be a very good (debate)… everybody is interested,” he said. By Christina Mendez with Helen Flores, The Philippine Star)
A Beautiful Story
Confessions of a former public health official, now dogged Pro‐Life advocate
I was an avid promoter of contraceptives when I was with the Department of Health (DOH). Promoting contraceptives is a very big part of DOH programs. There was, and still is, a lot of money for family planning. For a long time, we have been told that contraceptives prevent conception. However, during the training I had undergone with Mercedes Arzu-Wilson, president of the Family of the Americas Foundation (FAF), it became clear to me that intrauterine devices (IUD) work essentially as an abortifacient.
It does not prevent conception but causes constant inflammation and infection in the uterus. Thus, the newly conceived baby cannot implant in that kind of environment. No wonder then that the most common side effect suffered by IUD users is severe menstrual bleeding. As our trainer said emphatically, "that was not ordinary blood, it was the baby being aborted in what is called microabortion." For pills and Depo-Provera, we learned that they make the endometrial lining and uterus dry and barren like a desert, thus, the newly conceived baby cannot implant as well. tify (they were sobbing) that indeed all these things were happening to them and their clients. I heard very dramatic testimonies of deaths (particularly due to pills and IUDs), ailments (most common of which were high blood pressure, ovarian cysts and cancers due to pills, and pelvic inflammatory diseases and infections brought about by IUDs), and couples and families being drawn apart by contraception and sterilization, which caused depression and reduction in libido. Some women using pills also reported mood disorders. Health workers even shared, without my asking, the fact that tetanus toxoid immunization was indeed causing abortions. I was shocked. I remembered that during the height of the tetanus toxoid controversy in 1995, when former health secretary Juan Flavier first ran for senator, I was constantly on radio and TV defending it, since I was Flavier's campaign manager for Region 8 back then.
Today, I hear a lot of testimonies of women, who are between two to four months pregnant, losing their baby because they had been injected with that drug. Also, a lot of single women who had been injected with it can no longer achieve pregnancy. I constantly gave this feedback to the health secretary and to my regional director in Region 8 but they didn't seem to care. It seemed that they were more concerned about our targets than the health of our people. Through research, I discovered that the Philippines received an annual budget of $144 million in the mid-1990s for population control. The money was "used
Natural vs Artificial
After my training in Manila, I conducted 10 batches of training for more than 300 midwives, nurses, doctors and parish pastoral workers. After watching the video titled "Natural vs Artificial" produced by the FAF, participants came one by one to tes-
DR. LIGAYA G. ACOSTA, PhD
primarily in media, the House of Representatives and Senate affairs to help change people's views regarding contraception and family planning." Today, that amount has even increased. I kept quiet for a long time. I knew too well that being an insider, and a spokesperson for the DOH, I would cause a scandal if I blew the whistle. But the last straw, however, was Ligtas Buntis.
Ligtas Buntis (Safely Pregnant) is a masked population control program, targeting men and women 15 years old and above—regardless of marital status. I found it very unusual that we just had our orientation January 17 but the program was ready for implementation by Feb. 1. I also felt nauseated with the fact that we were partnering with Marie Stopes, an agency the DOH did not even accredit in the past, because it knows too well that the group is into abortion in the guise of menstrual and fertility regulation. Very deceptively named, Ligtas Buntis is nothing but the provision of contraceptives and sterilization services house to house. It is apparent that the DOH now considers pregnancy a disease like tigdas and polio. When I objected, my director told me to "separate [my] morality and [my] work." I never thought that at my age I would be saying goodbye to government service. However, I thought I have only one life to live, so if I could offer this one life to make a difference in this world, so be it. The DOH tries so hard in telling people that contraceptives are safe and that it is not true that these are abortifacients. But I have a copy of their bible, "The Essentials of Contraceptive Technology: A Handbook for Clinic Staff" published by the Johns Hopkins Population Information Program (March 2003), and funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). That book details the possible side effects of each and every contraceptive and sterilization service. And even if that book makes horrible side effects look normal in a very deceitful way, on pages 12 to 14 for IUD, it says, "possibly could prevent egg from implanting in the wall of uterus." Let us not be deceived. That is synonymous to abortion. The DOH is even trying to redefine human life to start from implantation rather than from conception as very clearly stated in Article II, Section 12 of the Philippine Constitution. As I told the health secretary when he called me last January (right after I was relieved as natural family planning program manager because of my change of heart regarding contraceptives), I now know exactly why, despite spending billions of dollars over a period
Ligaya Acosta was information officer of the Department of Health and its re‐ gional program manager for natural family planning for Eastern Visayas. Now she is the regional director of Hu‐ man Life International for Oceania and Asia, exposing the half‐truths and lies behind the controversial Reproductive Health bill in the Philippines.
