Bishop urges public to unite against anti-terror bill -

Thursday, June 4, 2020

Pastoral Statement of the Bishops of Metro Manila -

Monday, March 16, 2020

Priest refutes senator: ‘Divorce will never be pro-family’ -

Thursday, September 19, 2019

2 priests, 2 pro-life activists arrested trying to save babies inside New Jersey abortion center -

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Respect and Care for Life 2019 -

Tuesday, January 8, 2019

Over 41 million abortions estimated in 2018, making ‘choice’ world’s leading cause of death -

Thursday, January 3, 2019

Everyone must respect the basic human rights of all human beings, pope says -

Friday, December 14, 2018

Parents of ‘miracle’ micro-preemie thankful to bring home healthy girl -

Thursday, November 29, 2018

WATCH: Drag queen admits he’s ‘grooming’ children at story hour events -

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Brazil elects pro-life president, despite pressure to legalize abortion -

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

Alfie Evans’ parents to ‘form a relationship’ with hospital, ask supporters to return home: BREAKING -

Friday, April 27, 2018

Couples told: ‘Have courage to fight divorce bill’ -

Wednesday, April 11, 2018


Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Pastoral Statement Against Divorce -

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Cardinal Tagle to lead walk against killings -

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

49 Abortion Clinics Closed in 2017, 77% of All Abortion Clinics Open in 1991 Have Shut Down -

Thursday, December 21, 2017

Bishop condemns killing of priest -

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Church urges repentance over rampant killings -

Monday, November 6, 2017

Our Lady of Fatima will be icon at prayer for healing -

Monday, October 30, 2017

Church urges faithful to join ‘heal the nation’ Edsa procession -

Monday, October 16, 2017

Handbook of truths behind the RH Bill-SOCIO-ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS



This is the revised first edition of this Handbook. The most important consideration to be given when using this is that it was made with the “unamended” version of the RH Bill in mind. Although the authors were quite aware that amendments have been proposed by the proponents of the RH Bill, the formal amendment of the Bill has not actually happened either in Congress or the Senate. Thus, the authors thought it more prudent to include even arguments that may not actually be applicable anymore once the  Bill has been finally amended – assuming it makes it through its present status. Anyway, these arguments may actually be useful in other situations.

This Handbook was made for the Filipino people. It was written to help honest minds understand what the  R.H. Bill really is and cut through the jungle of confusing arguments to expose the most essential truth about the Bill: it short changes the Filipino person and the Filipino nation. Due to the very limited time that was given for writing this Handbook, however, it was not possible to include the voluminous amount of other undoubtedly valuable material that could have likewise strengthened the points mentioned here. Also, there are no doubt more nuances in the reasons and arguments that have not been written. However, the authors hope that they could include whatever may be lacking when the occasion comes to revise this Handbook. Suggestions and materials are most welcome.

The authors would like to thank the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, through Archbishop Jose Palma, for giving them the opportunity to serve the country in a small way through the writing of this Handbook. Special mention goes to Dr. Antonio Torralba who put the team together. Lastly, many thanks go to the millions of men and women all over the world who have defended and continue to defend the cause of LIFE through their prayers, writings, spoken word, and living example.

The Authors

September 12, 2012

Feast of the Most Holy Name of Mary

The Authors

Bernardo M. Villegas, Ph.D. (Harvard University), Economist

Rosa Linda L. Valenzona, M.A. (University of the Philippines), Demographer

Jo M. Imbong, Esq. (University of the Philippines), Public Interest Lawyer

Roberto E. De Vera, Ph.D. (University of Pittsburgh), Economist

Raul Antonio Nidoy, S.Th.D. (University of Navarre), Educator

Robert Z. Cortes, M.A. (Columbia University), Educator


Handbook of truths behind the RH Bill


The RH Bill, being merely palliative and based on faulty assumptions and facts, falls short in giving the Filipino what he or she truly deserves, both as a human person with dignity and as a proud citizen of a sovereign nation. Worse than that, several key provisions of the RH Bill are harmful to individual Filipinos and the Filipino nation.The RH Bill will result to the rending, warping and despoiling of Filipino culture. These, in summary, are the reasons that Filipinos should reject the RH Bill.

This handbook provides the interested reader arguments for doing so based on human science and reason.



The RH Bill is harmful to Filipino society because its intent to control population is based on wrong facts and wrong economics, and naïve to the negative social effects that will come in its train. 

1. It implies that the Philippines’ fertility is high and its growth rate is increasing. They are NOT.

2. It implies that lack of economic development is correlated to population growth. It is NOT.

3. It implies that a rapidly growing population causes hunger and a shortage of resources. It does NOT.

4. It evinces a poor understanding of the true sources of economic poverty, and thus goes wide off the mark in proposing a more lasting solution.

