Buy me a new car Mr. President

His Excellency Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III
President
Republic of the Philippines


Dear President Aquino,

I want you to give me a new car for my birthday. Preferably a 4 x 4 SUV bought from government monies meant for health assistance to the poor.

May I remind you that Bishop Juan de Dios Pueblos was given government money by former Pres. Arroyo so that he could buy himself a Montero for his birthday. As the Bishop's request letter managed to get him the said bonanza, I will cite the same justifications for my request. But my justifications, while similar, will be better.

I celebrated my last birthday like the good Bishop. I carefully discerned not to throw a party and “spent the day with and for myself”. But unlike the Bishop who spent the day also “with God” I spent some of the day with President Emerlinda Roman who was given a testimonial on her last day as UP President. I was running for UP Diliman Chancellor at that time, so I thought it best to be seen at said event. I therefore missed watching the Askals game with my family. I did not take my one-day birthday leave. With all due respect to former UP President Roman, surely the Bishop had a more pleasant day than I did. I deserve a luxury vehicle more, for having renounced more pleasures on my birthday than he did. I was a model of Christian asceticism and saintly sacrifice!

Unlike Bishop Pueblos who was chosen by the former President Arroyo as “Peace Champion of Caraga”, I was not chosen as UP Diliman Chancellor. However, I have been reappointed as the current Director of the UP Center for Women's Studies. I also have a few awards to my name, but I am so filled with Christian humility that I won't mention them.

The point is, like the good Bishop (and all those other Bishops who also bought nice SUVs or vans using government charity money), I DO GOOD WORKS! I do, I do. Swear and cross my heart. And in the words of said Bishop, “I know I could do more”.

Quoting Bishop Pueblos further, “It is in this view that I am asking a favor from your Excellency. At present, I really need a brand-new car, possibly a 4 x 4, which I can use to reach the far-flung areas... I hope you will never fail to give a brand new car which would serve as your birthday gift to me. For your information, I have with me a 7-year-old car which is not anymore in good running condition. Therefore, this needs to be replaced very soon.”

Your Excellency, my official vehicle is an early 1990s Toyota Fx and I am terribly ashamed of it at this point. It is older than 7 years old. When it was 7 years old I envied the Director who was riding around in it. It really needs to be replaced because when I use it to transport relief goods, the poor and displaced tend to hand me money thinking I am poorer than them.

Your Excellency, us poor Professors from UP, the servants of the Filipino youth, cry out in our desperation for 4 wheel drive SUVs. Please don't help the CBCP anymore. Help your own. It is high time government money be spent for the Colleges of UP rather than the College of Cardinals.

Sincerely yours,
Sylvia Estrada Claudio, MD, PhD
Professor of Women and Development Studies
Director, Center for Women's Studies
University of the Philippines

PS Please make out the check to: UP Center for Women's Studies c/o Sylvia Estrada Claudio, MD, PhD. I prefer that the check be made out in my name complete with all the post-nominal letters just like the one they made for Bishop Pueblos. Please note I have more letters after my name. This proves I am a worthy doer of good works. In any case, I promise I will tell the accountants about the check and the purchase. Trust me on this, I do good works.

P.P.S Don't worry, if it blows up in our face, I will promise to return the vehicle, all the while acting as if I still had the high moral ground. After all, I do good works.


cc: Margarita P. Juico
Chairperson
PCSO

The Psychology of Moral Certainty

It has happened again. Someone begins a debate with me on my statements on the reproductive health bill, and then just drops me.

A young woman, a graduate of the university where I teach though never my student, tweets me. She is reacting to my proposition made during one of the televised debates that those who oppose the passage of the bill are seeking to impose one set of moral beliefs on the rest of the country.

The exchange below happens over a couple of days. I reproduce it below, edited slightly to make reading easier.

She: "Respect for diversity and opinion" of @seclaudio is standard relativist statement http://bit.ly/lanrdH =no single truth

Me: Not relativism but the Second Vatican Council on ecumenism and religious freedom http://tinyurl.com/6n68j If I am wrong in assuming you are Catholic, I can send you literature from other religious traditions.

