Chapter I The Law A.

Divine Law Divine Law is that which is enacted by God and made known to man through revelation. We distinguish between the Old Law, contained in the Pentateuch, and the New Law, which was revealed by Jesus Christ and is contained in the New Testament. The Divine Law of the Old Testament, or the Mosaic Law, is commonly divided into civil, ceremonial, and moral precepts. According to Pastor Bob Hallstrom, God's Divine Law not only consists of the Ten Commandments but also consists of Statutes and Judgments. It embraces all of the needs, activities, and requirements of men and nations. It directs them in all things that should and should not be done. The divine Law, like the eternal, immutable laws that rule the physical universe, governs the conduct of men and society. It is a natural Law, and as such, not subject to change, and the passage of time has no effect upon its existence or is effectiveness. Obedience to it leads to spiritual, economic, military, and physical blessings, and transgression of it leads to effects just the opposite (http://www.stormfront.org/posterity/ci/divine.html)

(Genesis 1:27-28) God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over

the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

(Hebrews 13:4) Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.

(Exodus 20: 13) Thou shalt not kill. B. Natural Law Natural law or the law of nature is a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore is universal. The natural law is immutable in itself and also extrinsically. Since it is founded in the very nature of man and his destination to his endtwo bases which rest upon the immutable ground of the eternal lawit follows that, assuming the continued existence of human nature, it cannot cease to exist. St. Thomas Aquinas Procreation theory. Procreation simply means the sexual activity of conceiving and bearing biological offspring. According to this definition, the purpose of sexual act is for one to produce or bear another offspring. According to the basic human rights, everyone is entitled to the right to life. This means that one has the right to live and should not be deprived of this right. We all know that life is life itself. Physical, mental, social, emotional and spiritual needs for a person to live should not be deprived from a person. C. Church Teachings

Standing up for the Gospel of Life CBCP Pastoral Statement on Reproductive Health Bill I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full (John 10:10). Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative power of God (CCC 2258). The Church carries out the mandate of the Lord to go and proclaim to all the nations the Gospel of Life. The protection and preservation of human life and the preservation of the integrity of the procreative act of parents are important elements of our mission from the Lord. It is our fidelity to the Gospel of Life and our pastoral charity for the poor that leads us your pastors to make this moral stand regarding Reproductive Health Bill 5043 that is the object of deliberation in Congress. The Bill makes a number of good points. Some of the issues that it includes under reproductive health care, for instance, are the kind of things no humane institution would have any reason to opposematernal, infant and child health and nutrition, promotion of breastfeeding, adolescent and youth health, elimination of violence against women, etc.; but the Bill as it stands now contains fatal flaws which if not corrected will make the Bill unacceptable. It is our collective discernment that the Bill in its present form poses a serious threat to life of infants in the womb. It is a source of danger for the stability of the family. It places the dignity of womanhood at great risk. The Church has always concerned itself with the poor. It has innumerable institutions and programs meant to help the poor. Our objection to this Bill is precisely due to our concern that in the long run this Bill will not uplift the poor. The increase or decrease of population growth does not by itself spell development or underdevelopment. (CBCP Statement, July 10, 1990) Even as we recognize the right of the government to enact laws, we also reiterate that there must be no separation between God and Man. We appeal to our legislators to state in the Bill in clear categorical terms that human life from the moment of conception is sacred. We appeal to our legislators to insure that the Bill recognize, preserve and safeguard freedom of conscience

and religion. The Bill must inspire parents not only to be responsible but to be heroic in their God-given and State-recognized duty of parenting. Without these conditions, the Bill if enacted into law will separate our nation from Almighty God. Sacredness of Life from Conception. The current version of the Bill does not define clearly when the protection of life begins. Although it mentions that abortion is a crime it does not state explicitly that human life is to be protected upon conception as stated in the Constitution. This ambiguity can provide a loophole for contraceptives that prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum. The prevention of implantation of the fertilized ovum is abortion. We cannot prevent overt abortions by doing hidden abortions. It is a fallacy to think that abortions can be prevented by promoting contraception. Contraception is intrinsically evil (CCC 2370, Humanae Vitae, 14). Even in the case of doubt as to the precise moment of the beginning of human life, the mere probability that the fertilized ovum is already a human life renders it imperative that it be accorded the rights of a human person, the most basic of which is the right to life (Evangelium Vitae, #60; cfr. Declaration on Procured Abortion, Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, November 18, 1974). When there is doubt whether a human life is involved, it is immoral to kill it. This is not just specifically Catholic Church teaching but simply natural law ethics. Freedom of Conscience. By mandating only one Reproductive Health Education Curriculum for public and private schools, the Bill could violate the consciences of educators who refuse to teach forms of family planning that violate their religious traditions. This provision also could violate the rights of parents to determine the education of their children if the proposed curriculum would contradict their religious beliefs. The Bill mandates that employers should ensure the provision of an adequate quantity of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices for their employees. This provision could be a violation of the conscience of employers who do not wish to provide artificial means of contraception to their employees because of religious reasons.

