THE PHILIPPINE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN OPPOSING THE CURRENT PHILIPPINE CONGRESSIONAL HOUSE BILL NO. 5043

SEC. 12 of HB 5043. Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health Education. – recognizing the importance of reproductive rights in empowering the youth and developing them into responsible adults, Reproductive Health Education in an age-appropriate manner shall be taught by adequately trained teachers starting from Grade 5 up to Fourth Year High School. 

What is wrong with this Section of RH 5043?

1) Grade 5 (10-11 years old) and 4th Year High School (approximately 15-16 years old)

This is the Latency Period in the Psychosexual development of a child: 

The fourth stage of psychosexual development in psychoanalytic theory, from about five years to puberty, during which a child apparently represses sexual urges and prefers to associate with members of the same sex. [American Heritage Dictionary] The stage begins around the time that children enter into school and become more concerned with peer relationships, hobbies, and other interests. The latent period is a time of exploration in which the sexual energy is still present, but it is directed into other areas such as intellectual pursuits and social interactions. This stage is important in the development of social and communication skills and self-confidence. [Freud's Stages of Psychosexual Development]

2) From Familiaris Consortio:

Pope John Paul II refers to this time as the years of innocence (Fam. Consot. Para. 36). They deserve to have their innocence protected.

" the family is the securest forum through which to present delicate matters of sexuality. Sex education is not just another form of catechetical instruction, nor does it qualify as education in the strictest term. Education in these delicate matters must be very gradual and only the parent can ascertain where the child is at.”

In (Para. 36) "The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of the loving relationship between parents and children; and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others.” 

Contributed by: 

TEODORA: IN DEFENSE OF THE AUTHENTIC WOMAN, INC.

---

A woman for our time?

CATHERINE PEPINSTER

It was one of the most poignant photographss o far of the US presidential race. Sarah Palin, the Republican Party’svice-presidential nominee, cradled herbaby, Trig, in her arms. A classic Madonnaand Child pose. But it was one for which MrsPalin was particularly vilified, simply becauseTrig is a Down’s syndrome baby.

 

Rather than be applauded for the courageand hard work it takes to raise a child withspecial needs, Sarah Palin was, according toCarol Fowler, the chairwoman of the DemocraticParty in South Carolina, chosen becauseher “primary qualification seems to bethat she hasn’t had an abortion”, while CintraWilson, a columnist for the online Salonmagazine, said that Trig was “the anti-abortionplatform that ensures [Palin’s] own politicalambitions”.

Mrs Palin is not the first woman in the publiceye to raise eyebrows over her decisionabout her baby. Cherie Blair chose not to havean amniocentesis test when she was pregnantwith her fourth child, Leo, because of the riskto the baby, despite the relative likelihood ather age of having a child with Down’s syndrome.This was a view that went right againstthe grain. As a newly published report fromthe worldwide charity Down Syndrome Education International (DSEI), reveals, government policy and pressure from themedical establishment has led to screeningfor genetic abnormality becoming the normin Britain. The study by DSEI shows that thisscreening, requiring invasive techniques,leads to miscarriage in between one in 100and one in 50 pregnancies, and that arounda startling 95 per cent of positive screeningsare wrong.

But what the charity is really concernedabout is not just the “normal” babies who arelost through this screening but whether geneticscreening for physical and mentalabilities and disabilities during pregnancy isacceptable. For behind that screening policylies a conviction that abnormality, any deviationfrom the “perfect”, has no place in oursociety. For years the political and medicalestablishment has promoted the idea thatscreening is a sensible, rational option. It isa given that if abnormality is found, then thechild’s life should be terminated. And just howthat view came to be so popular owes its rootsto a woman whose life and work is this monthbeing given what one might call, literally, astamp of approval. Marie Stopes is beinghonoured with a stamp issued by the RoyalMail.

Stopes is, of course,  best known for being a birth-control pioneer. The correspondencebetween Stopes and thousands of letterwriters who contacted her afterpublication of her bestselling volumes, MarriedLove and Wise Parenthood, reveal thedesperation many felt at having large familiesthey struggled to raise, the despairwrought by sexual ignorance, and the compassionfelt by her for their plight. But MarieStopes was not all that she seemed. (Indeedeven her title was misleading. That she wasDr Stopes suggested she had a medical background;in fact she had a PhD in fossilbotany.) Like many of the early pioneers ofabortion and birth control she was a eugenicist.Eugenics, while long associated with NaziGermany, has a lengthy history in Britain. Theword derives from the Greek, meaning wellborn,and its followers advocate the improvementof the human race throughintervention. Its beginnings can be linked toThomas Malthus’ “Essay on the Principle ofPopulation”, published in 1798, which expressedthe fear that the poor, unless checked,would outstrip food supplies. During the nineteenthcentury, as the size of richer familiesdeclined, followers of Malthus feared that thepoor would start to predominate in society.The solution was segregation of the poor inworkhouses, where husbands and wives were kept apart so that they had no more children.By the beginning of the twentieth century,the belief that those unfit to breed shouldbe stopped from doing so began to grow inpopularity. Preventive methods proposed includedsegregation, sterilisation, euthanasia,and abortion, as well as birth control. Thisdesire to control population was not entirelyfocused on the poor; while the working classesshould limit their families, many eugenicistsand Malthusians were dismayed that themiddle classes were having fewer children.

The well-off woman was seen as shirking herduty by not improving the stock.While the Eugenics Education Society was formed in 1907, it was during the 1920s and1930s that the eugenics movement grew, attractingwell-known intellectuals such as Sydneyand Beatrice Webb and Bertrand andDora Russell. Although the society’s leadinglights were on the left, and an unsuccessfulbill was put forward in 1931 by a Labour MP to sterilise the unfit, there was a certain suspicionamong Labour Party members that eugenicswas focused on eliminating theworking class. As indeed it was: ProfessorF.A.E. Carew, when giving evidence to the1937 Birkett Enquiry into abortion, urged thatthe “slum womb” be abolished.In contrast, as Ann Farmer recalls in hernewly published study of abortion and eugenicsBy Their Fruits, the WestminsterCatholic Federation told the Birkett Enquirythat it was social conditions, not the child,that should be changed. It was a plea thatwent unheeded among the proponents ofabortion. Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and oneof the staunchest advocates of the right toabortion in this country, revealed in a paperon abortion given at Kent University that policymakers long focused on limiting the childrenof the poor, right up to the passing ofthe 1967 Abortion Act.“Parliamentary discussion of the AbortionAct explicitly discussed its use in preventingunfit mothers from having unsuitable families,”she told the one-day conference. “Contemporarymedical journals discussed thevalidity of legal abortion alongside the needfor a birth control plan for Britain to limitthe numbers of the poor.”Back in the 1930s, as Ann Farmer’s meticulouslyresearched account reveals, a networkof campaigners made up of Eugenics Society members belonged to a wide rangeof other organisations and worked across party political lines, pushing for abortion andsterilisation for just these reasons. 