She: Nowhere in Vatican doc says "respect for diversity of opinion". Opinion is not truth.

Me: Many times. section 2 para 3, whole of sec 4 latter part sec 7, etc. Demand for exact wording is bad argument. Tweets can be harsh. Do not mean to be disrespectful or hurtful but do think your demand for exact wording unfair. I am only asking for fairness. Long encyclopedia section accusing me of relativism doesn't say those words either.

She: Ma'm I didn't mean to be harsh & I wasn't looking for exact http://wording.But you're misreading a Vatican doc. Your camp's been asking for respect for opinion. We respect your opinion,your freedom, no coercion http://there.But ours is to http://truth. And RH Bill does not promote the truth about man.
CBCP only promotes what for Catholic teaching is right in fighting against this bill. If you're Catholic I suggest you try to study their matter closely.

Me: you can't just say I misread without explaining, that you agree with my call for respect while accusing me of relativism. As to truths, the Vatican statement is that each one may have his or her own perception of truth and we need to talk our truths and not claim that only one of us has commitment to the truth. sorry dear colleague, but your last few arguments seem to me like argumentation that tends to "lay down the law" to me, rather than meet me in good faith. this lessens the room for dialogue when you argue like this.

I have waited 2 weeks since my last tweet. I guess I will no longer get a reply.

Being a person whose formative years happened before the internet, I asked my 15 year old what this might mean. Have I offended? Am I being an old fuddy-duddy? In the good old days when we wrote snail mail, we broke off correspondences with proper goodbyes---even if “proper” could go like this:

“Dear John: I can no longer write you love letters. I heard you have taken Don into your bed. I am not homophobic, but you never said you were bisexual. The diamond engagement ring will reach you by courier.”

My 15-year-old says something like, “ask her if she needs a a mechanic. Looks like she got stopped in her tracks.”

Another young one says to me, “she got owned.”

For these young ones, failure to answer implies defeat. But I have no desire to treat twitter exchanges as contests.

As a teacher, a nerd and a psychologist, I feel only frustration and concern. Yet another person who thinks that, “because my God (or my Marx) says so,” is an acceptable form of engagement in democratic and secular society.

I am treading carefully here. Not all Marxists or religious people resort to this argument. Not everyone who has a religious or political belief finds it necessary to cling to the idea that his or her belief is the right one, regardless. I am not also certain that the young woman who had an exchange with me is one of these. I wish she kept engaging me, perhaps I could have known for sure.

But I am certain that the psychology of the ideologue permeates the views of the religious right that has gone all-out against the RH bill. This is also why, I get hate mail and hate tweets after each televised debate. The comments can be quite mean, making me wonder what it is that I have said, no matter how scandalous, would make them feel so threatened that they would lash out with such anger.

I have been challenged often too about my agnosticism. Even the nicest ones seem to think that being uncertain is some kind of a defect. But there is to me, a spiritual gain to be had by accepting ambivalence, ambiguity and uncertainty. For one thing, that is how things are. The truth about what those who believe in a God call “creation” is that it is ever-changing, immense and un-graspable.

Perhaps there is a Truth (yes, with a capital T) out there. But it is not something, little-old-me can ascertain. I remain humble about the presence and laws of what a horoscope writer I follow calls, “the Divine wow”. God is not my FB friend. I ask Her often enough if She is out there and She does not answer. When I die I may dissolve and lose the consciousness that will say that the atheists are correct . If I am wrong and I awake---ooohlala---I will have more questions than a curious 5-year-old.

But for now, I have no need for grand answers in order to lead a harmless, happy and hopefully meaningful life. It is a comfort to me that I do not need ultimate guarantees. I am not a high maintenance child of the universe. I have a brain and enough energy to keep on figuring things out as the need arises. I plod along and get by not having yet committed things like abuse, theft or murder.

On really good days, the idea that no one can know for sure when human life begins really makes me ecstatic.

