Battle for RH Law still not over
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.
Actually, there is an even better solution. It is the use of a birth control pill that is not an abortifacient, and therefore acceptable to the Church. It is 100-percent effective. The woman will not get pregnant but it is the man who takes the pill before going to bed.
Really? What is it? A sleeping pill.
* * *
Archbishop Socrates Villegas, president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, said the Supreme Court’s decision had sufficiently diluted the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012. “Although the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the RH Law,” Villegas said, “it has truly watered down the law and consequently upheld the importance of adhering to an informed religious conscience even among government workers.
“It has also stood on the side of the rights of parents to teach their children,” he said.
Catholic groups have criticized the RH Law, saying that it allows the state to use public funds to educate the youth on RH matters and provide couples with contraceptives. According to Catholic leaders, the RH Law would promote promiscuity and destroy life.
Catholic leaders consider the law an attack on the Church’s core values. But the government says the law will help poor couples manage the number of their children and provide healthcare services to those who need these most.
The eight provisions and the RH Implementing Rules and Regulations declared unconstitutional by the high court were:
• Section 7, which (a) requires private health facilities and nonmaternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group to refer patients not in emergency or life-threatening cases as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health facility which is conveniently accessible and (b) allows minors who have suffered a miscarriage access to modern methods of family planning with the written consent of their parents or guardians (RA 8344, otherwise known as the no-deposit law, prohibits the “no deposit, no admittance rule” in emergency or serious cases).
• Section 23 (a) (1) as it punishes any healthcare provider who fails or refuses to disseminate information regarding programs and services on reproductive health regardless of his or her religious beliefs.
• Section 23 (a) (2) (i) as it allows a married individual not in an emergency or life-threatening situation as defined under RA 8344 to undergo RH procedures without the consent of the spouse.
• Section 23 (a) (3) as it punishes any healthcare provider who fails and or refuses to refer a patient not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under RA 8344, to another healthcare service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible regardless of his or her religious beliefs.
• Section 23 (b) as it punishes any public officer who refuses to support RH programs or shall do any act that hinders the full implementation of an RH program, regardless of his or her religious beliefs.
• Section 17 which renders pro bono RH services insofar as they affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth accreditation.
• Section 3.01 (a) and (j) as it uses the qualifier “primarily” for contravening Section 4 (a) of the RH Law and violating Section 12, Article II of the Constitution.
• Section 23 (a) (2) (ii) as it penalizes a health service provider who will require parental consent from the minor in non-emergency cases.
* * *
That’s not the end of the skirmishes, however. Lawyers of the pro and anti camps are still fighting one day after the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision. Pro-RH lawyers said the lifting of the status quo ante (SQA) order means that the RH Law could already be enforced save for the eight provisions struck down by the high court.
But election lawyer Romulo Macalintal disagreed. He said the government could not yet enforce the high court’s decision because the respective parties had not yet received their copies of the decision, including the lifting of the SQA order. The petitioners can still file a motion for reconsideration. Petitioners have 15 days from receipt of the decision, he said, to file such a motion.
The full text of the decision was supposed to have been released on Thursday. (The Supreme Court did release its 106-page decision Thursday and also lifted its SQA order.—ED.)
Still, an official of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines said the Church remains hopeful that the RH Law will be repealed in the future.