In the midstof all this was Marie Stopes. Stopes came toprominence in 1918 with the publication ofMarried Love, which had sold 400,000 copiesby 1923. In 1921, she and her husband, theaviator H.V. Roe, set up London’s first birthcontrolclinic in north London and formedthe Society for Constructive Birth Controland Racial Progress. Her views went well beyondan interest in people’s sexual wellbeing.“Are these puny-faced, gaunt, blotchy,ill-balanced, feeble, ungainly, withered childrenthe young of an Imperial race?” she askedthe readers of The Daily Mail in 1919 in anarticle entitled “Mrs Jones does her worst”.“Mrs Jones”, she went on, “is destroyingthe race!” 

The following year, in her book RadiantMotherhood, she urged that “the sterilisationof those 

totally unfit for parenthoodbe made an immediate possibility, indeedmade compulsory.” Marie Stopes’ beliefs affectedher own family. She cut her son outof her will for marrying a short-sightedwoman, outraged at the harm it wouldcause to her own bloodline. “Mary andHarry are quite callous about both thewrong to their children, the wrong to my familyand the eugenic crime.”These beliefs took Stopes to Germany, whereshe attended the Nazis’ Berlin congress onpopulation science in 1935. They were beliefsshe maintained throughout her life, leavingher money to the Eugenics Society andhelping to set up the International PlannedParenthood Federation in the 1950s, arguingthat no society should allow “the diseased,the racially negligent, the careless, the feeble-minded and the very lowest and worstmembers of the community to produce innumerabletens of thousands of warped andinferior infants”.

Such extreme language might seem outdatedtoday, but Stopes would no doubtapprove of the 

screening for congenitalabnormality so heavily promotedby the NHS, whose end result is frequentlytermination. And yet the numbers of childrenwith Down’s is increasing. The number of babiesborn with the condition has risen by25 per cent in the past 15 years in Britain. Accordingto Frank Buckley, chief executive ofDSEI and co-author of the charity’s new report:“More people are living with Down’s syndromethan ever before, with over 600,000across Europe and North America andmaybe 4 million worldwide.”All kinds of reasons could explain the increasein the number of Down’s children.Women are having children later in life, thusincreasing the likelihood of chromosomal abnormality.They feel encouraged to have thembecause other parents and charities have lobbiedhard for better healthcare and better opportunities for their children.

Above all, these figures are a sign that wehave made progress in the twenty-first century– not because of genetic screening butbecause, unlike Marie Stopes, people havelearned that they need not fear those who they deem less than perfect.

Marie Stopes,honoured on a new postage stamp, is well known as a pioneer in the field of contraception.What is less well known is the influence on her work of her belief in eugenics – that bylimiting the numbers of the poor by birth control it would be possible to improve the English ‘race’A woman for our time?The Royal Mail’s stamp featuring MarieStopes: her belief in eugenics took her tothe Nazis’ Berlin congress on populationscience in 1935

---

Undergoing MyBlogLog Verific

Undergoing MyBlogLog Verification

Thousands attend Legazpi’s “Prayer-Rally for Life”

LEGAZPI, Oct. 5, 2008—Over 4,000 Albayanos trooped to Penaranda Park to attend the “Prayer-Rally for Life” sponsored by the Diocese of Legazpi City, Friday, October 3.

The Apostolic Vicar, Bishop Lucilo B. Quiambao led the crowd in calling for strong opposition to House Bill 5043 whose principal author is Albay Congressman Edcel C. Lagman.

Students, religious groups and lay people from Legazpi’s three vicariates carried placards opposing the consolidated bill and marched the streets of the city before converging at Peñaranda Park for the speeches and concelebrated Mass.

Dra. Ligaya Acosta, Executive Director of Human Life International – Asia and former DOH employee, delivered an impassioned appeal to all Bicolanos to support the fight against the pending RH Bill up for plenary debate at the House of Representatives.

She said Bicolanos should be conscious of the negative effects of abortifacients and condoms, pills, injectibles, which will severely affect women’s health. She also underscored the bill’s unconstitutionality.

In his homily, Bishop Lucilo Quiambao said the Catholic Church’s position remains unchanging, that “human life begins at conception” as against the bill which adopts the view that life begins at the moment of implantation.

Bishop Quiambao lambasted the RH bill’s clause for mandatory for sex education for children and adolescents, saying that a child does not yet need to know things which are not yet appropriate at one’s age which will lead to promiscuity.

The bishop also cited his opposition to calling contraceptives in the bill as essential medicines.

The participants ended the payer-rally with a candle-lighting ceremony calling on God not to allow the passage of the controversial house bill.

“The Prayer-Rally for Life” was aired over local stations DwBS-AM (Radio Veritas), DZGB-AM and TV-6 Legazpi. (Jose M. Locsin, Jr.)

Church’s stand on reproductive bill uncompromising

MANILA, Oct. 5, 2008—The Catholic Church’s position on the Reproductive Health bill is absolute, said an official of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP).

CBCP spokesperson Msgr. Pedro Quitorio III said there’s no way that the Church will soften its position against the controversial bill currently pending in Congress.

“As of now, the stand of the CBCP on the RH bill is absolute. There’s no way to compromise,” he said in a forum in Intramuros, Manila.

Quitorio, however, admitted that they haven’t come up with a plan yet on what their next move will be in the event the bill is approved in Congress.

“The leadership hasn’t thought of what will happen afterwards. I can just surmise that if it gets approved, the CBCP will definitely do something,” he said.

At present, he said, they are concentrating on lobbying against the bill because of its anti-life provisions.

On Thursday, it was reported that the number of legislators in favor of the Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood, and Population Development Act of 2008 or House Bill (HB) 5043 climbed to 108 from 103, only 12 votes shy of approval in the House of Representatives. The bill needs 120 votes to be approved on second reading.

On the other hand, CBCP’s Episcopal Commission on Family and Life head and Pampanga Archbishop Paciano Aniceto said he is not in the least bothered by the development as he expressed confidence that the lawmakers would eventually make the right decision in the final voting.

“This is not a statistical contest. Above all our strategy here is a prayerful campaign. We will pray for the whole church that they will ask for divine assistance and we also pray for our legislators. They are men and women who are educated and they have their own conscience. This is also a test of maturity for our legislators,” he said.

The Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP) also joined the Catholic Church’s voice in opposing the bill.

"We stand by the Church as she respectfully signified her strong objection to the contraceptive program the Bill promotes, considering the practices which it shall engender," CEAP said in a statement posted on their website (www.ceap.org.ph).

"Both Sacred Scripture and Reason proposed that the best form of birth regulation is self-discipline," it added.