5. It assumes that poor people need to be freely supplied with artificial contraceptives and information about these because they need or want to limit their family size but are too poor to know about them or to buy them. They do NOT.

6. It neglects the fact that societies that have aggressively pushed for contraception are now suffering from a “demographic winter” and serious demographic imbalance with daunting consequences, and are desperately trying to reverse it. They are failing because of the contraceptive mentality that has pervaded their societies.

7. It fails to consider that historically, an aggressive push for contraception has always preceded legalization of abortion. In the process, and ultimately, it is the woman who suffers.

8. It fails to see that the contraceptive lifestyle destroys the family and promotes undesirable sexual behaviour, both antithetical to genuine Filipino values.



1. It implies that the Philippines’ fertility is high and its growth rate is increasing. They are NOT.

a. In fact, the Philippines’ total fertility rate (TFR) has been going down, nearing the 2.1 replacement level: from 7.42 in 1950 – 1955 to 3.27 in 2005 – 2010. (World Population Prospects, 2010)

b. Without any serious population policy in the last 50 years, the fertility rate of the Philippines already went down by more than 50%: how much faster do we want our fertility rates to plummet, and do we want that by introducing the RH Bill?

c. Average annual population growth rates have gone down from 3.06% in 1948-1960 down to 2.36% in 1995-2000. The last two censuses show that this decline continued: 2.04% in 2000-2007 and 1.53% in 2007-2010.From 2095 to 2100, the Philippine population has been projected by the U.N. to grow at an average of -0.06% a year (World Population Prospects, 2010) which means that more Filipinos would be dying than being born even after we take away the effect of outmigration.

d. This rapid rate of decline is the opposite of what Pres. Ramos, using data from the Family Planning and Development (FFPD), claimed in a 2006 speech that our “population growth continued to gallop at an undiminished rate of 2.3 percent.” That rate was our growth rate between 1985 and 2000.

e. The Philippine total fertility rate (TFR), the average number of children a woman is expected to have in her lifetime, is projected to reach 2.06 in 2050-2055 (UN, 2011) which is below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1, the level needed for a population to maintain its present level.

f. Experience shows that virtually all the countries which pursued a path to reduce their fertility rates to replacement levels, for example, the Asian tigers and those in Europe, found that their fertility levels continued to decrease to below replacement levels and remained there for two or more decades. Since smaller cohorts of babies being born lead to smaller cohorts entering the workforce fifteen to twenty years later, and larger cohorts of workers today will be exiting into the elderly population, it should be no mystery that these same countries are facing labor shortages and pension fund crises. (See point 6, section 2.)

g. This was shown graphically by a study of Alkema, Raferty, Gerland, et al (p.41, 2010) of the Center for Statistics and the Social Sciences, University of Washington.


h. Fortunately, when the UN published a revision of their projection in 2010, our below replacement level of 1.95 has been moved to 2060 (Philippines , p. 3, 2010). Meaning: without the RH Bill, we have been able to move back doomsday, the day when our population would already be below replacement level and doomed to a demographic winter.

i. Nevertheless, below replacement fertility rates are closer to home than we think. The 2008 National Demographic Health Survey shows that the richest 20% of Filipino families had a below replacement total fertility rate (TFR) of 1.9. This means that 20% of Filipino families are not having enough babies to replace themselves and this is happening even without the help a reproductive health law in place.


2. It implies that lack of economic development is correlated to population growth. It is NOT.

a. The Nobel Prize winnerSimon Kuznets, belies this assumption in his 1966 book Modern Economic Growth: Rate, Structure and Spread (pp. 67-68) where he showed that “[n]o clear association appears to exist in the present sample of countries, or is likely to exist in the other developed countries, between rates of growth of population and of product per capita.”

b. Other studies have confirmed Kuznets’s findings in data for developed and developing countries, showing no clear link between population growth and economic growth (or poverty).

i. Levine and Renelt (1992): no significant effect of population growth on economic growth;

ii. Kling and Pritchett (1994): no significant effect of population growth on economic growth;

iii. Ahlburg (1996): population growth has little or no direct effect on poverty;

iv. Sala-I-Martin, Doppelhofer, & Miller (2004): average annual population growth from 1960-1990 was not robustly correlated with economic growth;

v. Hanushek and Woessmann (2007): average annual population growth from 1960-1990 was not robustly correlated with economic growth;

vi. U.S. National Research Council (1986): similar conclusions as above

vii. U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) Consultative Meeting of Economists (1992): similar conclusions as above

viii. RAND Corporation (research word leader associated with 30 Nobel Prize winners) study of Bloom, Canning, & Sevilla (2003): similar conclusions as above

c. Thus, if population growth doesn’t affect economic growth, what will?