The psychology of moral certainty is the psychology of fear and/or laziness. Maybe when they were growing up, the parents who nurtured those who are morally-certain-Dr. Claudio-is-wrong-on-RH (and therefore we will never yield her a point, besides she is a lackey of the big pharmaceuticals and the imperialist population controllers) laid down the law about what to do, what is right and what is wrong. That can be comforting when one is little.

Simple and unquestionable rules can be comforting while parents can control the external environment against the views of those who disagree or the harm brought by those who are mean or criminal. Perhaps the very young ones need not be asked for the courage to face the immense unknowable.

But those of us who are hoping to live happy lives in a just society must find it in us to face our limitations. Parents must change the parameters of what they teach as a child matures morally and intellectually. Children must be taught not to be afraid of heterogeniety, diversity and uncertainty. They cannot be afraid of difference. Fundamental differences.

If we are afraid to be unsure, to accept that perhaps we and our family, religion, tribe, institutions, science, political party can be wrong, then we will be unable to accept when we are defeated on twitter or we will lash out in anger against people we only see on television.

And I am frightened indeed by the man who is so angry at me because of what I have said on television that he takes the time to tweet me venom. My heart goes out the woman who cannot find the grace to end a debate she started with some decorum.

Perhaps someday, we will raise all our children with enough moral courage so that they can face profound uncertainty with good cheer. At least we can rejoice that there are enough brave and moral people out there such that the scientific surveys show that the RH bill has wide support.

Message on the UP Diliman Chancellorship

March 3, 2011


Dear all,



First of all my deepest gratitude to all of you.



Many of you know that winning was only one of my goals for accepting the nomination. So please do not be saddened by the result because I/we have achieved other outcomes. This is why I have been saying that I am happy nonetheless. (And I am not just trying to keep a stiff upper lip.)



Most importantly, so many of you have come out in support. I am happy at the nature of this support because I do not think it was about patronage or personality but about common visions and principles. It is heartwarming that dear friends would go to bat for me, but also heartwarming that acquaintances and even people I did not know helped out.



I also see that many who did not support my bid are of the same principles. They just felt the other candidates more worthy. Even to these people, I am grateful.



My world is so much larger at the end of this process.



I hope that your worlds are also larger now. For a few weeks I was one of the foci of this larger community that you also belong to, and that has been a real joy and honor.



I am happy to say that I am now back to my other concerns. In a week or two I may be able to talk to you about a new initiative on pushing academic freedom. In the meantime, please do not forget our big March 8 rally for the reproductive health bill. Please go to the Likhaan website for final details.



As for UP, let us continue to be involved in its politics. Many of you believe as I do that UP's situation hinders or facilitates our goals for social justice.



While some of you are understandably disappointed about the processes and the outcome, I am convinced UP will continue to do what it has always done---survive because of (and despite) its leaders.



I congratulate Dr. Caesar Saloma and pledge my cooperation to him as the new Chancellor of UP Diliman.



Health Care For All Filipinos

Sylvia Estrada Claudio


If I were the President, conditional cash transfers or CCT's would not be my flagship program. I would instead work on universal health care.

I know, I know. I am not the President. I am also not so arrogant as to presume to give Pnoy unsolicited advise or bad-mouth Sec. Dinky's thing. This is not about the pros and cons of the CCT, a subject that deserves it own Yellow Pad column.

But universal health care (UHC) is one of my hobby horses. It has been on my mind for the past year for several reasons, one of which is that Dr. Alberto Romualdez and a group of colleagues from UP Manila, put together a task force for the Centennial Lecture Series of the University of the Philippines and came up with a blueprint for UHC. The task force's output is exciting because it is straightforward in its proposal that we can achieve health care for all in a relatively short period of time.

According to the NSCB, our country's total health expenditure reached P180.8 billion in 2005
Using this figure the task force proposes that around 80 to 120 B pesos would be needed to achieve health care for all. The task force also proposes several funding mechanisms such as quantum increases in tax-based government spending, national government-tax increases, reallocations, local government-mandatory increases in proportion spent on health and significant increases in public health insurance support value for basic services. AER head honcho Men Sta. Ana, who I asked late last year, also thinks that sin tax increases and foreign borrowings could be tapped as well. It tickles my iconoclastic soul that activists like us would actually approve of foreign debt. But, many of us have always argued that debt that truly benefits the people would not be bad debt.