of more than 35 years, we only have a 35 percent contraceptive prevalence rate. It is because our products are intrinsically defective. However hard we promote them, people don't buy them because of the horrible side effects they experience. Men and women are forced to resort to sterilization because they are not aware that it too has a lot of ill effects. In fact, the Matching Grant Program implemented by the DOH through a grant from the USAID -funded Management Sciences for Health is massively promoting vasectomy. DOH people vow that they are pro-life. In fact, one of the four principles of the DOH family planning program is "respect for life." But when you promote contraception, you can never call yourself pro-life. That's why it's called contraception. It is against conception or against the birth of human life.
The DOH also fondly argues that it is anti-abortion. But I have found in my research that it is common knowledge around the globe except at the DOH that many contraceptives are indeed abortifacients. I have also found that the Church statement that a contraceptive mentality leads to an abortion mentality is true. Because women who take contraceptives don't like to have a child, when they get pregnant (since no contraception is 100-percent effective) it is very easy for them to go to the next step of having an abortion. The womb, which should be the safest place on earth, has become a tomb for countless number of children. As Mother Teresa of Calcutta puts it, "if we accept that a mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?" Obviously, there is a need to revisit and overhaul government priorities, particularly its continuing effort to promote population control despite overwhelming evidence that there is no overpopulation.
The roots of the government's family planning program are deep, with a tangle of branches entwined in public programs. The intricate complex of power and money, fed by an annual flow of millions of dollars in grants, not only supports population programs but also finances lobbying to sustain the programs. The claim that the poor lack access to family planning services is untenable. If the poor "lack access and want more birth control," why should government programs like Ligtas Buntis need to exert such tremendous pressure on them? Why go to the extent of conducting a house-to-house campaign? And why go to the extent of harassing health workers like me who choose not to support the program? I'm not saying that couples should not plan their families. You must know, however, that there is a tremendous difference between family planning and population control. Family planning implies that the decision is made by the couple, taking into account their own belief and circumstances-financial or otherwiseregarding the number and spacing of their children. Population control measures, in contrast, are implemented by governments and international agencies after they have determined the number of children per couple.
Reduced to semantics, the truth cannot set us free
It was only after Albert Gore won a Nobel Prize for Peace that global warming was exposed a hoax with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) revealing the emails that showed scientists manipulating climate data and suppressing their critics. The story first broke in the climate sceptic blogosphere, with columnist James Delingpole popularizing the term "Climategate" to describe the controversy. 160 megabytes of data containing more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents were copied[showing evidence that global warming was a scientific conspiracy. The scandal exploded on November 20, 2009, two weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on Global Warming, sending the entire conference into a disarray, Gift of love disrupting all protocols and disabling agreements. Genuine family planning gives couples control over Instantly, the term global warming was instantly their reproductive behavior. Population control relindropped and the conspiracy quickly took the new name quishes this right to the government and international of “climate change”. agencies. As Mother Teresa puts it, "The way to plan the CRU of course denied all wrongdoing, but the Norfamily is natural family planning not contraception. In folk police subsequently confirmed that they were destroying the power of giving life through contracep"investigating criminal offences in relation to a data tion, a husband or wife is doing something to self. breach at the University of East Anglia". The investiga"This turns the attention to self and so it destroys the tion is as yet unresolved. gift of love in him or her. In loving, the husband and Beyond mere Verbiage wife must turn the attention to each other as happens in The greenies feigning semantics is no different from natural family planning, and not to self as happens in the verbal engineers running the abortion business. contraception. Once that living love is destroyed, aborThey’re sort of cousins agreed in the distortion that is tion easily follows." overpopulation causing the earth’s resources to waste Shifting public health policy from contraceptives to faster. natural family planning will considerably bring down the Actually the masterminds are neo-conservatives who expenses of our cash-strapped government and will rid are extensions of the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy who wants us of graft and corruption brought about by the multito perpetuate their rule over the earth’s energy remillion dollar grants. sources. Natural family planning will truly promote health beIn order to “save” the environment, Bill Gates did cause there are no side effects. It can also be taught and not have qualms about proposing the destruction of 1.9 learned by anyone. More importantly, it will bring back billion people in order to keep the world population to the needed sense of values and morality not only in gov- what they consider as manageable levels. This he proernment but also between and among couples and fami- claims without compunction live on television, accessilies. ble if you surf his name juxtaposed with “TED”, the
