Let’s work together for the good of Filipino mothers
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.
With eight of its provisions declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the law has lost its coercive force. One essential quality of a human or state law is its power to demand compliance from its subjects. Otherwise, it becomes merely a suggestion.
Nevertheless, I would like to commend the Inquirer for some positive points in both editorials.
The entire April 10 editorial carried a tone of conciliation, although it is inevitable for the Inquirer to air its “profoundest concerns” because some of its expectations were not met: “We have nothing against court rulings or indeed any government policy that satisfies the demands of contesting parties; a ‘win-win’ solution, to borrow the language of negotiation, is often the ideal outcome, rarely achieved.”
It also tried to make sense of why the Supreme Court struck down Section 23, Article 2 of the RH Law, which prohibited any healthcare service provider from refusing to perform legal and medically-safe reproductive health procedures on any woman, on the ground that the spouse did not consent: “We can only presume, without the ponencia to consult, that a majority of justices saw this provision as undermining both the right of parents to raise a family on their own terms and the constitutional principle that the family is the basic unit of society.”
The Inquirer also tried to seek a reason for the provision demanding that patients be referred to other facilities that will render the services the health workers deem in conscience they could not give: “[T]he Court has found this light burden apparently too heavy for providers who refuse to provide healthcare service for religious reasons.”
On the other hand, the April 11 editorial sounded like a “let’s move on and take care of the sick and needy mothers” lullaby. It moved beyond the divisive issues like contraception and condoms as it noted that “[t]he law is much more than that”—meaning, it’s more about caring for poor and needy mothers about to give birth and urgently needing medical assistance. The need is urgent and we cannot afford to delay things any further. I say: Good, let’s go.
I personally think the RH Law, even after it has been purged of the eight provisions, is still an imperfect law. But then, in reality, no human law is perfect. Any law is always open to revision and improvement so as to conform better to the truth of the dignity of persons and their real historical circumstances. The way I see it, the RH Law, as it now stands, is still a vehicle to promote contraception. For reasons I have explained before, I am not amenable to contraception. But in its revised form, the RH Law respects those who in conscience do not agree to its practice.
I agree with the Inquirer editorials: Let’s stop fighting each other and work together for the good of all Filipino mothers. Let’s move on.
—FR. CECILIO L. MAGSINO,
