If the debate on the RH Bill appears often frustrating and sometimes verging on the chaotic, it is largely because the participants in the debate frequently communicate along different levels of discourse thereby evading real engagement. Many rarely make the necessary distinctions, nuancing and clarifications. The result can be like listening to people arguing along different radio frequencies.
But this is largely inevitable for at least two reasons: first, the disagreements can legitimately be along different topics and, second, there is no director who can manage the ordering of topics for discussion. Thus the debate can mix basic constitutional issues, family planning, population control and national development issues, drug control or regulation, and even criminal process in a hodgepodge of confusion.
The debate on the constitutional level alone already offers abundant material for levels of disagreement. The core issues arise from the non-establishment clause and the free exercise clause.
The non-establishment clause, popularly but not always precisely referred to as separation of church and state, can mean different thing for different people. The core meaning is that it prohibits the establishment of a state religion. Historically for the Philippines, it means the denial to the Catholic church of the privileged position it occupied under Spanish sovereignty. Corollary to the cutting down of the privileged position of the Catholic church has been the recognition of the equal position of other religions.
Beyond the prohibition of a state religion, non-establishment also means the prohibition of the use of public resources for the support or for the prohibition of religion. But public resources may be used for a legitimate secular purpose even if incidental benefit to religion might arise. The use of public money, for instance, for making safe contraceptive devises available to the poor falls under this aspect of the non-establishment clause.
Whichever way the RH debate is concluded, since the RH Bill’s avowed purpose is secular, it can be accommodated within the non-establishment clause. But the more delicate issue is the free exercise clause.
It means the freedom to act according to one’s religious belief and the freedom from being compelled to act contrary to one’s religious belief. But there are those who argue that the RH debate is not about religion but about ethics and natural law. Even assuming that this is so, one must still ask, “Whose natural law? Whose ethical principles?” The constitution also protects “natural law” belief or disbelief, if not through the religion clause, then through the free speech clause, where speech is involved, and through the due process and equal protection clauses when action is involved. But I myself hold that protected religion in the Constitution includes beliefs that are not traditionally theistic such as Buddhism, ethical culture and secular humanism. I view protected religion in the Constitution as encompassing beliefs and views which illuminate the "very ground of one's being" and which give life meaning and direction.
Another constitutional issue is the right to life. It involves trying to identify when life begins and when there is contraception and when abortion. The most hilarious argument I have heard on this is that contraception is attempted murder! Whoever said that deserves a medal for I know not what. Moreover, the debate on the right to life includes controversies about family planning, population control and their relation to national development. Controversy on these subjects in the Philippines has had a long history involving the Catholic Church, government agencies, non-governmental organizations and international organizations.
Related to these are sex education as well as family life and family values. But as one sociologist has written, “The charge is made that the RH bill will destroy the Filipino family. On the basis of more than 25 years of pastoral and social work in Payatas, and some seven years sponsoring natural family planning programs, I can say that the family is already at great risk—and not because of contraceptives.”
After the constitutional issues, there are also what I might call pharmacological issues. There are claims, for instance, that there are contraceptive drugs in the market that cause abortion or are carcinogenic. What I would like to see is an authoritative identification of the drugs that are said to be abortifacient or carcinogenic so that they can be withdrawn from the market or their use subjected to medical regulation. So far I have seen only one drug identified as abortifacient, namely postinor. This was withdrawn from the market by the Food and Drug and Administration. But the identification of drugs claimed to be abortifacient or carcinogenic should be authoritative in a manner that is fair to drug manufacturers and to those who rely on them for legitimate medical purposes.
Finally, however, the fate of the RH Bill will be determined by Congress. Already we can see that some members of Congress are hedging their bets. The issues involved in the RH Bill are real issues. But politicians are also thinking of the next election! Some of them will probably heave a sigh of relief if the RH Bill disappears from the scene the way the impeachment of the Ombudsman disappeared from the scene.
30 May 2011
"There are claims, for instance, that there are contraceptive drugs in the market that cause abortion or are carcinogenic. What I would like to see is an authoritative identification of the drugs that are said to be abortifacient or carcinogenic so that they can be withdrawn from the market or their use subjected to medical regulation. So far I have seen only one drug identified as abortifacient, namely postinor. This was withdrawn from the market by the Food and Drug and Administration. But the identification of drugs claimed to be abortifacient or carcinogenic should be authoritative in a manner that is fair to drug manufacturers and to those who rely on them for legitimate medical purposes."
ReplyDeleteDear Fr Bernas,
I am aware that you have asserted time and again that life starts at fertilization, both from the Catholic as well as from the Constitutional standpoint. So it is not a Catholic position alone as it also has a firm basis in the Constitution. As far as "authoritative indentification" of abortifacients are concerned, it is obvious that you are referring to the FDA. I believe delagating the issue to the judgment of the FDA should not give us any comfort with respect to its relevance to the RH bill. May I respectfully point out that HB 4244 contains a repealing clause: SEC. 31. Repealing Clause. All other laws, decrees, orders, issuances, rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.
Therefore it is evident that the bill intends to dictate the parameters of FDA's contraceptive regulatory guidelines. We all know that contrary to faith and science, the RH sponsors have insisted on implantation as the start of life, rather than fertilization. The very premise of the RH bill opens the floodgates to abortifacients fo all natures, but with a twisted definition that is dictated by the RH bill, with the expected blessings of FDA to which you would rather delegate the authority over life and death if I read your piece right. FDA does not have the authority over the life and death of the human at its earliest stage. That belongs to God alone, and FDA is not God.
Willy J, I agree with your comment 100%.
ReplyDeleteFr Bernas, with all due respect, modern birth control pills (and IUD) do cause abortion, and this fact is backed by numerous scientific studies.
A birth control pill does three things. First, it prevents the egg cell from being released in order to avoid fertilization. Second, it thickens the mucus in the uterus to make it difficult for the sperm cell to swim to the egg cell, again preventing fertilization. And third, it thins out the uterine wall to keep the blastocyst (an early form of the embryo) from implanting itself. The first two mechanisms prevent fertilization. The third mechanism prevents implantation of the early embryo and is therefore abortifacient. There is no choosing which mechanism one would like to prefer because the pill does all three actions on the woman's body.
Most people are familiar only with the first mechanism of the birth control pill because that's what it was known for when it first became available on the market. Unfortunately, with all the advancement in technology, birth control pills are now formulated to be more "effective" in preventing pregnancy. If you go to the drug manufacturers' websites or even read the inserts in the birth control pills' packaging, you will see it there. However, those without knowledge on these things do not understand what the insert says (if they ever bother to read it), so they think it's OK to use contraceptives.
There are some contraceptives that can be used as a "morning after pill" (owing to the birth control pill's third mechanism) by simply increasing the dosage. I think we'll both agree that the "morning after pill" is abortifacient. These contraceptives are available OTC here in the Philippines, believe it or not.
Let's remember that just because FDA considers these drugs as legal and medically safe, we have to take what the FDA said at face value. The information about contraceptives is out there. It is my hope that you (and other RH Bill supporters) would take the time to make your own research and verify if what I said about contraceptives is true.