HeadsUp November 2011 Page 1 9
technology, environment design conference last February 18, 2010. His diabolical weapon of choice is mass vaccination. Make no mistake about it, this holocaust has already been put in place, and yes not in some far flung boonies but right in our neck of woods. In 1994, the World Health Organization, conspired with the Philippine Department of Health to vaccinate 7.5 million Filipino women with tetanus vaccine laced with hCG hormones that serve as an abortifacient, but converts into a sterilizing agent when administered in four to five doses to a female of childbearing age. At the time the temporary restraining order was issued by Judge William Bayhon on March 14, 1995, then health secretary Jaime Galvez Tan implementing the plan of Juan Flavier, had already caused the vaccination of 3.5 million Filipino women under the “Alis Disease” project of Juan Flavier. That was 10.9% of our country’s female population at that time. Assuming a hypothetical minority of just 30% resulted in abortions, ONE MILLION babies could have been murdered in just a few months. As to whether millions more were sterilized, no figures have been available as the Ramos administration was quick to cover up the entire holocaust. Of course, when we talk of sterilization, we go further than just prolife advocacy and Catholic issues. Even in secular terms forced sterilization a crime against humanity that everybody can understand. The materials we have at hand document the actual crime itself from the time it was detected in Mexico and alerted worldwide, to the time Judge Bayhon issued the temporary restraining order. The TRO alone proves that this matter is never frivolous at all. I have completed a beginners’ compendium that includes alerts, church action, DOH statements, press clippings, involvement of Human Life International, and technical research on hCG and related contraceptive vaccines that when used in multiple doses induces sterilization. The stealth vaccination of Filipinas of child bearing ages in 1994 has been a despicable genocide aching for closure. A lot of hard work towards documentation is ahead to approximate the extent of damage that unfortunate conspiracy had caused. The reason why we have to get to the bottom of this is made more urgent with the Reproductive Health bill now pending in our Congress. We must ask both Houses to table discussions on the RH bill until this controversy is resolved. The reason is obvious, if passed,
the same Department of Health that is still have blood on In necessari s, in its hands, will be unita the same impleopinabilibus menting arm of an libertas, in RH law. omnibus caritas. Besides, we need LINAWAN to ask especially the ADO PAG Senate for its subpoena powers to make it easy for us to reach maximum quantitative as well as and qualitative levels of documentation and witnesses. Brothers and sisters, closure with justice is not just long overdue. The Lord is giving us a genuine opportunity to provide a strategic break into our national consciousness, politically and morally, to stop what could already signal the slippery slope from our embattled conservative culture to the lawlessness and wickedness that see now in Europe. It is time to reverse the evil tide! The riots in Britain are symptomatic of the total collapse of the family in Europe. That has become the precipitous issue on why the resulting preeminence of culture of death there is now causing not just a demographic winter, but social unrest and violence. The failure of controlled societies like Tunisia, Egypt and Libya to deliver social equity is no different from capitalism and socialism shortchanging their citizens despite democracies. Food riots started the Arab spring and exceptionalism succumbing to greed has led to a European summer and now a North American autumn. If autumn is called by its synonym “fall”, the symbolism is ominous. A social analysis recently bared that especially the youth everywhere are in turmoil because they feel they are being robbed of a predictable future, after being denied of two most precious jewels in the lives, first fathers and then second siblings. Curse knocking at our Doors This is the horror story that modernism is now threatening to bring to our shores. If you do not find this repulsive, I suggest slap yourself in the face because the death virus might have already infected you. We now have to make an open declaration of war against these evil forces, more so in the light of theme for 2012 “Choose Life”. Because they are now breaching our borders and sovereignty, choosing life is no longer just an option, but an imperative. We are Page 23 not just embarking a new ministry here.
