Fact versus dogma
Those who question the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law claim to argue on behalf of poor Filipino women. However, there is a stark contrast between the lives of well-off people and the actual realities that poor Filipino women face. It is perhaps unimaginable for those who oppose the law that there are many poor women who cannot afford to send their children to school or even eat three meals a day, much less pay for their own contraceptives.
If the Philippine government does not provide access to free contraceptives, many poor Filipino women will continue to have unintended pregnancies, die from pregnancy and childbirth complications, and get pregnant at an early age and stop schooling.
Prohibiting the use of public funds to implement programs increasing access to reproductive health information and services, including contraceptive information, supplies and services, is morally reprehensible and impinges on the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of those who sincerely believe that there is a need for the RH Law as a means to empower women to take control of their lives and health.
It is appalling how those who oppose the RH Law disregard women in the equation of reproduction and relegate them as mere receptacles who have no say on whether to get pregnant or not, with or without coercion. Catholic dogma or otherwise, this is discrimination against women as not having women priests is discrimination against women.
Those who are against the RH Law claim to speak for all Filipino Catholics and Christians, and even Muslims, unmindful that many Filipinos differentiate religious institutional dogma from their faith and their conscience, and that many Filipinos—Catholics, Christians, Muslims or of other beliefs—who consistently use modern contraceptives believe in the scientific and medical findings on the safety and efficacy of these contraceptives as well as the precautions on contraindications and possible side effects.
Conscientious objections seeking to deny access to contraceptives are actually religious refusals that violate religious freedom. These religious refusals do not stand in court. In the United States, a California court ruled that a hospital could be held liable for failing to provide a rape survivor with information about and access to emergency contraception that can prevent pregnancy resulting from rape.
Consider a case in 2001 decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The court ruled that the two pharmacy owners who lost in the domestic court suit filed against them for refusing to provide oral contraceptive pills to customers cannot claim violation of their right to freedom of religion because the main sphere protected by the freedom of thought, conscience and religion is that of personal convictions and religious beliefs, or matters of individual conscience such as acts of worship forming part of the practice of religion. The ECHR held that the pharmacists cannot give precedence to their religious beliefs and impose these on others as justification for their refusal to sell contraceptives, since they can manifest those beliefs in many ways outside the professional sphere.
The ECHR held further that the right does not always guarantee the right to behave in public in a manner governed by that belief and does not protect “each and every act or form of behavior motivated or inspired by a religion or a belief.”
Contrary to adherence to dogma or even lack of knowledge of comparative law is the fact that there are other countries with constitutions that protect the “unborn,” such as Hungary, which allows government-funded programs providing access to contraceptive information and services, and where even abortion is allowed up to 12 weeks of gestation; Costa Rica, where therapeutic abortion is allowed; Ireland, which also allows government-funded programs providing access to contraceptive information and services.
Blind adherence to dogma that translates to religious refusals in the provision of access to contraceptive information, supplies and services has grave consequences on women’s right to life and health. Without pain of any penalty, reproductive rights violations will surely be prevalent.
Clara Rita A. Padilla is the executive director of EnGendeRights.