Thailand is an excellent source of inspiration. It's total health expenditures for the year 2007 are slightly less than the Philippines. Yet it has achieved universal health care. WHO statistics show that the Thai government provided for 73% of all health expenditures while the Philippine government provided only 35%. Simply put, Filipinos are paying for their own health care out of their own pockets. Naturally, the health statistics for Thailand are so much better.

Thailand achieved its universal health coverage over a period of years through a multi-pronged approach that involved, among other things, local-level initiatives.

So, I nagged another good friend, Dr. Dennis Batangan to work out a pilot program for UP Diliman. It is my dream to start piloting for universal coverage, so I thought this should happen in the place where I work.

What Dr. Batangan and I propose is to start a demand-driven and insurance linked health benefits project for UP Diliman. It begins simply as an information management system and health insurance project intended to expand the access of the UP Diliman Community to available health benefits. It aims to consolidate available information on health-related benefits intended for various sectors of the UP Diliman community and expand access to these benefits through demand-driven mechanisms and social health insurance schemes.

This is a first step towards ensuring equity in health benefits for all sectors of the UP Diliman community. It will also serve as a pilot effort towards universal health care coverage.

The project will be implemented in four phases namely: 1) a policy engagement phase. to ensure the commitment and support of the highest level of authority in the UP Diliman Community, the Board of Regents and the Barangay UP Campus officials; 2) a data integration phase that includes the designing of the data framework and capture forms to consolidate the available health benefits and insurance information for employees, students and community residents participating in the project. The data framework will also attempt to capture current demand for health services for the stakeholders concerned as well as health expenditures per capita and for UP Diliman as a whole; 3) a network expansion phase that involves the development of a directory for and organizing into a network of the health service providers the psychosocial , biomedical and alternative health service providers in the community. The information gathered from the network will be made available to the UP community through an internet portal and/or SMS services and; 4) a benefits convergence and development phase where institutions and organizations offering health related benefits will be guided on the process of converging or integrating their benefits for same beneficiaries and improving efficiency in the provision of these benefits. At the same time, new benefit packages for health related or psychosocial services will be developed or expanded for the benefit of the community.

The goal of the project for UP Diliman employees, students and community members have easy access to consolidated information on health related benefits they can avail of in times of need. In the process, the beneficiaries will also be provided inputs on how to expand the health benefits they are currently receiving through social health insurance schemes and development of other demand side benefits.

So, if I promise, promise, promise to cooperate with Pnoy's CCTs, can he spare me a bit of change to begin piloting universal health care in UP Diliman?

(Sylvia Estrada Claudio is a doctor of medicine and a PhD in psychology. When she is not attempting political trade-offs for her hobby horses, she teaches Women and Development Studies at the University of the Philippines in Diliman. She is a fellow of AER.)

UP Will Show You How

(Statement of the Director of the UP Center for Women's Studies, on the plagiarism issue against Prof. Marvic Leonen, Dean UP College of Law)

December 9, 2010

News reports dated December 8, 2010 announced the offer of resignation of Dean Marvic Leonen of the UP College of Law on his admission that he had inadvertently left out two footnotes that contain the source attributions in his 2004 article titled "Weaving Worldviews: Implications of Constitutional Challenges to the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997."

"I had made that mistake. It's an honest mistake but one I should acknowledge, apologize for, and basically meet the penalty. And I thought that a huge part of it would be to offer to resign the deanship," Leonen is reported to have said.

In so doing, Dean Leonen has taken the first step towards showing our people what integrity means for lawyers, whether as professors of law or as officers of the court. In so doing, Dean Leonen honors his commitment to the restoration of the integrity of the law profession and the Philippine courts which is the subject of a statement of the faculty of the UP College of Law (UPCL) on the allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation in the Supreme Court.