m Message fro the Editor
November 2011 Page 2 0 ippine Medical Society, and this is the view of John Paul II. John Paul II said that life is so important that we should not do anything that will endanger it. We would be taking at least a very serious risk against life if we terminate development after fertilization. What this means is that one who practices abstention is not anti-life. The celibate who gives up procreation for a higher calling is not anti-life. The use of contraceptive devices that only prevent fertilization is not anti-life in the sense of being an act of murder. Abortion, in the sense of expulsion of the fertilized ovum at any time after fertilization is antilife, and is an act of murder. If life of the unborn is terminated at a stage of viability the crime is infanticide. For that reason the Penal Code and also the proposed RH bill prohibit and penalize abortion and infanticide. I have heard it loosely said that what are being marketed as contraception devices are in fact abortive devices. This is loose talk. If there are such abortive devices being marketed, they should be identified scientifically, not by gossip, and withdrawn from the market. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the responsibility of ensuring that no abortifacient drugs be marketed. I know of one drug which was withdrawn from the market after being proved before the FDA to be abortifacient. This was the subject of a thesis of a student of mine which she defended, as required for graduation from the Ateneo Law School, before a panel of professors. Having said all this I must
When is family planning anti-life?
By Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas
Sounding Board Philippines Daily Inquirer
I use the phrase family planning because it is a phrase that covers a broad spectrum of ways of limiting the number of children. It can include abstention from sexual congress intended to beget children. It can include what are called natural methods of preventing conception. It can include artificial means of preventing conception. It also includes abortion. All these contribute to the reduction and regulation of the number of children that are brought into this world.
In the current debate brought about by the introduction of the Reproductive Health bill, the question of what is anti-life comes up. It is therefore important to be able to clarify what precisely is meant by being anti-life. In the current debate, the term anti-life is often used in the most pejorative way. It is used in the sense of being against existing life. Murder, in other words. But it can also be understood to mean not being willing or not desiring to add more human life to the already crowded population. This would be the stance of a mar-
ried couple who decide to abstain from the acts that bring about life. To a certain extent this is also the stance of a young man who chooses a celibate life not because he hates children, but out of a conviction that he can accomplish better what he feels he is called to do without the burden of raising children. Definitely I would not categorize such a person as being anti-life. People like him love life so much that they take it upon themselves to contribute in some or other ways to the improvement of the quality of life of those who are already born. We come now to contraception. Is contraception anti-life in the sense of being directed at actual life? The phrase anti-life is an active and not a passive word. The word “anti” in compound word is an active word aimed at life. Thus we must ask when life begins, because before life begins it is beyond the reach of anti-life action. When does life begin? For me, the starting point in dealing with this very specific question is what the Constitution says. It says that the state “shall protect the life of the unborn from conception.” What this means, in the understanding of the men and women who wrote that Constitution, is that life begins at conception, that is, upon fertilization. Before fertilization there is no life. This is also the view of the Phil-
RESPONSE: Will the real Message from
Fr. Bernas come forward?