Instead of allotting P2 billion from taxpayer’s money for the purchase of contraceptives, the CEAP has urged lawmakers to use the money for education, livelihood and basic public services.

The Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP) is the biggest organized group of Catholic schools in the country, with about 1,252 member schools. (CBCPNews)

Legazpi holds “Prayer for Life” today

LEGAZPI CITY, October 3, 2008—The Diocese of Legazpi will hold its “Prayer- Rally for Life” today at 3:00 P.M. in response to the controversial measures provided in the Reproductive Health bill principally authored by Albay’s First District Congressman Edcel C. Lagman.


During the preparatory meeting, Apostolic Vicar Lucilo B. Quiambao was quoted saying Lagman’s bill is “useless.” He said “the statistics shown in a recent article by former Senator Francisco “Kit” Tatad warned we might become like Europe where the population is going down at a dangerously alarming rate, if ever the bill will be approved by Congress.”


Different religious groups and agencies are expected to join the activity and bring placards with messages against the bill. The marchers will converge at Peñaranda Park, Old Albay District this city.


Dr. Ligaya Acosta, noted Pro-Life advocate and former Department of health official will talk on the negative repercussions on the people should the bill be approved in Congress. A signature campaign against the bill will also be launched.


The prayer-rally will end with a concelebrated Mass.


The prayer rally is held on the eve of the annual Marian Youth pilgrimage tomorrow to Joroan, Tiwi, Albay, where the Shrine of Nuestra Senor de Salvacion is located.


The prayer rally today is under the auspices of the Diocesan Commission on Famiyl and Life under the leadership of Fr. Edgar Sayson. (Jose Locsin, Jr.)

LAIKO petitions lawmakers to junk reproductive health bill

LOILO CITY, October 3, 2008—Dissenting voices to the passage of the controversial reproductive health bill have reached a crescendo with the signing of a petition against its passage by members of LAIKO during its regional conference held recently in Iloilo City.

Representatives of various lay organizations and movements all over the country who participated in the LAIKO regional conference signed up a petition asking legislators to junk the RH bill that is currently being debated in Congress.

Dr. Dolores Octaviano, an internist and endocrinologist working at St. Paul’s Hospital in Iloilo City delivered a fiery speech to Laiko participants during the conference lambasting pro-choice lawmakers for their insensitivity to the needs of their constituents.

“I hope these legislators will realize that they should not lord it over the people who have elected them… If they legislate laws that go against their identity of being a legislator then they have no business passing the law,” said Octaviano.

An active member of the Jaro Archdiocesan Commission on Family and Life since 2005, Octaviano, also a member of Human Life International, has recently been elected in charge of the Visayas area for family and life advocacy.

She said lawmakers should discern well and see if their decision is in accordance with the will of God.

“Legislators should legislate laws that are for the good of the people. If the law they want to pass will do a lot of havoc to the people they promise to serve, then whom are they serving?” Octaviano asked.

Awareness campaign

Octaviano goes around giving talks to schools, both private and public. She also gives talks to different organizations making them aware of the side effects of the reproductive health bill.
Being a medical doctor, Octaviano knows whereof she speaks. In one of her awareness campaign, she said she got shocked from the reaction of a woman from the audience.

“The bill has been here for the past 40 years but we never heard any doctor talk about the side effects. You are the first physician who talked about [its] side effects,” the woman told her.

When asked if she talks with the doctors regarding her advocacy, Octaviano said she tries to approach one doctor at a time. She said she tries to be prudent in approaching doctors on this subject since not all doctors believe in her advocacy.

Octaviano said she started talking with one obstetrician about it. Now, more obstetricians she talked with have stopped ligating their patients.

Although ligation is a national program of government, Octaviano is not sure if the practice is observed in all hospitals.

But she talked of one instance when a doctor tried to force her helper to sign a document that would allow the doctor to ligate her.

“One time after doing my rounds in one hospital, I saw this doctor running after a pregnant woman, saying ‘have yourself ligated.’ So I scolded the doctor,” said Octaviano.

She said St. Paul Hospital, being a Catholic institution does not allow this practice but other hospitals do, whether public or private.

When asked if patients are given options, she said, “I don’t know of other patients but those who were not informed, they are made to believe as if this should be the case. They give you a scenario [that] it’s almost impossible to say no.”

But there are also sensible doctors who sit down with their patients and advise them to think of their options, Octaviano said. (Pinky Barrientos, FSP)

Resolution Condemning UN

Resolution Condemning UN
Committees Introduced in US
House of Representatives

By Austin Ruse

(WASHINGTON, DC – C-FAM) A resolution was introduced in the United States House of Representatives this week condemning two United Nations committees. The non-binding resolution was introduced by Republican Thad McCotter (R-MI) and specifically condemns actions taken by the Human Rights Committee (HRC) and the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

The resolution singles out these two committees for reinterpreting hard-law treaties to include a right to abortion and trying to force sovereign states who have ratified the treaties into accepting these new interpretations.

The resolution charges that the committees’ "unelected members...operate without any formal oversight and entirely unaccountable to the United Nations system and Member States." The resolution further charges that these "unelected members…change the meaning" of the documents they are charged with monitoring "from the original text negotiated by sovereign states."

Though neither the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights nor the CEDAW treaty mention abortion and, as stated in the Resolution, "establishes or implies a right to abortion," the Committees routinely tell governments they must change their laws protecting the unborn.

The resolution cites five examples where the Committees criticized Ireland on abortion. In August 1999, the CEDAW Committee told Ireland "the Committee is concerned that, with very limited exceptions, abortion remains illegal in Ireland" and told the government to "facilitate a national dialogue on women's reproductive rights, including on the restrictive abortion laws." Six years later the Committee admitted that a national dialogue had taken place "with five separate referendums held on three separate occasions." Even so, the Committee again told Ireland again to facilitate a national dialogue on abortion.

In July 2000 the Human Rights Committee told Ireland that "the State should ensure that women are not compelled to continue with pregnancies where that is incompatible with (committee directives and decisions)."

UN Committees that oversee the implementation of UN treaties are made up of "experts" in each area and are generally drawn from academia, advocacy groups and non-governmental organizations. These Committees take it upon themselves to reinterpret the treaties and then ask governments to act on these changes. These statements by these committees are then used by radical lawyers on the ground to initiate law suits.

The Congressional Resolution "strongly rebukes the efforts" of the two committees, "calls into question the merit of using United States taxpayer-generated revenues to support them," and "urges countries with restrictions on the practice of abortion to remain steadfast in the time-honored traditions and verities of their cultures…"

David Quinn, president of the Dublin-based Iona Institute told the Friday Fax, "Congressman McCotter deserves congratulations for bringing this to public attention. The bullying behavior of the UN towards countries which have pro-life laws, such as Ireland, is deplorable, unconscionable and needs to be brought to an end."