Many sectors of the UP Community, including the UP Center for Women's Studies, supported the statement of the UPCL on that matter. I call on our leadership and my colleagues to stand fast in our support and to build on Dean Leonen's example. Let us show our people and the Supreme Court how to honorably handle a case of alleged wrongdoing on the part of one of our colleagues.

First, let us look clearly at the facts. One fact that is important in both cases is the opinion of the person or persons who were plagiarized. In the case of Dean Leonen, Prof. Owen Lynch has already stated that he does not feel that he was the victim of intellectual dishonesty. This is in marked contrast to the statements of those authors plagiarized by in the Vinuya v Executve Secretary decision.

This makes Dean Leonen's offer to resign an act of integrity. That he does not equivocate about admitting his plagiarism despite it being an “honest mistake,” makes it even more laudable. This contrasts sharply with the actions of Justice del Castillo who ignored calls for his resignation and the finding of the Supreme Court that “malicious intent” is required in plagiarism.

Teachers know that there are degrees and degrees of plagiarism and misrepresentation. Without excusing Dean Leonen who does not himself seek to be coddled by colleagues, it is my belief that there is a marked difference between the level of the misrepresentation in “Vinuya v. Executive Secretary” and in “Weaving Worldviews.”

I suggest to the UP leadership that if it be necessary, any body formed to judge the issue of Dean Leonen's plagiarism, be composed of peers who have no personal interests in seeing him absolved or punished.

Dean Leonen has shown us that public accountability does not lie in not making mistakes, but in owning up to them and being ready to face the consequences. Those of us in UP who have supported the faculty of the College of Law in their efforts to restore integrity to government service should take this as an opportunity to show our people that collegiality and compassion are never incompatible with the demands of justice.

If it should be shown that those who revealed this “new” case of plagiarism are motivated by reasons other than truth-telling, then they have made a serious error in judgment. With his offer to resign, Dean Leonen has proven, yet again, his moral capacity to lead the College of Law faculty.

If those who revealed the plagiarism are doing it to cover up their own errors, they have miscalculated. As it has in the past, as it will continue to do now and in the future, UP and its College of Law will show our people how institutions can behave with integrity.

Signed: Sylvia Estrada Claudio
Director

Science and Philosophy Lessons for the Pro-Birth (who call themselves Pro-Life)

Several of my friends do not particularly like discussing the question of “when life begins”. I refer to this debate in relation to the reproductive health bills pending in the Philippine legislature. These friends would include non-Filipino veterans of abortion rights struggles in their own countries.

My friends, some of whom are philosophers by training, know that the “where life begins” question is really unresolvable. The philosophically sophisticated understand that a question like that is the stuff that has driven and will drive philosophy through the millenia. It is similar to other questions like, “does matter exist?”. The question is unresolvable. I am aware that the philosophy of natural science, (I love science!) merely assumes this without attempting proof: “matter exists”. I am also aware that the Buddha (love the Buddha) takes a different view: “all is illusion”. You have got to love philosophy for tackling the eternal questions and the calm philosphers bring to facing immense uncertainties.

Of course, the reproductive health bills do not change the punitive Philippine laws on abortion. So this “when life begins” debate should not be pertinent. But the pro-birth (I do not concede the term pro-life to them as my advocacy for the passage of RH bills is to save women's lives) opposition keeps insisting that contraceptives are abortifacient. They also insist that conception is equal to fertilization. According to the pro-birth people, contraceptives should be banned because the Philippine Constitution states as a matter of policy that the state, “shall equally protect the life of the mother and the unborn from the moment of conception”.

This argument alone is is more an example of the lack of scientific and philosophical training of those who espouse it. It is not an argument that should be dignified in the public debates. I know that certain advocates of this position are doctors, scientists and philosophers. But I have no fantasies about the guarantees that academic degrees confer. “Nil admirari”, my philosopher mother used to say. Admire no one. Certainly I am unhappy when people use their academic degrees to claim they are speaking the truth when they are not.

