Home » RH law
You are browsing entries tagged with “RH law”
By Chet Espino
It’s easy to see why many in the prolife community are celebrating the Supreme Court decision upholding Republic Act No. 10354 or the Reproductive Health Law as “not unconstitutional.” The eight items struck down by the high court as unconstitutional are after all the very provisions objected to by the anti-RH camp.
By Rina Jimenez-David
They giveth and yet they taketh away. The Supreme Court ruled that the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Law is constitutional but at the same time ruled that eight provisions of the law should be struck down.
By Walden Bello
The bishops should have realized it was only a matter of time. The surveys were unanimous in chronicling a steady rise in the majority supporting family planning and government support for it. More and more from all classes had come to accept that family size had a direct bearing on poverty and that medical science provided them with the means to do something about it, if they had financial assistance. And the spread of plural sources of belief and ethics that came with secularization was eroding the Church’s claim to a monopoly on morality.
By Solita Collas-Monsod
This newspaper’s headline was “SC ruling on RH: Win-win,” based apparently on the reactions of both the pros and antis (“jubilation”) to the Supreme Court’s decision on the Reproductive Health Law, or to the announcement of the decision as read by Teddy Te. No copy of the decision was released then, only a reading of its dispositive portion. The pros thought they won because the high court gave its imprimatur to everything except eight items. The antis were jubilant because of the eight items, six of which had to do with alleged infringements on religious freedom; one dealing with the need to obtain spousal consent; and the eighth dealing with the need for parental consent. The striking down of these items rendered the law “toothless,” according to the antis, specifically Lito David of the Pro-Life Foundation.
By Mahar Mangahas
It is more correct to call the Filipino people united than to call them divided on the issue of wanting a government program to provide services on reproductive health (RH) for all. For the longest time, the great majority of the people have favored it, and only a small minority opposed it. Yet those opposed were able to thwart passage of the RH bill for 14 years, and after that to get the Supreme Court to restrain implementation of the law by another year.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the controversial Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Law is “not unconstitutional,” save for eight provisions, what should pro-RH advocates do? There are legal, practical and political next steps to consider, but we think the immediate task is to spread a sense of affirmation: The great majority of Filipinos support the law. Everything else should proceed from that.
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 Jose Ma. Montelibano
The Supreme Court affirms the constitutionality of the RH Law, except for some specific provisions. Whatever it is, the RH Law goes into effect, maybe watered down, but nevertheless has changed a landscape forever. It signals, too, more changes in that same landscape, as in the reality of divorce everywhere except in the Philippines.
When it finally came down, the Supreme Court decision on the controversial reproductive health case had something for both parties.
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
I can imagine the elation of supporters of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Law gathered in Baguio, in Manila, and elsewhere in the country over news that the Supreme Court has, by and large, ruled that the RH Law is constitutional.