i. Commission on Growth and Development led by Nobel laureate in Economics Michael Spence (2008): High growth economies:

1. exploited the world economy;

2. kept macroeconomic stability;

3. achieved high rates of savings and investment;

4. let markets allocate resources; and

 5. had committed, credible and capable governments.

ii. Julian Simon (1996) gives evidence for the crucial role that good governance and economic policies play in economic growth when he compares three pairs of countries that have the same culture and history and practically had the same standard before they split after World War II—East and West Germany, North and South Korea, and Taiwan and China.


3. It implies that a rapidly growing population causes hunger and a shortage of resources. It does NOT.

a. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) statistics (2007) show that from 1961 to 2002, available world food supply per person has gone up by 24.4% and enough food is being produced for everyone on earth to enjoy a healthy diet; (in developing countries) “incidence of undernourishment has decline from 28 percent of the population two decades ago to 17 per cent according to data from 1999-2001”

b. The trends of increasing food supply and fewer undernourished persons confirm Boserup’s (1965) point: it is population growth that causes increases in food production and not the other way around.

c. Julian Simon (1996) affirms that amid population growth, resource have become scarce (or are in greater supply relative to the technology used to extract and to employ the resource) by showing that their prices have down over time.

d. Julian Simons (1996) explains that “more people, and increased income, cause problems in the short run. This increased scarcity of resources causes prices to rise. The higher prices present an opportunity, and prompt inventors and entrepreneurs to search for solutions. Many fail at cost to themselves. But in a free society,solutions are eventually found. And in the long run the new developments leave us better off than if the problems had arisen. That is, prices end up lower than before the increased scarcity occurred.”


4. It evinces a poor understanding of the true sources of economic poverty, and thus goes wide off the mark in proposing a more lasting solution.

 a. If poverty isn’t caused by rapid population growth because it has no clear negative impact on economic growth, food supply and resource availability, then its causes lie elsewhere.

 b. Poverty:

i. is a state in which people cannot obtain the food, water, shelter, clothing, education and medicines needed to live with dignity and a humane quality of life because they don’t have the income, access and rights to get these basic necessities;

ii. is caused by a) people’s inability to get well-paying jobs because they didn’t have enough education and there weren’t enough jobs to begin with; and b) governments as well as civil society failing to deliver enough public services and goods such as roads, schools, and health clinics because of mismanagement and corruption.

c. Thus, to reduce poverty, governments, companies and civil society need to work together to sustain rapid economic growth for several decades and to help people get a slice of the expanded pie of jobs and businesses opportunities that result from faster economic growth. The sure-fire steps to do this include:

i. raising investments in people by giving them more opportunities to get an education and investments in companies that would hire more of these educated workers;

ii. building infrastructure such as schools, roads, and health clinics through proper management of funds and programs; and

iii. protecting the rights of individuals and families necessary for civic participation and human flourishing.

d. Specifically, for letter g. above to work, it makes more sense to spend money on programs that directly reduce poverty such as:

i. promoting microfinance: providing families with small loans helps them start or expand businesses which augments their incomes and builds their credit history for future borrowing from banks;

ii. building roads and ports: a well maintained road and port network connects people to their workplace, farmers to markets that pay a higher price for their produce and tourists to local resorts all of which raise personal well-being and incomes;

iii. investing in rural development: providing education and infrastructure in rural areas (where the majority of poor families are) raises the productivity and wages of rural workers which lifts families out of poverty and releases surplus rural workers for manufacturing jobs which raises wages even further.

iv. investing in people: providing people with scholarships for vocational education addresses the needs of students who are cut out for high valued blue collar work. Short training programs for business process outsourcing (BPO) jobs will help workers find well-paid jobs.

 v. establishing health clinics: expanding the number of public health clinics, upgrading the capacities of midwives, and increasing the number of public sector nurses and doctors is a cost-effective way of reducing maternal, child and other deaths.

 vi. building sanitation and water delivery systems: providing people with clean water and safe ways to dispose waste is proven to reduce sicknesses and deaths due to water-borne diseases.


