Unity on the RH Law

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.

The survey evidence. The people’s unity on the RH issue is as strong as ever, as shown in the new report, “SWS confirms survey on RH Law for the Forum for Family Planning and Development” (4/7/2014, www.sws.org.ph), based on 1,200 adults surveyed nationwide (3 percent error margin) on March 27-30, 2014.

This new national survey finds that awareness of the RH Law grew to 68 percent in March 2014, from 64 percent in December 2012, when it was passed by Congress.  It finds that 72 percent of adults favor the law, while only 13 percent oppose it, and the balance of 14 percent are undecided.  Thus public support for the law rose by 9 points from December 2012, when 63 percent nationwide were in favor, and 15 percent were opposed.

Public support recovered to the level in September 2008, when SWS found 71 percent of adults nationwide in favor, and 8 percent opposed, to the RH bill.  The surveys of September 2008 and

December 2012 indicate that the campaign of the opposition succeeded in reducing public support for it by 8 points, or only slightly, over four years.

During 2008-2012, SWS did five local surveys on the RH bill, and found public support strong in all cases. Among persons of reproductive age (men aged 15-54 and women aged 15-49), the support was 86 percent in December 2008 in Manila, 84 percent in February 2009 in Parañaque, and 76 and 78 percent in March 2009 and July 2009, respectively, in Cebu.  Among adolescents in the National Capital Region in October 2012, the support was 64 percent.  Another survey, done by Holy Name University among adults in Bohol province in May 2009, using the same question as SWS, found support at 53 percent at that time.

The March 2014 SWS survey asked the respondents for their opinions about the statement “Dapat bigyan ng libreng supply o serbisyo ng pamahalaan ang mga mahihirap na nagnanais na gumamit ng anumang pamamaraan ng family planning” (The government should provide free supply or service to the poor who wish to use any family planning method).  It found that 84 percent agreed, only 7 percent disagreed, and 9 percent were undecided.

Then it asked for opinions about the statement “Sumusunod ang RH Law sa mga dapat pinapanindigan ng Konstitusyon, kaya dapat lamang paboran ito ng Supreme Court” (The RH Law follows what the Constitution should stand for, so it is only proper for the Supreme Court to allow it).  It found that 77 percent agreed, only 9 percent disagreed, and 14 percent were undecided.

Other surveys. Surveys as a whole (not only those by SWS) have ascertained that many couples, especially those that are poor, have more children than their ideal number, and thus have need for family planning.

Catholics would like a full choice of contraceptive techniques, not limited to those approved by their Church.  They have sincere differences with the Church as to what constitutes abortion and what does not. (See my “RH and freedom to choose,” Opinion, 8/13/2011.)

The opinion polls have not gone into issues of regulations for health facilities of the private or religious sectors. Neither have they looked into how to handle conscientious objectors in either public or private institutions.

In any event, it is quite clear that the people want the government to have a public program on RH that is universally accessible, as is the program of public education.

The Supreme Court decision. It appears that the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 is not unconstitutional as a whole, but nullified a few provisions by separate voting on each contentious provision. (See “SC ruling on RH: Win-win,” by Christine O. Avendaño, Inquirer, 4/9/2014.)

The exact nullifications are not yet clear.

Apparently some pertain to cases of health service providers who decline, out of conscience, to comply with general guidelines of the law.  For example, in nonemergency cases, referral of patients who desire family planning services to another health facility might no longer be required of health facilities that are private, or are owned and operated by religious groups.

Minors who are parents or have suffered miscarriages may need to have written consent from their parents or guardians before being given

access to modern methods of family planning.  Making parental consent a prerequisite, in nonemergency cases, might not be punishable.

Failure/refusal of a health care provider to disseminate information regarding RH programs and services might no longer be punishable.  Nor might failure/refusal to refer a nonemergency patient to another health service provider within the same facility, or otherwise conveniently

accessible, be punishable.

In public health facilities, an officer who refuses to support RH programs, or acts to hinder the full implementation of RH programs, might no longer be punished.

The nullifications need to be examined individually in order to be understood and then evaluated.  For that, let us await release of the full ruling of the Court.

* * *

Contact [email protected].