The Bills provision that penalizes malicious disinformation against the intention and provisions of the Bill (without defining what malicious disinformation is) could restrict freedom of speech by discouraging legitimate dissent and hinder our mandate to teach morality according to our Catholic faith. The Bill does not mention any consultation with religious groups or churches which could be interpreted to mean that religious and moral beliefs of citizens are not significant factors in the formation of policies and programs involving reproductive health. Heroic Parenting. Family health goes beyond a demographic target because it is principally about health and human rights. Gender equality and women empowerment are central elements of family health and family development. Since human resource is the principal asset of every country, effective family health care services must be given primacy to ensure the birth and care of healthy children and to promote responsible and heroic parenting. Respect for, protection and fulfillment of family health rights seek to promote not only the rights and welfare of adult individuals and couples but those of adolescents and childrens as well. We admonish those who are promoting the Bill to consider these matters. It is the duty of every Catholic faithful to form and conform their consciences to the moral teaching of the Church. We call for a more widespread dialogue on this Bill. As your Pastors we speak to you in the name of the Lord: Choose life and preserve it. Stand up for the Gospel of Life! May Mary, Mother of Life, who carried in her womb Life Himself, guide us to the Truth of Life. For the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines +ANGEL LAGDAMEO, DD Archbishop of Jaro President, CBCP November 14, 2008

Chapter II Determinants of a Moral Act A. Object /Action Supporting the Reproductive Health bill. The DOH will implement the so called RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD AND POPULATION DEVELOPMENT in which they will encourage the use of artificial contraceptives to control the population growth of our country. Also, the DepEd will include and mandate the sex education on the curriculums of students from grade 5 to 4th year highschool. B. End/Purpose To control the population growth of the Philippines and reduce the number of people experiencing poverty by reducing and eliminating the numbers of unwanted pregnancy in terms of providing sexual education to the youth as well as the old. Also, to legalize abortion to eliminate unwanted pregnancy. C. Circumstances It is highly immoral for it violates the Divine law, Natural law as well as the Churchs teachings. It will allow the state to mandate the sexual education to children in which I think is very inappropriate and would support the use of artificial contraceptives which is highly against the churchs teaching as well as legalize abortion.

Chapter III The Moral Judgment I think this so called POLICY ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD AND POPULATION DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES has positive sides. Who in their right mind wouldnt like to see responsible parenthood? But even though there is this sense of rightness in this bill, still, it does not outweigh the fact that it is implicating some things that are highly against the church. A concrete example of this is found in this statement, although abortion is recognized as illegal and punishable by law, the bill states that the government shall ensure that all women needing care for post-abortion complications shall be treated and counseled in a humane, non-judgmental and compassionate manner. This is so wrong. Even though there are things that are bad, the government is still willing to give help to the possible complication. I guess, making abortion illegal would be useless if its consequences would be readily be aided by the government. Tsk. I find this very disturbing. I guess, for this bill to be accepted by the Christian Community, major revisions would still be needed and should be endorsed to the church for proper management and implementation.

Chapter IV Moral Imperative The polarization of Philippine society over the Reproductive Health Bill has been a source of discouragement and discontent among Filipinos. It is unfortunate that the debate has focused only on whether the Bill should be passed or rejected in its present form. Either option would not be good for Filipinos. The Church sees in the proposed Bill serious flaws that can lead to violations of human rights and freedom of conscience. It would not be acceptable to pass it in its present form. Total rejection of the Bill, however, will not change the status quo of high rates of infant mortality, maternal deaths, and abortions. It is a moral imperative that such dehumanizing conditions should not be allowed to continue. What is needed is a third option: critical and constructive engagement. By working together to amend the objectionable provisions of the Bill and retain the provisions that actually improve the lives of Filipinos, both the proponents and opponents of the Bill can make a contribution to protection of the dignity of Filipinos and an improvement of their quality of life. The following are talking points and proposals for dialogue and negotiation on the objectionable portions of the Bill: The Protection of Human Life and the Constitution * The Church insists on protection of human life upon fertilization. The question to be answered by the State is if this is the same position it will take regarding the protection of human life. * The Philippine Constitution says that the State will protect the life of the unborn upon conception. It is not specified in the Constitution whether conception means fertilization or the implantation of an embryo in the womb. The Constitutional Convention seemed to favor fertilization. The definition of conception will have a bearing whether contraceptives that prevent the implantation of embryos would be legally allowed or not. This definition of conception in the Constitution must be worked out both by medical and legal experts in order to determine the parameters of what reproductive services can be provided by the Bill. Contraceptives that prevent the implantation of embryos

