On the Second Front Page of the Dec. 29, 2012, issue of the Inquirer, an item was written about Bishop Gilbert Garcera of Daet, Camarines Norte, who pontificated about the evils of the reproductive health bill (now a law). He raised some talking points:
Would the signing of the reproductive health bill into law really help control population growth, protect human rights especially of women, and decrease poverty in our country? Or is it just another law that would create more corruption opportunities for unscrupulous government officials?
This refers to the news item titled “Overpopulation good for Filipinos, says bishop” (Inquirer, 12/29/12), where Bishop Gilbert Garcera of Daet was reported to have said that poverty brought people “closer” to God and was instrumental in realizing God’s plan for Filipinos to take care of other nationalities by inducing migration and working abroad.
There is no need for any legislation that guarantees universal access to contraceptives, the so-called reproductive health (RH) care devices, now or ever. Whatever “band-aid” amendments may be proposed by well-intentioned proponents of the RH bill to make it more palatable, the underlying principles behind it are inherently flawed.
A couple of days ago, Bishop Gabriel Reyes of the Diocese of Antipolo, writing under the stationery of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, published an ad in the Inquirer and Philippine Star, expressing his disagreement with the views of an unnamed columnist on the merits and demerits of the Reproductive Health bill. The regular readers of my columns in the Inquirer immediately recognized that the bishop was referring to me. I too recognized it immediately as referring to me.
Sen. Vicente Sotto III’s use without citation of a blog by Sarah Pope on the safety of pills has landed him in hot water, with allegations of plagiarism
Conditions for causality: A (contraceptive pill) causes B (congenital birth defect) if and only if (1) A is prior to B, (2) change in A is correlated with change in B, and (3) this correlation is not itself the consequence of both A and B being correlated with some prior C.
Most published commentaries against the Reproductive Health bill, including some reactions to my posted comments in websites and blogs last Aug. 17 (“More on the RH bill: a definition of life”), show poor public understanding of science. I thought of sharing a summary of my replies to some of them, in particular, about the nature of science.
The Reproductive Health bill has become hot topic in lunch conversations and kwentuhan even among us high school students. Many of us follow the news and read the papers to keep ourselves updated, but despite the pro-RH bill stories, videos and campaign materials, we stand firm in our belief: The RH bill is not only detrimental to the Filipino society, it is also a poor excuse for taking the easy way out and earn money in the process.
This is in response to Ernesto M. Pernia’s article titled “RH will help economy reach ‘sweet spot’” (Inquirer, 8/15/12). After I read the article, I became convinced to go pro-RH bill.
This refers to the article titled “Enrile grills Neda chief on population, economics” by Cathy C. Yamsuan (Inquirer, 8/7/12).
“We are not poor because we are plenty; rather we are plenty because we are poor.”