So let's see what science says and what logic demands. Science tells us that the argument that “contraceptives prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum” is an unsupportable generalization. I cannot go into the scientific literature for purposes of brevity, but many lay people know that the condom prevents fertilization. Looking at the literature, there is SOME evidence that some contraceptives MAY prevent implantation of the fertilized ovum as possibly ONE OF SEVERAL mechanisms for their contraceptive effects.

But even if we were to concede this rather flimsy basis for their claim that modern contraceptives prevent implantation, it is a misrepresentation to say that these are abortifacient. There is a wide-ranging consensus in the scientific community that pregnancy begins at implantation. An abortifacient, by definition, terminates pregnancy prematurely. Thus, none of the contraceptives are abortifacients.

When pro-birth advocates like Rep. Anthony Golez claim that contraceptives are abortifacient they should at the very least specify that this is a minority opinion. When Rep. Golez states, as he did in the last public hearing at the House of Representatives, that he is giving his opinion as a medical doctor, he borders on the unethical. I am a medical doctor too and I am ethically bound to tell the public and my patients what the majority of experts are thinking on the medications I recommend or discourage. This is especially true if my position is that of the minority.

The last misrepresentation in this argument is that “fertilization equals conception”. As I mentioned in my intervention at the last hearings in the RH bill, conception is not a medical term. Terms like fertilization and implantation are scientific terms. But whether we can tie this to the term “conception” and the larger question of “when life begins” is a whole other matter.

Indeed advances in embryology show us that fertilization is not a “moment” but is a process that takes some time. Thus, to equate fertilization to “the moment of conception” is something of a fudge.

Pro-birth advocates, like ex-Senator Francisco Tatad, also take the line that “moral natural law” is a universal truth that should guide our personal and collective decision-making on this debate. Their version of this philosophical argument says that it is inherent in all of us to recognize a God. Additionally, their version of natural law states that it is inherent in us to recognize that we do not kill another human being, herein defined to include the fertilized ovum. I have no argument against the presentation of this philosophy. What is problematic is that they present this as if it is the only philosophical tradition that is pertinent to moral decision-making. The truth is it is a philosophy that tends to be overvalued in Catholic schools and largely relegated to a minor discussion in the secular University of the Philippines. Again, the point here is the misrepresentation. For philosophers like Mr. Tatad one wonders whether he was not taught other frames in the pontifical University of Santo Tomas; he forgot what he was taught or; he has failed to stay current with the changes in his discipline.

I agree with my philosophically sophisticated friends that debates around when life begins are probably futile in the determination of social policy. Constitutions of a number liberal democratic states inculcate this wisdom by working on a definition of “personhood”. But I do feel duty-bound to help increase our people's scientific literacy and to help craft social policies that are enlightened by the advances of human knowledge.

Yet I shall end this with a salute also to the wisdom of my philosopher friends who insist that we weigh the correctness of a political and philosophical premise on the basis of its effects. I always wonder why the pro-birth are blind to the unequal effects of their insistence that life begins at fertilization. To insist on this premise is to tie yourself to a position that allows you to argue for the control of women's bodies for your political purposes. Meanwhile, men's bodies remain free.

And so, I have been proposing to friends to think of the implications of a premise that states, “life begins at sperm production”. I doubt whether the pro-life religious men, philosophers and scientists would like the restrictions on their bodies such a premise would imply.

Support for the RH Bill

Intervention of Dr. Sylvia Estrada Claudio Director, University of the Philippines Center for Women's Studies at the Second Deliberation of the House Committee of Population and Family Relations on HB 96, 101, 513 1160, 1520 and 3387. December 1, 2010.


Thank you Mr. Chair, your Honors.

I have a prepared statement today but let me respond to the questions posed to the medical doctors by Representatives Biazon and Golez on the issue of when life begins.

I note that the Chair called upon me because Rep. Biazon also asked who does not believe life begins at fertilization. I do not, for two reasons. The first reason is that as an agnostic I do not subscribe to the beliefs of the Catholic Church. In this regard I would like to remind everyone that the Constitutional provision on religious freedom protects not just the right to belief but also the right to non-belief. But I will leave the representative of the Filipino Freethinkers who is also here today to elaborate this point.

