More views against the RH bill are pouring in. Apparently they have not been considered by the Lower House Committee before the bill was endorsed to the entire body for approval in the plenary session. Hence for the enlightenment of our legislators and the entire citizenry, presented here are some more of these views, one of them coming from a lawyer Atty. Rex A. Salvilla who clearly and ably refutes some stand of the bill’s advocates:
“First, the advocates say that the opponents of RH bill are anti-poor for allowing population explosion. This is not true because the opponents, like the advocates are also for population control. Both differ only on the method of control – the advocates thru condom which cost money while the opponents thru natural family planning which costs not a single centavo but only mere discipline on the part of the spouses So, who is anti-poor? It is the advocates.
Second, the advocates say that they are pro-choice. This is not also true. The draft bill contains a penal clause punishing by imprisonment and/or fine those obstructing the use of condoms and promoting family planning. Is this not like tying a person to a post and telling him, “You are free”? So, where is “pro-choice” here? In fact, the bill is a “no-choice” piece.
Third, the advocates say that the Pope supports condom use. This is interpreting the Pontiff out of context. The Pope simply provided an exception in the same way that God has also provided exceptions to His own commandments. Take this command “Thou shall not kill!” There are many instances in the Bible that God allowed the Hebrew to kill. Remember David and Goliath? Remember the many wars between the Hebrew and their enemies?
Fourth, the advocates say that because the surveys show majority support of the people, RH bill should be passed. This is a very misplaced argument. Granting arguendo that the surveys despite the doubtfulness of their validity are true, the majority is not always right. Remember the Jewish popular vote to release Barabas instead of Christ? Remember, too, the case of the two sin cities of Sodom and Gommorah? Before their destruction, Lot surveyed the population on how many favor gayism and lesbianism and Lot could not even get ten people against the almost thousands of supporters of sin in these cities. God destroyed the two cities. In other words – God does not always respect the majority especially when they are wrong.
Fifth, God strongly and clearly mandated Adam and Eve to be “fruitful and become many and fill the earth.” He reiterated this to Abraham when He said: “I will make your descendants as many as the stars in heaven.” And still later to Jacob – son of Abraham, “I will make your descendants as many as the grains of sands on the shores.” God in His infinite wisdom also knows that the world can only accommodate a very limited population. So, He provided a solution which is right in the “danger and safe periods” of a woman, with the safe period much longer than the danger period. This is the “will of God”. Why don’t we follow it? By not following the solution God offers, the advocates, (I resume they are Christians) in praying the Lord’s Prayer are really twisting it by praying “my will be done” instead of “Thy will be done”.
Sixth, the advocates say that the opponents are violating the constitutional principle of separation of Church and State. This is not true. In all our Constitutions (Malolos, 1935, 1973 and the present), we invoke the aid of Divine Providence (God) in the Preambles to establish an ideal State for us. Hence our laws must conform to the laws of God. So, when the opponents simply ask that the RH bill shall be in conformity with the laws of God is that violating the principle of separation of Church and State? In fact, it is the advocates of RH bill themselves who are guilty of violating the Constitution by revolting against the will of Divine Providence in preventing the Church from supporting the law of God.
Seventh, in the long run, eventually our true God will be replaced by the false god of the advocates – PLEASURE. The use of condom is a strong temptation to use it on other than one’s spouse. This will result in broken families which is the basic social unit. Eventually the advocates will clamor for legalization of divorce and abortion. The teaching of sex to the minors in school will result in teaching of pornography. Personal discipline will collapse and spread to all aspects of life – social, economic, political educational, moral and spiritual. Lack of personal discipline thus will result in disrespect for authority and law, corruption in the government, criminality, and other societal evils. Yes, the promise of the advocates for a better society is like the false promise of the serpent to Adam and Eve in Paradise for them to acquire knowledge after eating the forbidden fruit”.
Other revealing insights come from Mr. Reuben Abante. He also pointed out that the bill is not really pro-choice as shown by its Section 17 and 18 which provide that before a couple can be issued a marriage license and legally get married, they should first get a Certificate that they have been given instructions on family planning, responsible parenthood… and other aspects of this Act”. This is giving couples no choice but to take those instructions particularly on the use of family planning methods and contraceptive supplies, otherwise they could not get married. Besides, Mr. Abante said, “if we allow this bill, we are allowing our government to teach the next generation of children and unmarried people to learn and to do what should be within the confines of marriage – who would then be interested to get married”?
Dear members of Congress, please take note.