Given the political make-up of the US House of Representatives, it is unlikely that the resolution will pass. However, McCotter's staff told the Friday Fax they expect to continue with such efforts in the future.

Ireland is set to appear before the CEDAW committee in January.

Countries Emphasize Basic
Health Care, Not Reproductive
Health at UN MDG Meeting

By Samantha Singson

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) At United Nations headquarters this week, countries participated in a special high level event to discuss progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Declaring that MDG 5 to improve maternal health has seen the least progress of all the MDGs, participants emphasized good basic health care, not “universal access to reproductive health,” as the best ways of reducing maternal mortality.

During the discussions on the health-related MDGs, countries lamented that maternal mortality rates remained unacceptably high and focused their attention on the two proven methods of reducing maternal deaths – increasing skilled attendants at birth and improving emergency obstetric care.

In the lead-up to this week’s high level meeting, top UN officials like Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and UNFPA Executive Director Thoraya Obaid have stressed “universal access to reproductive health” to reduce maternal mortality, a theme she repeated at a separate side event co-sponsored by the governments of Chile, Finland and Tanzania. Ban Ki-Moon’s 2008 report on the MDGs laments that “universal access to reproductive health remains a distant dream in many countries.”

In 2000, when UN member states agreed to adopt eight broad, largely non-controversial Millennium Development Goals which address issues like eradicating poverty and hunger, achieving universal primary education, and reducing child mortality, “reproductive health” was deliberately left out. None of the MDGs makes any mention of “reproductive health” and neither does the Millennium Declaration upon which they are based.

When the MDGs were first negotiated, abortion advocates like International Planned Parenthood Federation launched aggressive campaigns to get a separate goal on “reproductive health.” Those efforts failed and advocates have attempted instead to attaching “reproductive health” to the existing MDGs.

Abortion advocates declared victory in 2005 when “universal access to reproductive health” appeared as the “target” in the annex of a report from then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Since then, despite consistent pushback from countries such as the United States that no new target on reproductive health has been approved by the members of the General Assembly, top UN officials have pushed the reproductive health target on member states as though it was an agreed target under the MDGs.

Pro-abortion groups have used the reproductive health target to promote the legalization and liberalization of abortion laws, claiming that countries now have an obligation to provide “safe and legal abortions” because of their commitments to reduce maternal mortality.

Concerns remain that the maternal health goal will be used to push abortion. While the word “abortion” was never mentioned at the special side event, the heads of state of both Chile and Finland spoke about access to “reproductive health services.” This contrasted with the statements of the Tanzanian president who stressed the need for basic obstetric health care.

The primary outcome of the high-level event will be a Secretary-General’s summary of the discussions from this week, as well as a compilation of the commitments made by states and members of civil society. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will also be asking states to agree to an MDG review summit scheduled for 2010.

For more news, visit us at www.c-fam.org.

Petition From C-Fam

September 29, 2008


Dear Friend,

The UN will celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights this December 10th.

To celebrate this occasion, radical pro-abortion groups intend to present the UN General Assembly with petitions calling for a universal right to abortion.

The largest, richest and most powerful pro-abortion groups are even now planning their attack on the unborn at the General Assembly.

Campaigns are being waged right now by International Planned Parenthood Federation and Maire Stopes International, the two groups responsible for more abortions than any other groups in the world. Both are beloved of the powers that be at the UN; and their efforts to promote an international right to abortion are welcomed by many UN Member States, perhaps most of the UN bureaucracy, and powerful US foundations that give millions to promote abortion at the UN and around the world.

We must stop them this December.

I am writing to ask you to sign a petition calling on UN Members States to interpret the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as protecting the unborn child from abortion. Did you know that the Universal Declaration calls for a right to life? Did you know that UN committees now interpret that as a right to abortion? We can stop them.

Please go HERE to sign the petition which we will present at the UN on December 10th, the celebration of the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. At the very least we must match what the pro-abortion advocates will present to the UN that day! They will present thousands and thousands of names. WE MUST MATCH THEM!

Go HERE to sign the petition and then please send this email to all of your family and friends. Our goal is to present 50,000+ names to the General Assembly. We need your help right now to block the pro-aborts from making huge progress for abortion at the UN.

We are going to run this campaign for the next six weeks. There is plenty of time to get this petition to everyone in your address book and all around the world. This is an international right. Please help us now.

Imagine the look on their faces when we slam down 50,000 names! Be a part of that. Sign the petition HERE and send this all over the world.

Yours sincerely,

Austin Ruse
President
C-FAM
(The only pro-life group working exclusively on UN social policy)

Anti-population bill solons block Lagman speech

Lack of quorum forces deferment

By Lira Dalangin-Fernandez
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 19:02:00 09/16/2008

MANILA, Philippines -- Lawmakers at the House of Representatives opposed to the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill succeeded in blocking the delivery of the sponsorship speech by its author that would have formally opened floor debates.

With only 101 of the more than 200 congressmen present after the roll call, the House leadership adjourned the session for lack of a quorum.

The bill's troubles were further compounded when Congresswoman Amelita Villarosa withdrew her signature from House Bill 5043 or An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development, bringing down the number of co-authors to 95.

But Albay Representative Edcel Lagman, the bill's main author, was unfazed and expressed confidence that the bill would still hurdle the plenary debates.

Anti-reproductive health bill lawmakers have tried to stop Lagman's sponsorship speech early in the session.

Cebu Representative Pablo Garcia raised a point of order, saying that copies of the bill have yet to be distributed for the members of the House to study.

Quezon City Representative Mary Anne Susano echoed Garcia's view and said the measure was being pushed because of the millions in pesos appropriated for it in the budget.

But Majority Leader Raul del Mar said that there was an agreement among lawmakers that they would allow Lagman to deliver the sponsorship speech and that interpellation would begin next week to give time to the lawmakers to study the bill.

Susano then raised a point of order anew and said that there was no longer a quorum that prompted a suspension of the session.

Before a packed gallery composed of the supporters of the bill from mostly civic organizations on one side and pro-life advocates and religious groups in blue on the other side, Lagman was supposed to deliver his four-page sponsorship speech.

The bill promotes the use of both artificial and natural means of family planning, among others.

"The bill is principally about rights, health, and sustainable human development. The bill is fully transparent. There is no hidden agenda. There are no caveats," Lagman said in a copy of his speech.

"The use of contraceptives for family planning does not make acceptors bad Catholics. But having more children whom parents can ill-afford to feed, educate, medicate, guide and love makes hem irresponsible regardless of their religion," he added.

The Catholic Church, religious groups, and even President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo have expressed opposition to the bill.

"While the bill may not be the panacea to all our ills, it is
definitely not the source of baseless paranoia," Lagman said.

On September 9, the committee on rules approved the plenary hearing of the controversial House Bill 5043 or the "Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development Act of 2008."

