WYA statement on the Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines

World Youth Alliance Position Paper: House Bill No. 96,

the “Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2010”
 

The World Youth Alliance (“WYA”), a global coalition of young people promoting the
dignity of the human person, states the following position on House Bill No. 96, the
proposed “Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2010” (“RH bill”). 
We wish to contribute the voices of 1 million young people from over 160 countries to this
high profile debate on reproductive and maternal health, population, and integral
development of the human person.

So far as sound developmental policy and respect for human dignity are concerned,
the RH bill suffers from flaws that undermine its efforts to improve Philippine society.

We believe that the current version of the RH bill should not be passed for the
following reasons:

A Wrong Theory of Population and Development

The billʼs most serious flaw is its reliance on the false premise that a government-run
population management program is necessary for the Philippinesʼs economic and social
development. This unsupported assertion is contrary to sound developmental economics
and undermines the very reproductive rights the bill strives to support.

Tamping down population growth is the last thing the Philippines should be worrying
about right now, for several reasons.  First of all, the assumption that population
management is necessary or even beneficial to sustainable economic development is
simply wrong.  For at least two decades now, economists have known that there is no
correlation between population growth and economic development.[i]  Some countries
with large, growing populations are prosperous; others are not.  Conversely, some
countries with little to no population growth also do well; others do not.  Population is not
the issue.

Secondly, even if the Philippines wanted want to tamp down its population growth,
history shows that the sorts programs proposed by the RH bill are an ineffective way of
getting there.  Compare countries that instituted heavy-handed population control
programs in the 20th century with countries that had no such programs:  Fertility rates
declined in both groups of countries, and at similar rates.[ii]The most important factor in
determining a countryʼs fertility rate is its desired fertility rate, which explains 90% of actual
fertility.[iii]  Mere access to contraceptives, on the other hand, has only a 5% impact on
total fertility.[iv]Desired fertility is, in turn, linked to the background economic and
educational opportunities offered by society.[v]  When women have access to education,
when families know that children will be in school for the first quarter of their lives, and
when parents believe that every child will have the opportunity to prosper, then people
tend to make choices that result in smaller families.[vi]  When these conditions are not
present, families will be bigger, whether they have access to contraceptives or not.[vii] 
Economic development is a condition, not the result, of population stabilization.

Thirdly, it is short-sighted to think of declining population growth as a goal in of itself. 

Across Europe and Asia, countries that saw steep declines in fertility in the past generation
are now bracing themselves for the future consequences of an aging population, when a
large number of elderly can no longer be supported by the smaller and younger working
class.[viii]

Fourthly, worries about tamping down population are a wasted effort in the face of the
opportunities at hand.  Right now, the Philippines is in position to enjoy the sort of
“demographic dividend” that many of its Asian neighbors did in the late 20th century, when
falling fertility rates lead to a large work force with fewer old and young dependents to
support.[ix]  That demographic transition is already occurring naturally in the Philippines. 
To take advantage of it, though, the country needs to ensure that its rising generations
have access to the education, health, and opportunity necessary to prosper.               

Finally, the RH billʼs fixation on population management undermines the very human
rights it seeks to advance.  The government cannot, on the one hand, guarantee the
“universal basic human right to reproductive health” with its concomitant “right to make free
and informed decisions,” and on the other hand advocate a policy that tells parents—
especially women—what their choices should be. Such an approach is an unjustifiable
affront to the dignity and capacity of the poor.

The current RH bill is permeated with a wrong theory of population and development. 
Fixing the flaw would require extensive revisions.  Until those revisions take place, the bill
should not proceed any further.

Imposition on the Freedom of Conscience

The second major flaw in the RH bill is that it imposes upon the freedom of
conscience.  The right to act according to oneʼs moral, ethical, and religious beliefs is
recognized in both Philippine and international human rights law.[x]  The RH bill, however,
disregards that right in several key instances.

The bill fails to protect the conscience rights of healthcare providers, by requiring
them, upon penalty of imprisonment or fine, to assist patients in finding procedures that
are contrary to the providersʼ ethical convictions.  This “referral requirement” should be
eliminated.

The bill would also require every employer, no matter the size, to provide the full
range of reproductive health services to every employee, irrespective of the employerʼs
moral beliefs or the fiscal ability to do so.  This provision is both an impediment to
conscience and an anti-jobs measure because every worker in the Philippines is now more
expensive to hire or retain.  It should be eliminated.

Parents and educators are given no assurances that they can opt out of portions of
the RH billʼs new sexuality education curriculum if they find it contrary to how they believe
they ought to raise their children or teach their students.  The bill needs an opt-out
provision.

Finally, the billʼs criminalization of speech that “maliciously engages in

disinformation” (an undefined category) about the substance or even potential motives
behind the RH bill violates the constitutional right to free speech and expression.  The
provision should be eliminated in its entirety.

