Church “Wins” in RH LAW!

The public is misled!

We are misled by the media line that the Reproductive Health Law (RA 10354) is declared constitutional and the Church’s anti-RH campaign lost.  Many may not realize this but the Supreme Court in “approving” the RH law actually GAVE DUE COURSE  to the objections of the Church.  According to former Ambassador Rigoberto “Bobi” Tiglao in his article in the Manila TIMES,  what the Supreme Court declared constitutional are the ALREADY EXISTING laws that have already been implemented for decades but consolidated in the new RH law.  These are the  population-control laws that have been in effect  like RA 6365 of 1971 (Creating the national population commission and its functions) ; PD 79 of former President Marcos and   RA 9710 of 2009 (Magna Carta for Women).

But the main objectionable provisions  that the Church raised were DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, including the controversial  implementing rules crafted by the Secretary of Health.  I call this government’s  ATTEMPT that the Supreme Court ABORTED, legally of course.  (This is the type of abortion we all welcome. hahaha!)

For example, the SC ruled that the religious beliefs of citizens (those who oppose) be respected and must prevail. Hence, the ruling declared as unconstitutional the provision that required  public and private health companies to provide  birth control information and means to all even if it is against their religious beliefs. Another provision declared unconstitutional was that which allows one spouse to make a unilateral decision to avail of birth control methods. The SC required that BOTH SPOUSES must approve to do irrreversible birth control interventions like vasectomy and tubal ligation. Another provision is to require parental consent for minors. There are other significant fine points.

But what the Supreme Court significantly STOPPED ON ITS TRACKS was the “ABORTED”  attempt of the Aquino government, through its Secretary of Health and the pro-RH groups, to insert and  SMUGGLE  the word “PRIMARILY”  (to define abortifacients) in the implementing rules & regulations that was NOT  present in the RH law itself and which would have opened the floodgates of abortions. If not discovered and stopped and ABORTED  by the SC, it  would have allowed goverment to undertake  wide-scale distribution of devices and drugs for abortion or abortifacients. Truth to tell, this important SC ruling upholds the Catholic dogma that is found in the Philippine Constitution (Article 11, Section 12) which provides that the state “shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception”. THIS MEANS THAT ANY ACTION TO STOP THE FERTILIZED EGG FROM DEVELOPING IS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.  Scientific studies tell us that IUDs and other contraceptives, while they have the PRIMARY effect of preventing the spermatozoa from reaching the egg, has the secondary or after- effect of weakening the uterine walls lining so that the fertilized egg (with the meeting of the sperm and the ova already done) cannot be implanted there and therefore will die. This validly challenges legally the use of IUDs and contraceptives with that SC ruling.

No doubt, this a “de facto” rejection of the RH law. What is interesting is that  it makes pro-RH proponents seemingly victorious but actually the anti-RH ones won the day.  This is “judicial statesmanship” of the Supreme Court at its best. Everyone can claim victory.   What will be interesting to see hereon is how the implementation of the RH law will be done and how vigilant are we in seeing to it that what the Supreme Court discovered and aborted in its ruling,  will be followed and enforced on the ground.