Arroyo, a devout Catholic, is backing the Church's position against artificial contraception as Congress tries to legislate a population management policy.

Lagman, the bill's author, hailed the endorsement of the bill for plenary consideration as a "victory for Reproductive Health advocates who have been waiting for the enactment of this bill for almost a decade and the 96 co-authors of the measure who are unwavering in their support for the bill's eventual enactment."

The bill was first jointly referred to the committee on health and committee on population and family relations which approved it in June.

In August the committee on appropriations approved the appropriation cover of the measure.

source:inquirer.net

Catechism on Family and Life Issues Celebrating 40 years of Humanae Vitae

“We are called to seek and embrace the truth. In ethical matters, this demands a willingness to understand the natural law and the moral code that is derived from it. When Jesus said “I am the truth” he was affirming the fact that this truth is of vital importance to each one of us. If we are seriously to come to grips with truth, then we need to find a way of dialoguing with one another which is devoid of any ambiguity. That is why words and the meaning of words matter.” (George Cardinal Pell, Endorsement of Lexicon).

Introduction

Forty years ago, on July 29, 1968 Pope Paul VI issued the Humanae Vitae against the expectations of the Secular World and even some Catholic circles. His words have proven prophetic. Since then the Church has waged a continuous battle in defense of the family and human life against the Population Control Movement’s racist agenda to pursue universal access to contraceptives and abortion. These enemies are determined to transform our laws and institutions into instruments for attacking the family and the sacredness of human life through a manipulative political process. Lest the Church people are caught unaware when a double-speak language cleverly used with words sweet to the ears but hiding a dangerous intent, the Pontifical Council of the Family published the Lexicon.[1] These essays written by experts on various issues of Family and Life to explain beyond ambiguity the meaning of confusing terms and jargon. This Catechism is therefore both a review of Humanae Vitae and a clarification of selected terms relevant to the current political issues the country is now facing.

What is the difference between Procreation and Reproduction?

Reproduction strictly refers to the biological reality implying that man is no different from animals. Procreation on the other hand is the proper term for human generation since it refers to the appearance of a new person and points to collaboration of parents with God as the ultimate source of this new life.

What is Responsible Parenthood?

Due to the profound link between the conjugal bond and the gift of life Humanae Vitae emphasizes the vocation of married couples to be parents and insists on openness to life. It is neutral concerning family size. Responsible parenthood refers to the decision to procreate or not to procreate signifying the following:

a) Exclusion of the use of contraceptives for every fertile conjugal act

b) Knowledge, primarily on the wife’s part of her own cycle of fertility/infertility;

c) In the case of an ethically justified decision not to procreate, abstinence from conjugal relations during the wife’s fertile period and the restriction of conjugal relations to the wife’s infertile period.

d) Exercising control over one’s sexual impulse to render it truly and exclusively expressive of conjugal love and the self-giving of persons. This decision to procreate or not to procreate is just (it is responsible) when two things are taken into account:

a) That the parents have the necessary and sufficient resources to secure a dignified life for their future child (including basic education);

b) That there are no grave considerations of health on the part of the spouses, especially the wife;

In the UN language Responsible Parenthood is the will, ability and commitment of parents to respond to the needs and aspirations of the family and children more particularly through family planning. Since family planning is understood as enabling people who wish to limit the size of families the term Responsible Parenthood is associated to family size limitation.

Why is contraception morally wrong?

Contraception is any action taken before, during or immediately after the conjugal act which is aimed at impeding the conception which the conjugal act itself is capable of. Contraception therefore separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act. Conjugal sexuality by its very nature is an expression-realization of the total gift of self. In contraception the conjugal sexual act excludes from the gift of one’s person the gift of the capacity to become father/mother (it is the person that is fertile, not the body). Contraception makes the conjugal sexual act a lie.

Why is natural methods of birth control not contraception?

These natural methods simply enable the wife to ascertain when she is fertile and when she is infertile—scientific information placed at the service of either a procreative decision or a non procreative decision by the spouses.

What is Reproductive Health?

The UN defines Reproductive Health as the state of physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. This implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life, that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so, provided that these are not against the law. This further implies that women and men are afforded equal status in matters related to sexual relations and reproduction. (Cairo, Program of Action)

Strictly speaking reproductive health focuses on the biological dimension—when all the organic components of the reproductive apparatus are present and whole. It is therefore ridiculous to attribute “mental” and “social” dimensions to what is a purely biological reality. The surreptitious addition of these terms is connected with the stated aim of reproductive health—to have a satisfying and safe sex life. If having a satisfying sex life results in an unwanted pregnancy, the mental anguish this on the woman causes will negatively affect her mental and social well-being unless one has access to contraception and abortion. This is the convoluted reasoning behind the UN’s insistence that Reproductive Health necessarily presupposes access to artificial contraception and abortion. Thus in the Church judgment reproductive health is an ambiguous term. Despite of all avowals that abortion is illicit the inclusion of reproductive health in any law provides a backdoor for eventually legalizing abortion.

What is Reproductive Rights?

The term Reproductive Rights (RR) goes very often with Sexual Rights (SR) producing Sexual Reproductive Rights (SRR). Defined in terms of power and resources the latter refers to the power to have access to the necessary information and make sound decisions about fertility, procreation and child care, gynecological health and sexual activity, as well as the resources to proceed in a safe and efficient manner.

There are no international texts on human rights that mentions reproductive rights. The most fundamental document on human rights in the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights. The Population Control Establishment claims that Article 2 of the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights introduces the generic “right to have rights” rather than providing a list of concrete rights. It is further claimed that the content of these rights can be determined through democratic activity of nations. Subsequent UN Conferences—Cairo, Beijing, etc. reinforced the idea that the right to make decisions about reproduction and the right of access to health services were fundamental human rights. Both men and women should have equal access to health servic es including those related to family planning, the right to decide family size as well as spacing of children.

The erroneous ideology that defines a law making process based on the will of the majority is Legal Positivism can lead to unjust laws because the will of the majority can be manipulated by interest groups. Society runs the risk of enacting into law something that is against the natural law—what is wrong becomes right. Abortion legalized through a referendum does not cease to be wrong just because of a majority vote. This approach has permitted the UN to use its formidable financial resources in the advocacy process to provide universal access to contraception and legal abortion in line with its racist pursuit of fertility decline in third world countries.

What are Sexual Rights?

Sexual Rights is difficult to define and is best illustrated by the list of rights that tend to be included in this category. The 1996 International Planned Parenthood Declaration of Sexual and Reproductive Rights include among others (there are eleven of them) the following:

· The right to exercise and enjoy sexual independence, according to one’s preferences as well as the right to due legal protection;

· Pleasant and recreational sex, independent of reproduction

· Appropriate knowledge and information sex and reproduction.

· Freedom from fear, embarassment, guilt and other imposed beliefs that inhibit the sexuality of a person or diminish his/her relationship.