* At the center of the controversy regarding abortion and the RH Bill are IUDs and other contraceptive medications and devices that may have the possible effect of preventing the implantation of an embryo, which for the Catholic Church, is considered an abortifacient effect. [Contraceptives without abortifacient effects are treated differently in church teaching. They are forbidden for Catholics but other religious traditions allow them.] * Proposal: The State first has to make a clear position whether it considers the prevention of implantation of an embryo as an abortion. If the State takes this position, there must be a careful and scientifically based evaluation of each of the medicines and devices provided by the Bill. Those contraceptive medicines and devices which are determined to have abortifacient effects are to be banned even now and regardless of whether the RH Bill is passed or not. Age Appropriate, Value-Based, Integral Human Sexuality Education * The mandatory nature of the sexuality education curriculum proposed by the Bill is a concern for the Church because it would compel Catholic educators to teach parts of the curriculum that may be unacceptable for Catholics. The Church is also concerned that the parents right to decide on the education of their children would be denied by such a mandatory curriculum for all schools. * Proposal: For the purpose of protecting academic freedom and respecting religious traditions, should not the right of religious schools to write and implement their own sexuality education curriculum according their religious traditions be respected? For public schools and nonreligious private schools, an appointed panel of parent representatives, educators, experts in child development and psychology, medical experts, and representatives of religious traditions can write the sexuality education curriculum and the DEPED can monitor the implementation. Parents with children in public schools should have the right to have their children exempted from the sexuality education class if the curriculum is not acceptable to them. The Constitution allows religious instruction in public schools only if the parents consent in writing. Should a similar provision be enacted relative to sexuality education? The Bill must also respect the conscientious objection of individual educators who refuse to teach a sexuality curriculum that violates their religious beliefs. Providing Reproductive Health Information and Services for a Multi-Religious Society

* Even if the majority of the population of the country are Catholics, our democratic system should ensure that public polices are not determined solely by majority vote but also by a careful consideration of the common good of all, including non-Catholics. * The Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church rejects any imposition of norms by a majority that is discriminatory of the rights of a minority: (#422) Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups; (#169): Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority. * It is the duty of various religions to teach their faithful and form their consciences about what their religious tradition allows and prohibits with regard to family planning. It is the duty of the government to provide correct and comprehensive information on all non-abortifacient (as defined by law) family planning methods that are available. Consciences will thus be better equipped to make informed choices according to their religious traditions. * Proposal: There can be two separate parallel programs for providing information and training, one for NFP and another for artificial methods of family planning (with separate budgets). The separation of the programs will ensure that NFP will get adequate funding and those trainers who wish to teach only NFP for religious reasons will not be forced to teach artificial methods. The conscience of health workers and trainers should be respected. If a Catholic health worker or trainer conscientiously objects to teaching contraception methods, he or she should be allowed to teach only NFP methods. Limits to the Anti-Discrimination Provision * The current Bill prohibits the refusal of health care services and information based on a patients marital status, gender or sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work. This provision must have parameters. For example, if a doctor refuses to administer an IUD to a minor who requests for it, would that be considered age discrimination? * Should the provision apply equally to both in the public and private health care providers or shouldnt private practitioners have more leeway in practicing their medicine as they see fit?

Employers' Responsibility * Employers should not be required to provide in their CBAs reproductive health services of their employees. To enforce this requirement would be a violation of the conscience of Catholic employers. * Proposal: Such a provision is unnecessary because the general Philhealth medical coverage, which is mandatory for all employees, provides for such reproductive health services upon request of the employee. This allows employers with religious objections to contraceptives or sterilizations to avoid direct formal cooperation in the provision of such family planning methods to their employees. Contraception as Essential Medicines in Government Health Centers and Hospitals * The Churchs objection to this provision is that it appears to treat pregnancy as a disease. * Proposal: The question of whether contraceptives are essential medicines should be resolved by a panel of objective medical experts such as the Philippine Medical Association. What contraceptives actually prevent diseases? It would be helpful to be able to present cases where the use of a contraceptive is a medically indicated treatment for a particular disease or emergency situation. If some contraceptives are ultimately decided as essential or emergency medicines that should be stocked in government health centers and hospitals, no contraceptives with abortifacient effects are to be allowed. Freedom of Speech * Proposal: The Bills provision that penalizes malicious disinformation against the intention and provisions of the Bill should be refined by a clear description of what constitutes malicious disinformation, or failing that, the provision should be scrapped. Implementing Norms

* Proposal: The committee to be in-charge of the Bill's implementing norms should have representatives from major religious traditions to ensure that the rights of people of various faiths would be protected. The above proposals are intended to generate constructive and respectful dialogue leading to concrete actions that would correct the RH Bill. It is hoped that the parties involved in the RH debate would move away from hard-line positions and consider negotiations as a more positive step towards working for the good of all Filipinos, with special consideration for the unborn, the youth, women and families in difficult circumstances. Finally, we can turn to the following Christian maxim as our guide in our search for answers and solutions regarding the RH Bill: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity. For things pertaining to protecting human life and dignity, we need to come to a consensus for the common good; for things that can be left to individual decisions without violating human life and dignity, we need to respect freedom of conscience of every Filipino both Catholics and non-Catholics; in all our discussions, we need to speak and act with charity and understanding as members of the same human family and community. (A paper on the
Reproductive Health Bill issued jointly by Loyola School of Theology [Jesuits])