Home » reproductive health
You are browsing entries tagged with “reproductive health”
By Rina Jimenez-David
If there’s a concerted effort to promote—or create—a “Catholic Vote” in this country in time for the May 13 elections, there’s a parallel effort to muster enough support for the so-called “Purple Vote.”
Posted: April 27th, 2013 in Columnists,Columns,Editor's Pick,Featured Columns,Featured Headline,Inquirer Opinion | Read More »
By Rina Jimenez-David
I’ve written columns on International Women’s Day, which we celebrate today, almost from the start of my column-writing career. And believe me, it’s been a rather long career.
Posted: March 7th, 2013 in Columnists,Columns,Editor's Pick,Inquirer Opinion | Read More »
In his column “Unfinished debate over the RH law” (Inquirer, 1/14/13), Fr. Joaquin Bernas cites statements made by John F. Kennedy and Rick Santorum about Church and State separation.
Posted: January 28th, 2013 in Inquirer Opinion,Letters to the Editor | Read More »
Amando Doronila, in his Dec. 21 column, referred to the failure of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) to sway the vote of Congress against the reproductive health bill, despite extensive mobilizations, as a debacle.
Posted: January 1st, 2013 in Inquirer Opinion,Letters to the Editor | Read More »
A comparative rundown of the affirmative and negative votes in the House of the Representatives cast in the second and third readings relative to the highly controversial reproductive health bill cannot but reveal a mouthful about the kind of congressmen and congresswomen we have in our midst and times.
Posted: January 1st, 2013 in Inquirer Opinion,Letters to the Editor | Read More »
By Asuncion David Maramba
“If I’m obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts …. I shall drink to conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.” That’s by Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman. It’s good that giants of the Church make such bold statements. They protect lesser mortals from being denounced when the latter think and say likewise. Despite [...]
Posted: December 27th, 2012 in Columnists,Columns,Editor's Pick,Inquirer Opinion | Read More »
By Conrado de Quiros
Time to sum up. In the end, the question boils down to: Is it moral? That’s the reproductive health bill which, with any luck, might find resolution this week. I hope it does, as next week will be dominated by the Pacquiao fight. And with Christmas rushing in shortly afterward, voting could end [...]
Posted: December 5th, 2012 in Columnists,Columns,Editor's Pick,Inquirer Opinion | Read More »
This is a reaction to Bernardo M. Villegas article titled “Infallible teaching on artificial contraceptives” (Inquirer, 10/20/12).
Posted: November 29th, 2012 in Inquirer Opinion,Letters to the Editor | Read More »
By Rina Jimenez-David
WHO MADE Barack Obama win a second term, what many called a “second chance,” as US President? A wire report attributed his victory to a coalition of “Hispanic, African-American and young voters.” But Nancy K. Kaufman, a blogger for “Politics Daily,” wrote a day before the elections that the “deciding demographic of this year’s election” was women.
Posted: November 8th, 2012 in Columnists,Columns,Editor's Pick,Featured Columns,Featured Headline,Inquirer Opinion | Read More »
By Bernardo Villegas

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.
Posted: September 15th, 2012 in Inquirer Opinion,Talk of the Town | Read More »
By Oscar F. Picazo

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
Posted: September 8th, 2012 in Inquirer Opinion,Talk of the Town | Read More »
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.
Posted: September 8th, 2012 in Inquirer Opinion,Talk of the Town | Read More »