Underlying this view is the radical separation of sexuality, procreation and the connection between men and women. Pleasure is identified as the ultimate goal of sexuality and procreation is reduced as a function of the health care systems. Men and women relate in temporary and modifiable agreements.

Men and women are persons before all else, and for this reason sexual behavior cannot be used only for pleasure for this would mean using a person as a source of pleasure. Moverover since God specifically designed that the conjugal bond be profoundly linked with the gift of life sexuality can be exercised only in the context of married life. The exercise of rights gives rise to corresponding duties. Sexuality has to be curbed within the limits of marriage for the sake of wife and children.

What is Abortion Rights

The right to abortion was defined and acknowledged for the first time in the ruling of the US Supreme Court in the Roe vs. Wade case—giving women the free choice to interrupt pregnancy because the right to do so is a fundamental element of the right to privacy. Previously abortion was allowed in some cases as an exception to the norm on the defense of human life. After this ruling the law ceased to be interested in the conceived child as a victim, and shiftedits interest to the mother.

The right to abortion is called many names—interrupted pregnancy, menstrual regulation, etc. mainly out of a desire to hide the truth about the nature of abortion itself. But the truth is brutally simple—it always concerns the killing of the conceived child and the destryong of his/her life.

What is Reproductive Education

In the language of the UN Reproductive Education is the process of acquiring complete, accurate and relevant information on all matters relating to the reproductive system, its functions and processes and human sexuality; and forming attitudes and beliefs about sex, sexual identity, interpersonal relationships, affection, intimacy and gender roles. This also includes critically evaluating and discussing the moral, religious, social and cultural dimensions of related sensitive issues such as contraception and abortion.

Thisdefinition shows the propagandizing aims of Reproductive Education. It is meant to overhaul society’s values, attitudes and beliefs regarding sexuality and procreation. It is meant to make young people see the religious and moral values taught by their parents as myths on sex and sexuality deserving of ridicule and disdain.

Though countries in the West do not have any population control programs their sub-replacement fertility is so low that they now run the risk of population implosion. This was a result of a drastic change in sexual morality due to sustained sex education programs. The Sex Education Program has been in place in the Philippines since the 1970’s. The current 3rd edition is now entitled Reproductive Health and is much more explicit on sexual techniques rather than values education. These modules were patterned after the Sex Information and Education Modules of the U.S. ( SIECUS) originally developed by Mary Calderone and Alfred Kinsey of Kinsey Institute implemented in the American schools in the 1960’s. In plain language its content is pornographic; Kinsey Institute supports materials like Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler based on the research work of Eichel and Judith Reisman.

It assumes that young people are also subject of sexual rights and therefore they have a right to value free information about human sexuality, contraception, etc. Ultimately the objective is to encourage early sexual activity among the adolescents and create a demand for contraceptives and abortion among the young.

Parents have a duty to teach their children how to live the virtue of chastity. Giving the age-appropriate biological information hand in hand with the moral significance of sexuality parents educate their children live their vocation to love responsibly.

What is Safe Sex?

The term “Safe Sex” created in California and New York—the hotbed of HIV/AIDS—designates the condom as the best method against contamination by HIV during sexual activity. The expression refers to all precautionary measures taken to diminish the risk of transmitting or acquiring sexually transmitted disease.

The media hype that has promoted use of condoms as safe sex ignores the scientific findings that shows that the male sperm can comfortably pass through the pores of the condom and the HIV virus which is even smaller, has an even easier passage. The facts also show that in countries such as Thailand, where condom usage is widespread, the incidence of HIV infection is reaching epidemic proportions.

What is Safe Motherhood?

The concept of “Safe Motherhood” is actually loaded with unmentioned elements making it a dangerous expression. The idea is that there is no Safe Motherhood without granting the mother the right to abort freely. This conclusion is arrived after a manipulation of statistics on maternal mortality rates to suggest that much of it is a result from illegal abortions performed in “unsafe conditions”. This is meant to lead to the conclusion that in order to reduce the risks inherent in motherhood it is necessary to liberalize abortion. The aim is of course to incite authorities to liberalize abortion.

Restoring the exact meaning to “Safe Motherhood” means defining it as the set of health requirements for pregnant mothers that would give women the ability to have a safe and healthy pregnancy and delivery. Safe motherhood is therefore a desirable goal and providing better treatments and equipment adapted for and available to an ever larger number of mothers all over the world is something everyon should work for.

What is Informed Consent?

The relationship between doctors and patients should be an interpersonal relationship and full of trust. In a society which has at its disposal all the resources this ought to imply that patients should be well-informed regarding the numerous side effects of contraceptive drugs, the long term consequences of procedures performed on them, etc. But the history of family planning is fraught with instances where patients do not receive complete information regarding the side effects of contraceptives:

• —Side-effects of the Pill:Premature hypertension, Heart Attacks and Strokes, Embolism; Carcinogenic (breast, cervical, liver cancer); leg cramps, nausea, infertility, bloatedness.
• The pill and the IUD are abortifacient;
• The condom has a high failure rate in preventing pregnancy, STD and HIV AIDS
• Tubal ligation: high risk for ectopic pregnancy
• Vasectomy: auto-immune response disorders
  

In some cases patients are even made to undergo, without their knowledge, interventions that mutilate them—for example surgical sterilization—and which are often irreversible.

Informed consent is a principle of medical ethics. The dignity of the patient implies a right to decide autonomously whether to accept or reject what is done to him both as to diagnosis and treatment. “Informed consent” consists is explaining to an alert and mentally competent patient the nature of the illness, the relation between its effects and the risks and benefits of the recommended procedures in order to obtain the patient’s approval or rejection of those procedures.

• The presentation of information should be understandable rather than cursory.
  
• The patient’s cooperation should be obtained without coercion and without the doctor taking advantage of his scientific prestige.
  
• The doctor should be attentive to the patient’s attitude (if she is well-reasoned, compatible with the principles of his life, that the decision is voluntary and free, not based on ignorance and that the patient is mentally competent to make the decision.

What is Gender and Sex?

Sex refers to nature and implies two possibilities—man and women; gender comes from the field of linguistics and includes three varieties—masculine, feminine and neuter. According to this radical gender feminist view masculinity and feminity are not determined by sex but by culture, a product of socially constructed roles and stereotypes that each society assigns to the sexes. This view capitalizes on the fact that in the past exaggerations led to discriminations and injustices for many women. Women were considered inferior and excluded from public decision, higher education and economic opportunities.

Breaking away from the natural concept of masculinity and femininity radical feminists assert the existence of four, five or six genders: male heterosexuals, female heterosexuals, homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality and trans-gendered. Any sexuality is permissible; heterosexuality would just be one of the possible sexual practices—its procreative role does not make it preferable. To achieve universal acceptance of these ideas the strategy is to achieve gradual cultural change through the ”deconstruction” of society beginning with the family and the education of children. Ambiguous language is used ot make new ethical presuppositions seem reasonable.