Inadequate Emphasis on Maternal and Child Health

The RH billʼs greatest strength is its bolstering of maternal and child healthcare,
especially its mandate to increase obstetric care and skilled birth attendants.  There is
probably no more important step the Philippines could take toward improving reproductive
health.  The UNFPA states that three-fourths (¾) of all maternal deaths could be averted
by the presence of skilled birth attendants.[xi]  By contrast, family planning is likely to
reduce maternal deaths only by one-third.[xii]

The RH billʼs current provisions for maternal care are important, but underdeveloped
in comparison with other parts of the bill.  We recommend expanding the Population
Commissionʼs (POPCOM) implementation mandate (Sec. 20) to include and emphasize
maternal health, including: overseeing the billʼs obstetric care quotas (Secs. 5 and 6),
improving the training of skilled birth attendants, and coordinating the deployment of
skilled birth attendants.

Conclusion

The current version of the RH bill is a self-conflicted document.  Until the bill can be
modified to address problems identified above—a faulty economic basis, violations of the
freedom of conscience, and an under-emphasis on protecting unborn life and improving
access to obstetric care—it should not advance any further in the Congress.  The
Philippines needs a better bill.

If you have questions or comments please contact the WYAAP office at

asiapacific@wya.net or our Director of Advocacy at becky@wya.net. 
Watch Renelyn Tan, Regional Director of WYA Asia Pacific, delivering a speech on
WYA's stand regarding RH Bill in the Philippine Congress.
Watch Video here.

[i] David E. Bloom, David Canning, JaypeeSevilla, “The Demographic Dividend: A New
Perspective on the Economic Consequences of Population Change,” RAND Corportation,
2003, p. 17.

[ii] Compare the decline in children per woman between 1950 and 2000 in high population
control countries like India (5.91 to 3.11), Indonesia (5.49 to 2.38), Bangladesh (6.7 to
3.22) and Pakistan (6.6 to 3.99) with countries without extensive population campaigns:
Brazil (6.15 to 2.35), Turkey (6.9 to 2.23), Argentina (3.15 to 2.35) and Algeria (7.28 to
2.53).  Data from the United Nations Population Division.  Cited in Matthew Connelly, Fatal
Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population, Cambridge: Belknap Press,
2008, p. 374.

[iii]Lant H. Pritchett, “Desired Fertility and the Impact of Population Policies, “Population
and Development Reivew 20 (1994), pp. 1-55.

[iv]Id.

[v] Connelly, pp. 374-75.

[vi] Jacqueline Kasun, The War Against Population: the Economics and Ideology of World
Population Control, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999, pp. 78-86.

[vii]Id.

[viii]Joaquin Alumnina, Commissioner of the European Union, Closing Address to the

Second European Demography

Forum, November 25th, 2008 (“The economic impact of ageing will make it more difficult to
finance our Social Model and to sustain it for future generations… impact of ageing in the
EU will, from 2040 onwards, almost the halve the average growth rate of about 2 ½% in
recent years”); European Demographic Report 2007, Executive Summary, page 6
(“Demographic change will gradually limit the scope for future employment growth”), 7
(“Projections show that, as employment decreases and productivity becomes the only
source of future economic

growth, the annual average potential GDP growth rate in the EU-25 will decline from 2.4
per cent in the period

2004-2010 to only 1.2 per cent in the period 2031-2050”); Wong, Theresa and Brenda S.A.
Yeoh. “Fertility and the Family: An Overview of Pro-Natalist Policies in Singapore.” Asia
MetaCentre Research Paper S eries, No. 12. AsiaResearch Institute, National University of
S ingapore. Available at: http://www.populationasia.org/Publications/ ResearchPaper/
AMCRP12.pdf. Also see: Wijaya, Megawati. “Singapore faces a ʻsilver tsunami.ʼ”
AsiaTimes Online. August 27, 2009. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/
KH27Ae01.html. Last visited: 8 September. 2010.  Loh, Andrew, “MM Lee—population
control revisited 30 years later.” The Online Citizen. Sept. 8, 2010. http://
theonlinecitizen.com/2009/ 08/ mm-lee-%E2%80%93-population-control-revisited-30-
years-later/. Last visited: 8 Sept. 2010.
[ix] Roberto de Vera, “Economic Issues: the Consolidated Reproductive Health Bill in the
House of Representatives,” The Bishops-Legislators Caucus of the Philippines, pp.
13-15.Based on data from the United Nations.

[x]Philippines Constitution, Art.II, § 2; Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 18.

[xi]UNFPA Facts Sheet, “Delivering Hope and Saving Lives.”  Available at: www.unfpa.org/
webdav/site/global/shared/safemotherhood/factsheet3_eng.pdf.  Last visited: 10 Sept.
2010.

[xii]RH Bill Explanatory Note, p. 1 (“Correct and consistent use of contraceptives will
prevent one-third of all maternal deaths”).