Home » reproductive health law
You are browsing entries tagged with “reproductive health law”
By Edcel C. Lagman
With profound appreciation of the Supreme Court’s unanimous verdict upholding the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law on the whole and with due respect to Associate Justice Jose C. Mendoza who penned the ponencia, there is critical need, however, to clarify a number of disturbing statements, observations and obiter expressed in the ponencia.
By Danilo S. Venida
The message of this Holy Week acquires a deeper significance in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision declaring the Reproductive Health (RH) Law constitutional except for eight provisions related to penalizing parties who do not comply for reason of religious beliefs.
To be sure, the Supreme Court decision on the Reproductive Health (RH) Law has touched some people’s raw nerve. The Inquirer in its editorials of April 10 (“Win-win-lose”) and April 11 (“What’s next for RH”) reflects this mood, and its reaction is understandable. For years, its position has always been one of all-out support for RH.
By Edcel C. Lagman
Why be fascinated with the exceptions and fail to appreciate the general rule? The rule, as held by the Supreme Court, is that the Reproductive Health Law is constitutional, and the exceptions are some provisions which were voided to principally respect minority views.
By Neal H. Cruz
The Supreme Court finally handed down its decision on the Reproductive Health Law, and it made both sides happy. The law was declared “not unconstitutional.” At the same time, the high court struck down eight provisions that the anti-RH camp had questioned, including those that would penalize health workers and religious facilities who refuse to enforce the law. It was a win-win solution for all, with the two camps claiming victory.
By Michael L. Tan
I am glad to see that both sides of the reproductive health camps see the recent Supreme Court decision as a triumph—the pros jubilant that the law can now be implemented, and the antis happy that several provisions were declared unconstitutional.
By Oscar Franklin Tan
All purple-clad advocates defeated in the Supreme Court decision upholding the Reproductive Health Law are the most outrageous, most inane and most ideology-driven anti-RH arguments that have no place in rational debate, much less in our highest court of law.
By Rina Jimenez-David
Rumor has it that the Supreme Court will be deliberating on the constitutionality of the “Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Law” today. Indeed, many groups anticipate that the high tribunal would even be ready to issue its decision on this day, the reason both “pros” and “antis” have gathered in Baguio where the “supremes” are holding their summer session in accordance with tradition.
May our Supreme Court justices be inspired by the words of our Pope Francis who said that the Catholic Church’s teachings can have new interpretation according to the “signs of the times.”
By Walden Bello
The Aquino administration has very good press these days—outside the country. In two major international publications, the Philippines under President Aquino has been the toast and talk of the town. In early February, Keith Bradsher recently gave a heads up in a much-read New York Times piece where he wrote: “Political analysts say that his administration has fought and reduced the corruption that played a role in holding the Philippines back. In one practical measure of that change, the country has been able to pave more roads per 100 million pesos in spending (about $2.2 million) than before — when funds were lost to corrupt officials and incompetence — finally addressing an impediment to commerce.”
By Michael L. Tan
Dear honorable justices of the Supreme Court,I look at Valentine’s Day as another commercialized strategy to get people to spend, this time driven by “love.”
This is in response to the letter of Risa Hontiveros in the Jan. 16
issue of the Inquirer, where she lamented our fast growing population and asked for the implementation of the Reproductive Health Law.