Experts tell us in the human person sex and gender—the biological principle and the cultural expression are not identical. This is particularly clear when looking at the three aspects of the process by which they are normally and harmoniously woven

together.

• “Biological sex” is the bodily aspect of the human person determined at the moment of fertilization by the XX chromosomes in the female and the XY chromosomes in the male. Medical science shows how different each cell of the female body is from each cell of the male body, including structural and functional differences between the male and female brain.

• “Psychological sex” refers to the human psychic experiences as man and woman—consisting in the consciousness of belonging to a determined sex. This is profoundly affected by education and environment.

• “Sociological sex” is the sex assigned to a person from the moment of birth. It is expressed as it is perceived in the surrounding persons. It signifies a specific way of acting of a man or a woman. It refers to functions, roles and stereotypes which are assigned in each society to diverse groups of persons.

These three aspects are not isolated from each other. They must be integrated into a wider process in the formation of one’s own identity. Persons progressively acquires, during infancy and adolescence, a consciousness of “being oneself”. They discover their sexual identity and in it each time more profoundly the sexual dimension of their own being. Coming to realize bio-psychological factors of one’s own sex and the difference regarding the other sex, they gradually acquire a gender identity and discover the psycho-social and cultural factors of the role that men and women have it society.

Intersexual states are anomalies with various clinical characteristics that tend to occur at a very early embryonic stage of human development. They are defined by a contradiction of one or more of the criteria of sexual definition. Transexual persons have a pathology in some of the links of the biological chain leading to sexual differentiation. They should not be used as propaganda to obtain the “deconstruction” of the foundations of the family and society. They deserve respect and appropriate medical treatment.

What is Gender Equality?

Capitalizing on the discrimination and exclusion of women from public decision making and from access to education radical feminists aim at gender equality—the elimination of the differences between male and female. Since they claim that gender is merely a social construct they attribute the discrimination against women to the physical difference between male and female. This is what makes reproductive health and full access to contraceptives and abortion a very important in the feminist agenda.

Since the human person is either man or woman “in the unity of body and soul”, masculinity and femininity extends to all areas of his/her being: from the profound significance of the physical differences of man and woman and their influence in corporeal love, to the psychic differences between both and their different ways of manifesting their relationship with God. It is not possible to determine with scientific exactness what is typically masculine or typically feminine. But men and women experience the world in different ways, carry out their tasks differently, sit down, plan and react differently, and each of the latter has a solid foundation in the biological constitution of both man and woman. Men and women have the same human nature, but theyhave it in different ways. In a certain sense they complement each other; they mutually need each other to fully develop their humanity. In the husband-wife relationship, the “submission” is not unilateral, but reciprocal.

It is a biological fact that only a woman can be a mother and only a man can be a father though to be a woman or a man does not consist solely in being mother or father. . God did not create men and women so that we can engender new human beings. Man created in the image and likeness of God, is capable of engendering so as to express and perpetuate that divine image reflected in his sexual condition.

What is Gender Equity?

Radical feminist make an issue out of the fact that women have been excluded from economic life and advocate women empowerment.

It is evident that many injustices against women have existed historically and some continue to exist in the world. This long list of different kinds of discrimination has no biological foundation, but rather cultural roots, and these must be eradicated. Social functions cannot be considered as irremediably united to genetics or biology. It is desirable that women assume new roles that are in harmony with their dignity. We have to reject the fixed biological notion that all roles and relationships between both sexes are fixed in one static model. The incorporation of women in the labor market is an advance that certainly creates new challenges for both sexes.

The term gender correctly describes the cultural aspects that surround the construction of functions of men and women in society. Yet not all of these functions are things that are biologically constructed. Some have larger biological roots. There one can appreciate the presence of a certain diversity of roles is in no way bad for women, since that diversity is an expression of what is specifically masculine or feminine. More than a privilege or a discrimination sex is always an opportunity for one’s personal development. Hence we should all aim to promote the welfare of women not only outside the home but within it as well. While it is certain that women are not only wives and mothers, many are or want to be, so one must create the possiblities for them to achieve these desires in a dignified manner. Women who have an active external professional life cannot be the sole model, the only ideal for feminine independence.

---

[1] “Lexicon, Ambiguous and debatable terms regarding family life and ethical questions” published by the Pontifical Council of the Family in Italian. The English version was published by Human Life International in 2006.

Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development Act of 2008

Dear Everyone,

On Tuesday, September 9, the Committee on Rules decided to send to the plenary for floor debate, the controversial House Bill 5043 or the "Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development Act of 2008". There are 30 members in the Committee on Rules.

The representatives for life and family in the Rules Committee who argued against sending the bill to the Floor, according to a reliable source, were:

1. Congressman Raul del Mar of Cebu
2. Congressman Roilo Golez of Paranaque
3. Congressman Rufus Rodriguez of Cagayan de Oro
4. Congressman Rene Velarde of Buhay Partylist
5. Congressman Amado Bagatsing of Manila
6. Congressman Roman Romulo of Pasig City
7. Congressman Adam Relson L. Jala of Bohol

Representatives for reproductive health who supported sending it to the Floor were the following:

1. Majority Leader Arthur Defensor of Iloilo
2. Deputy Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II of Mandaluyong
3. Deputy Speaker Amelita Villarosa of Occ. Mindoro
4. Minority Leader Ronaldo Zamora of San Juan
6. Congressman Satur Ocampo of Bayan Muna
7. Congresswoman Janette Garin of Iloilo
8. Congressman Sonny Angara of Aurora
9. Congresswoman Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel of Akbayan
10. Congresswoman Liza Largoza-Maza of Gabriela Partylist

Debates could begin from Monday next week. This means every Congressman on our side will have to work harder to persuade the other congressmen to withdraw support for the bill, and ultimately kill it on the floor. The most persuasive and telling interpellations during the debate would be one way of bringing its supporters over to our side.

This also means we all have to work harder to convince each and every Congressman in our respective territories to come over to our side.

The bill is now denominated as House Bill 5043, under Joint Committee Report 1156. There are 94 signatures (including double signatures on account of membership in two committees by signatories) in the Committee Report, as against the combined membership of 209 for the three committees. Signing the Report may not necessarily signify support for the bill. However, it will be necessary to talk to every signatory, to confirm their opposition if they are opposed, and to wean them away from the bill, if they are in support.