I have 3 basic objections to Fr. Joaquin Bernas’ column. One, knowing how critical this fight is, knowing that the Vatican has already spoken against the RH bill, knowing that the other side continues must also put on my hat as a priest of the Catholic Church. I accept the teaching of the Catholic Church which prohibits not only abortion but also artificial contraception. Yet one might say that through this article I am in fact approving artificial contraception. I am not doing such a thing. Aside from being a Catholic priest in good standing, I am also a lawyer and teacher and student of Constitutional Law. What I am doing is to place all this in the context of our constitutionally mandated pluralistic society. Not all citizens of the Philippines are Catholics. Many of them therefore do not consider artificial contraception immoral or anti-life. The teaching of my Church is that I must respect the belief of other religions even if I do not agree with them. That is how Catholics and non-Catholics can live together in harmony. The alternative which, God forbid, is the restoration of the Inquisition to give half-truths and even outright falsehoods, knowing how the fate of the RH bill hangs in the balance (and thus the fate of our nation), why is Fr Bernas in effect lawyering for the other side? Why is he giving aid and comfort to the enemy He says "I must also put on my hat as a priest of the Catholic Church. I accept the teachings of the Catholic Church ....." If you are a Catholic priest and you accept the teachings, then do so fully and without reservation. A line in the sand has been drawn, then be on the side of your Church. Two, he says his opinion is "in the context of our constitutionally mandated pluralistic society. Not all citizens of the Philippines are Catholics." You are right, Fr Bernas. But you are Catholic, and a priest at that. People look up to you. In fact, the anti-lifers find solace in your opinion, using it to buttress their position. Pro-RH Catholics use it to claim that their conscience is clear. Look at this whole thing not as "a lawyer and teacher and student of Constitutional Law," but as a Catholic priest who is accountable to God, submitted to the Magisterium, and responsible for the pastoral care of God's people. You say "The teaching of my Church is that I must respect the belief of other religions ...." Well, the teaching of Christ is that if you cause the little ones to sin (the innocent Catholic who will favor the RH bill because of you), you should have a millstone placed around your neck and be thrown in the sea. Three, his ending is totally uncalled for. He says "The alternative which, God forbid, is the restoration of the Inquisition." You sound just like the anti-lifers who openly attack the
For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."
ILLA FRANK PAD
Church, calling our clergy "Padre Damaso." You are reinforcing their overused sound bites. Is that how low you think about our anti-RH bishops and clergy? Why can't the alternative be truth, justice, peace and unity? These are all those virtues being sacrificed at the altar of the RH bill. Fr Bernas is helping open the gates to the passage of the RH bill, which, since he is intelligent enough to know what has happened to the other countries of the world, he should know to be the gateway to abortion, and to other abominations such as divorce and same-sex marriage. Fr Bernas says "Yet one might say that through this article I am in fact approving artificial contraception. I am not doing such a thing." At least he has an inkling of how his opinion might be taken. What he in fact is saying is that he knows he sounds as if he is approving artificial contraception. That, Fr Bernas, is precisely the problem. You claim orthodoxy in your Catholic belief, but your words reflect something else. You claim to be "a Catholic priest in good standing," but both pro-lifers and anti-lifers see you as aligned on the side of the pro-RH forces. No, Fr Bernas, you are not approving artificial contraception. But yes, you are, wittingly or unwittingly, supporting those who are pushing the RH bill.
FR. JAMES REUTER SJ:
Professors who support RB bill should not teach at the Ateneo
By AJ M. Santos, Rhett D. Gaerlan IF YOU’RE supporting the Reproductive Health Bill, you should not teach in the Ateneo. Jesuit priest Fr. James Reuter, SJ stirred controversy after making this statement over radio station DZIQ 990, also known as Radyo Inquirer, last May 17. Reuter expressed his opposition to the Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011, more commonly known as the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill. He also denounced the pro-RH Bill professors who teach in the university. His statement touched on the 14 Ateneo professors who released a position paper entitled “Catholics can support the RH Bill in good conscience,” which was released in October 2008. The 14 professors released the paper as their own joint opinion, separate from the university’s official stand. 60 more Ateneo professors later signed a statement of support for the RH Bill. Ateneo maintains its official stand as being that of the Catholic Church’s, which is opposed to the RH Bill.
Uphold Catholic tradition
Reuter said the current bill is unclear on what exactly it supports. While he admitted that he is no expert on the issue and has not studied the text and the fine print, he insisted that a bill that “admits abortion as a moral thing” is wrong. “Let me make it crystal clear. When I say RH Bill, I mean it justifies abortion. If it does not justify abortion, then I’m not against it,” he said. He added that teachers with opinions contradicting Catholic teachings should not teach in a Catholic school like the Ateneo as they will most likely pass it on to students. “If they themselves are convinced that abortion is not murder, they should not be allowed to teach.” But when asked if he wanted concrete actions on the part of the school, he said that it was up to the administrators’ discretion. A former teacher himself, Reuter said that he would be wary of hiring a teacher who believes in abortion. “You have to be sure that you don’t have a teacher in the Catholic [faith] teaching something contradictory to the Catholic Church. The teachings of the Catholic Church are a body of truth that is crystal clear and you should not teach something contradicting it.” Reuter, however, is supportive of the bill’s provision on sex education, as long as it is age-appropriate.