The second reason I do not believe that life begins at fertilization has to do with my expertise as a medical doctor. Rep. Golez states that as a medical practitioner, he believes life begins at fertilization. He cites among other things the banning of Levenorgestrel by the government as proof that other experts believe the same thing. He implies that obstetricians and gynecologists may not be the best resource as to whether drugs like Levenorgestrel and other contraceptives are abortifacient. According to Rep. Golez, it should be those experts, like geneticists and biochemists, who do not prescribe these substances or devices who should be consulted.

With all due respect, I will remind Rep. Golez that the government reveresed its ban on Levonorgestrel. I was one of those who petitioned for a reconsideration of the ban through one of the organizations I work with. An expert committee composed of both medical and legal luminaries decided unanimously that Levonorgestrel was not an abortifacient. To be accurate there was one dissenting opinion and it was that of Rep. Golez. But at that time we protested the inclusion of his opinion because he really was not a member of the panel. At that time, he was merely the person from the DOH assigned to facilitate the hearings and panel deliberations.

As a medical doctor also, I would urge everyone here not to overvalue our opinions and expertise. Doctors should also be more humble. The question of when life begins is not a matter to be left to doctors or other scientists alone. Pertinent to this discussion I would like to note that “conception” is not a medical term. The terms fertilization and implantation are medical terms and we can describe and explain these processes to lay people. Any scientific discussion requires the precise use of terms. The Philippine Obstetrics and Gynecological Society is correct when it states that the mainstream medical and scientific community agrees that pregnancy begins at implantation.

As many of you in this room know, this is at the very least, the 4th Congress where an RH bill has been proposed. Many of us here have faced each other on this issue before. I do recognize though that there are people here who are new to the issue and their voices must be heard.

But perhaps before we continue our debates we should congratulate ourselves. Because of the engaged citizenship that the proposed RH bills have evoked, we are on the brink of enacting a social policy that has been understood by our people and crafted with their input.

So all I ask of your honors is to trust our people who have indeed come to a decision. Today's headline of a leading newspaper reveals that a high level of support exists for the enactment of the proposed RH bills according to a non-commissioned survey conducted by a reliable polling organization. This verifies an earlier survey showing the same results except that the newest survey shows higher levels of support for the bill.

Contrary to the claims of those who would belittle the survey results, it also shows that our people are aware of the major provisions of the proposed bills.

As an advocate for women's rights, I too must listen to our people. Like the Catholic Church I am against any form of population control either as a framework for an RH law and certainly not as a goal for its implementation.

Like the Church I do not think that lowering the fertility rate has any direct effect on poverty levels at the macro level. I disagree with the Church because I think that having less children does mitigate the burden of poverty at the level of the family.

My involvement with the women's health movement began because I felt there was a need to protect women from the population control programs of the past. This is the reason why I, and many other feminists, participated in the international actions that led up to the 1994 Program of Action of the ICPD.

I would therefore caution both sides who use demographic arguments like population density and replacement numbers to argue for or against the bill. Women have been hurt on both sides of this argument. Some would have us not give birth and others would force us into pregnancy. These are both violations of women's rights. Speaking again as a practitioner, I would caution against the use of any drug, device or technology for considerations other than a woman's well-being.

My support for an RH bill has always been because I am heartbroken by the harm and death that the lack of services brings to women and their families. No woman should die because of the lack of emergency obstetric services or due to violence from her intimate partner. No family should be left motherless because of preventable deaths.

I see the surveys. The Filipino people like the proposed bills. They agree with arguments for reducing population numbers in order to ensure the delivery services and national development.

Your honors, I accept the reasoning and judgment of our people. I hope you will too. Please pass a consolidated and comprehensive reproductive health bill as soon as possible.

Thank you.


NB Upon reviewing the decision of the technical committee that convened to hear our petition to lift the ban on Levonorgestrel, I realized I was mistaken in claiming that the committee was unanimous in its decision. There was one dissenting opinion. Anthony Golez also gave a dissenting opinion but I still hold the opinion that he should not have done this and that he acted beyond the role assigned to him in doing so.