These are the signatories:

For Committee on Health: (65 Members in this Committee)

1. Congressman Arthur Pingoy of South Cotabato

2. Cong. Reynaldo Uy of Western Samar

3. Cong. Ferjenel Biron of Iloilo

4. Cong. Carlo Oliver Diasnes of Batanes

5. Cong. Edcel Lagman of Albay

6. Cong. Del De Guzman of Marikina

7. Cong. Antonio Roxas of Pasay City

8. Cong. Philip Pichay of Surigao del Sur

9. Cong. Sharee Ann Tan of Western Samar

10. Cong. Jose Carlos Lacson of Negros Occidental

11. Cong. Lorna Silverio of Bulacan

12. Cong. Nerissa Soon-Ruiz of Cebu

13. Cong. Zenaida Angping of Manila

14. Cong. Bernardo Pinol of North Cotabato

15. Cong. Pangalian Balindong of Lanao del Sur

16. Cong. Victoria Sy-Alvarado of Bulacan

17. Cong. Guillermo Cua of Coop-Natco PL

18. Cong. Mark Llandro Mendoza of Batangas

19. Cong. Marc Cagas of Davao del Sur

20. Cong. Henry Duenas of Taguig

21. Cong. Joseph Gilbert Violago of Nueva Ecija (with reservation)

22. Cong. Glenda Ecleo of Dinagat

23. Cong Antonio Diaz of Zambales

24. Cong Arturo Robes of San Jose del Monte

25. Cong. Judy Syjuco of Iloilo

26. Cong. Angelito Gatlabayan of Antipolo

27. Cong. Francisco Matugas of Surigao del Norte

28. Cong. Czarina Umali of Nueva Ecija

29. Cong. Rachel Arenas of Pangasinan

30. Cong. Ben Hur Salimbangon of Cebu

31. Cong. Liza Maza of Gabriela

32. Cong. Danilo Ramon Fernandez of Laguna

33. Cong. Risa Hontiveros-Baracque l of Akbayan

For Committee on Population & Family Relations: (25 Members in this Committee)

1. Cong. Reynaldo Uy of Western Samar

2. Cong. Raul Gonzales of Iloilo

3. Cong. Felix Alfelor of Camarines Sur

4. Cong Mauricio Domogan of Baguio

5. Cong. Elpidio Barzaga of Cavite

6. Cong. Rufino Biazon of Muntinlupa (with reservation on Secs. 17,18 and 22)

7. Cong. Leonila V. Chavez of Butil Partylist

8. Cong. Eduardo Joson of Nueva Ecija

9. Cong. Datu Pax Mangundadatu of Sultan Kudarat

10. Cong. Florencio Garay of Surigao del Sur

11. Cong. Salvador Escudero of Sorsogon

12. Cong. Abigail Binay of Makati

13. Cong. Riza Hontiveros-Baraquel

14. 14. Cong. Edcel Lagman

For Committee on Appropriations: (120 members in the Committee)

1. Cong. Edcel Lagman of Albay
2. Cong. Junie Cua of Quirino
3. Cong. Rufino Biazon of Muntinlupa
4. Cong. Reynaldo Uy of Western Samar
5. Cong. Emil Ong of Northern Samar
6. Cong. Guillermo Cua of Coop-Natco PL
7. Cong. Nur Jaafar of Tawi-Tawi
8. Cong. Faustino Dy of Isabela
9. Cong. Trinidad Apostol of Leyte
10. Cong. Orlando Fua of Siquijor
11. Cong. Roque Ablan of Ilocos Norte

12. Cong. Victor A. Agbayani of Pangasinan

13. Cong. Ignacio Arroyo of Negros Occidental

14. Cong. Franklin Bautista of Davao del Sur

15. Cong. Solomon Chungalao of Ifugao

16. Cong. Nelson Dayanghirang of Davao Oriental

17. Cong. Abdullah Dimaporo of Lanao del Norte

18. Cong. Antonio Alvarez of Palawan

19. Cong. Jose Aquino of Agusan del Norte

20. Cong. Elpidio Barzaga of Cavite

21. Cong. Nanette Castelo Daza of Quezon City

22. Cong. Matias Defensor of Quezon City

23. Cong. Del de Guzman of Marikina City

24. Cong. Al Francis Bichara of Albay

25. Cong. Henry Dueñas of Taguig

26. Cong. Thomas Dumpit of La Union

27. Cong. Pablo John Garcia of Cebu

28. Cong. Rosendo Labadlabad of Zamboanga del Norte

29. Cong. Jeci Lapus of Tarlac

30. Cong. Faysah Dumarpa of Lanao del sur

31. Cong. Rex Gatchalian of Valenzuela

32. Cong. Arnulfo Go of Sultan Kudarat

33. Cong. Antonio Kho of Masbate

34. Cong. Reno Lim of Albay

35. Cong. Pedro Pancho of Bulacan

36. Cong. Arthur Pingoy of South Cotabato

37. Cong. Monica Prieto-Teodoro of Tarlac

38. Cong. Pedro Romualdo of Camiguin

39. Cong. Alvin Sandoval of Malabon-Navotas

40. Cong. Jose Solis of Sorsogon

41. Cong. Raul Gonzales of Iloilo

42. Cong. Michael John Duavit

43. Cong. Zenaida Angping of Manila

44. Cong. Jose Carlos Lacson of Negros Occidental

45. Cong. Jose Ma. Zubiri of Bukidnon

46. Cong. Victor Francisco Ortega of La Union

47. Cong. Monico Puentevella

48. Cong Arturo Robes of San Jose del Monte

49. Cong. Antonio Roxas of Pasay City

50. Cong. Lorenzo Tañada III

51. Cong. Niel Tupas, Jr. of Iloilo

52. Cong. Jose Yap of Tarlac

53. Cong Mauricio Domogan of Baguio

Our objective is clear. We should make sure that when the vote is taken on second reading, we would have mustered enough votes to defeat it. This means a majority of all the 238 members of the House of Representatives, who will be present during the voting, or at least a majority of those who will be present during the voting. This needs a lot of hard work within the next week, but let us all be assured that we are doing this with God’s help.

Let it also be known to all and sundry that Cong. Mariano Piamonte of A-Teacher Partylist has declared himself to be completely pro-life and that he will not support the RH bill. A lot more Congressmen have signified their support for life and family after their Cardinal/Arch/Bishops and lay groups have appealed to them to support Life and the Filipino family. Let us continue to work hard, sacrifice and pray that more may be converted in the House and the Senate. Please take note that we do need an absolute majority in both Houses of Congress. And that there is not much time.

So lets all move!

Please text feedback on results of your efforts to Fenny Tatad at 09177933669 or call landlines 02 9283627 or 02 9296596. Would appreciate updates daily to allow us to keep track of the number of Congressmen on our side.

Thank you very much and God bless! And please pass this email to all concerned.

Ma. Fenny C. Tatad
Executive Director, Bishops-Legislators Caucus of the Philippines
44 Ifugao St., La Vista, Quezon City 1108 Philippines
Tel. Nos. +6329296596 / +6329283627
Fax No. +6329299449 Mobile: +639177933669
fennytatad@yahoo. com