By Antonio Montalvan II
With all the hoopla over the passage of the Reproductive Health Law now past, the hard work of implementation begins.
By Rina Jimenez-David
One would think, given that the law on “responsible parenthood and reproductive health” (RPRH) has not only been passed but also passed muster (with some exceptions) with the Supreme Court, that all would now be hunky-dory when it comes to implementing it.
I am one of the petitioners in the Supreme Court case on the Reproductive Health Law, on which a decision was made in April this year. I wish to express my and my family’s conscientious objection to the continuous promotion of various contraceptive drugs and devices by officials of the Department of Health— this, in the absence of implementing rules and regulations (IRR) they should be preparing for the RH Law. It is very sad that we continue to hear of the DOH having procured, distributed, sold and made available contraceptive drugs and devices in the market. Is the DOH ignoring the verdict rendered and the safeguards introduced by the Supreme Court concerning the implementation of the RH Law?
By Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas S. J.
After a long wait, the verdict of the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law has been promulgated. It is a 106-page document exclusive of concurring and dissenting opinions. Not everyone will have the patience to read through it. But since I had been writing about the bill while it was being debated, I thought it might be useful for those interested if I were to break it down into a more easily accessible presentation.
By Ernesto M. Pernia
I wasn’t able to react quickly to the April 8 Supreme Court decision on the Reproductive Health Law as I was then preparing for back-to-back trips abroad. This allowed me ample time to reflect on the landmark decision as well as on the host of reactions and commentaries that came in its wake. Unexpectedly, the verdict begot not one but two sweet surprises, seemingly gratifying both sides of the RH divide.