Opinions and beliefs
In the radio interview, Reuter also said that the freedom of speech—alluding to the 14 professors’ statement—is not absolute. Despite his strong reprimand, he clarified that a teacher may believe differently from the Catholic Church, but it should not be presented as a moral truth nor taught to students. He admitted, however, that that would be a difficult thing to do. “You teach THEATER AND MEDIA ICON , what you are,” he said.
THE FATHER JAMES REUTER
While he had a definitive stand about the pro-RH bill professors, Reuter said that students with differing opinions are free to go to the Ateneo. He said that a teacher could eventually influence a student to think otherwise. “The Catholic boy or girl going to a Catholic school would build all their opinions on the truths of the Catholic Church.” More sympathetic opinions Not all Jesuit priests share the same hard line stance. Lawyer Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ has been more sympathetic towards the RH Bill, although he recognizes the need for more fine-tuning. A member of the commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution, Bernas has presented religious pluralism in the country as a reason for passing the bill, even if he sides with the Church teaching on artificial contraception. He also decried fellow clergymen who preach that support for RH is an automatic sin, but he has expressed opposition to the compulsory nature of the ageappropriate sex education for schools. In a memo dated March 24, former university president Fr. Bienvenido Nebres, SJ, said that the university still opposes “the present bill in the light of our Catholic faith.” He does, however, commend the critical thinking and opinion that the debate on the bill has generated. “We appreciate the efforts of these members of the Ateneo faculty to grapple with serious social issues and to draw from Catholic moral teaching in their study of the bill,” he said. “We recognize the right of our faculty, as individuals, to express their views, and appreciate their clear statement that these views are their own and not that of the University.” On the other hand, another veteran Jesuit, Fr. John J. Carroll, SJ, expressed his disagreement towards other Philippine bishops who are against the RH Bill. In a commentary written for the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Carroll noted that the bill does not legalize contraceptives, since these are already legal and available in drugstores. He also noted the bill’s categorical opposition to abortion. Carroll also recommends the further fine-tuning of the bill, particularly on strengthening the ‘conscience clause,’ in which health workers and teachers whose religious values conflict with certain aspects of the bill are protected. Carroll is the namesake of the John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues, which is located in the Social Development Complex of the university.
Page 19 Reduced to Semantics We .are declaring war, and war we ought because as our song goes “we will fight” against anything that comes between us and Our God. Imagine, the masterminds and perpetrators of this horrific page in our history are all scot-free. The Department of Health, WHO and the pharmaceutical companies who conspired must be exposed for what they are agents of genocide. No one has been indicted, none put to jail, no compensation has been paid any victims, nobody has even apologized to the victims. In fact, what is prevailing is a cover-up. This curse did not come un-invited. Nor was it unannounced. Actually it roots began in the English Reformation of the 16th century when Henry VIII secure a divorce from the Archbishop of Canterbury in violation of the Catholic Church’s teaching. It did not take long for this king to declared himself in 1533 as the head of the Church of England, or Anglicanism, in order to redefine and legalize his action. This powerful affront on marriage compromised its unitive and relational purpose found in Genesis, when God made Eve out of Adam’s rib to serve as his wife. In the New Testament, Jesus himself prohibited divorce (Mark 10,9) in no uncertain terms. The breach of this first gift of God to couples that I call “love” took four centuries to infect its complement of “life”, or the gift of procreation. The issue was first brought by the Anglicans to its 1908 and 1920 conferences in Lambeth, but it was not until 1930 that it was accepted under certain restrictions. By this time, England was the most powerful country in the world, actually in control of 1/3 of the globe. The Slippery Slope vs The Truth But it took only 28 years after for the Anglicans elevated contraception to a “right” in Lambeth 1958 when the Anglican bishops declared contraception to be fundamentally compatible with Christian moral teachings. From then on, it was a most slippery slope as other the Protestants of Europe and British Commonwealth Countries and their counterpart the Episcopalian Communion in the United States aped the same belief. This has led to the progression of these ironically Christian “communions” to now accept anything from contraception, to divorce, abortion to sterilization to same sex union to sodomy. In 1965, all laws on contraception were overturned by the US Supreme Court. Two years after in 1967, the Parliament of the United Kingdom legalized abortion. Eight years after in 1973, the Supreme Court came out with a decision on Roe v Wade effectively legalizing
Page 2 3
abortion. From that milestone it took only 30 years in 2003 for the United States to legalize sodomy in the case Lawrence v Texas, the same year the lawyers at the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) in New York completed their evil design to internationalize abortion and other means of population control through verbal engineering. The truth however continues to stand firm. Verily, the truth need not be defended, it sets itself and those who accept it, free. For instance, the final blow into the walk-in of hundreds of Anglican priests into the Catholicism came not only as an offshoot of the acceptance of women into their priesthood, but moreso a recent elevation of a Anglican male priest to a bishop, despite the fact that he had abandoned his wife and children and engaged into a same sex relationship with another man, to the position of a bishop. Today as we speak the estimate is that 1,000 former protestants and episcopalians, convert ot the Catholic Church every week. When Benedict XVI referred especially to the Anglican converts as “creative minorities of convicted Catholics” ushering the re-evangelization of Europe and the Americas, I could not help associate CFCFFL as an equal and complementary force that could be similarly mobilized. We are the light shining from the East, the last country standing against abortion and the culture of death. If we unite and stand on solid ground on this issue, I see us sending countries in the rest of the world a strong message staging a counter revolution. I see us exploding Evanegelium Vitae from Mexico and Nicaragua to the rest of Latin America where our Matrimonios para Cristo will be pivotal. I see us exploding this gospel from Mindanao to our Muslim neighbors and through Vietnam to the Buddhist countries, from Manila to China and India, by our OFWs to the Middle East, from the US to Canada, the UK and Australia, from Austria to the rest of Europe. Yes the enemy as Pius X had said is in within our very bosom. And if I may add, has gargantuan resources to enforce their demonic schemes. All you have to do is watch Bill Gates in this short clip and you get it right away: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=ET0UAdzQkpQ&feature=related. The forces of death have figured it all out. So do we wither and scatter in the face of the enemy or like David, expel the “uncircumcised philistines?” #
FRANK & GERRY PADILLA:
40 years of marriage, 30 of them serving CFC
Frank and Gerry Padilla are ordinary people tasked with an extraordinary mission. Last month, they celebrated their 40th wedding anniversary, renewing their vows in front of a dozen bishops and priests and the CFCFFL community, at the Sanctuario de San Antonio in Makati, Metro Manila. Frank founded Couples for Christ in 1981, and through the past 30 years brought CFC to more than a million people in 160 countries around the world. They are both part of the Pontifical Council for the Family, serving their second term. Frank is also a Papal Awardee of St. Sylvester. and has published many books on Christian formation. Life is brisk for this couple. Based in Antipolo, Rizal, they continuously travel internationally, speaking on faith, family and life to the four corners of the world. As of this writing, they were last heard at the New Jersey Echo Conference, and from there have flown off to grace the Latin American Conference in Argentina. Frank and Gerry are
committed to vision of Benedict XVI, especially on the Gift of Life (Donum Vitae) and the cause for the reevangelization of Europe and North America, fully united in mission with their five children, two childrenin-law and six grandchildren, in counting.
A MEDI UAD FFL Q CHED A CFC AUN HAS L IES OF SE R VIDEO NT PORTA IALS. . IM ER MAT E YOU SUR MAKE ONG THE M ARE A SEE THEM TO FIRST .cfcffl.net w @w w
gical Litur tudy ible S he B
t with lles Argue ily Fam
rt of a he He atter T the Mank and Fr with erry G One t e Nex be Th ay m tory! S your
n Day oder ets M ph Pro ro
Tu Turo‐ oi Javier Coc with
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.