 5. It assumes that poor people need to be freely supplied with artificial contraceptives and information about these because they need or want to limit their family size but are too poor to know about them or to buy them. They do NOT.

a. Large families that are poor are not so because they have too many children. The more likely reason why some families are poor is the limited schooling of the household head. Based on a subset of families with heads that were employed taken from the 2000 Family Income and Expenditure Survey, 78%-90% of heads of poor families across family size did not finish a high school education.

 b. Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government professor, Lant Pritchett (1994) affirm that parents who have large families want large families, that is, parents want the children they actually beget. He found that variations in desired fertility rates explained 90% of the variations in actual fertility rates across countries.

c. The Balisacan and Pernia (2002) study shows that persons get the full returns on their education only if they have access to jobs that pay good wages and to markets that pay good prices for the goods they produce; agrarian reform and irrigation alleviate poverty.

d. The 2008 National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) demonstrates that a considerably large majority of married Filipino women already know (more than 98%) and have used (77%) at least one method of contraception or other.

e. The same 2008 National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) likewise shows that only less than 1% of women cannot afford contraception.

f. THUS, it would be better to spend in providing for the real and immediate needs of the Filipino people. For example, instead of spending P3 billion year for the next five years to fund the annual supply of pills of 366,300 women for five years (most of whom could buy them on their own), we could this spend this same amount on any four projects:

i. to build 19,892 classrooms which would serve 895,140 students (i.e. this would wipe out the 2,053 classroom backlog of Eastern Visayas nine times over);

ii. to pay the salaries of 12,500 teachers a year for five years;

iii. to construct the 107,142 houses which would give homes to 535,710 Filipinos (this would be more than five times President Aquino’s program of building 20,000 houses for low-salaried personnel which they would be amortize over 30 years);

iv. to pay the salaries of 12,500 skilled birth attendants for five years whose increased presence in the delivery of births has been identified by the Department of Health as major factor in reducing maternal deaths.


6. It neglects the fact that societies that have aggressively pushed for contraception are now suffering from a “demographic winter” and serious demographic imbalance with daunting consequences, and are desperately trying to reverse it. They are failing because of the contraceptive mentality that has pervaded their societies.

a. Since Singapore now has the 4th lowest Total Fertility Rate (TFR), with 1.25, next only to Hongkong, Macao, and Bosnia & Herzegovena (World Population Prospects, 2010) its former Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew (2011) stated in speech: “At these low birth rates, we will rapidly age and shrink…So we need young immigrants. Otherwise our economy will slow down, like the Japanese economy. We will have a less dynamic and less thriving Singapore. This is not the future for our children and grandchildren.” He repeated the same idea again in a speech in 2012.

b. Civil Service College (Singapore) Senior Visiting Fellow and Forbes Magazine journalist Joel Kotkin (2010) predicted that one of these consequences would clearly be economic: “…a catastrophic plunge in the country’s birth rate--a problem plaguing many of the world’s affluent economies--could undermine Singapore’s success.” This was admitted by Lee Kwan Yew himself in the article above.

c. The TFR of Japan is already below replacement level, the 6th lowest in the world: 1.32 as of 2010 (World Population Prospects, 2010). Paraphrasing Cornelius (1994) Kyoto Sangyo University Lecturer Julian Chapple(2004) affirms that “Japan is fast becoming the world’s oldest ever human population (by 2025, 27.3%, or 33.2 million people, will be aged over 60).” He further says, “Coupled with the aforementioned low birth rate, the problems Japan faces in the immediate future are acute. With Japan’s labour force expected to decrease by 10% in the next 25 years, the economic outlook is far from bright.”

d. The TFR of Russia is already below replacement level: 1.45 as of 2010. Joe Jackson of Time (2012) reports that “Russia’s population is undoubtedly in long-term decline. U.N.projections showing continued falls throughout the century to an eventual population of 111 million by 2100. This has serious implications for the country’s future economic growth. (Experts are already predicting a labor shortage of 14 million skilled workers by 2020.)”

e. Victor Yasmann (2006) likewise affirms that “the demographic crisis has not only economic, but geopolitical implications. In the future, Russia, whose land makes up 30 percent of Eurasia, may simply have too few people to control its territory.”

f. The TFR of Canada is already below replacement level: 1.65 as of 2010. According to the website of the Real Women of Canada (2002), “The sharp decline in Canada’s population will inevitably result in an acute labour shortage, beginning with skilled technical and trades workers. Next, teachers, health-care workers, information technology experts and academics will be in short supply…. The biggest impact of our aging population,however, will be on government services. Today, there are four workers for every one retiree, but in another 25 years, there will be only two workers for every retiree.”

g. The TFR of Korea is already below replacement level, the 5th lowest in the world: 1.29 as of 2010. Chief U.N. representative of the American Family Association of New York, Vincenza Santorino (2010) reports that “Korea has the lowest fertility rate among the 30 OECD (most developed) nations: 1.19 in 2008, its population has started to decline and the population is aging rapidly. This has to be put into perspective. The Korean Government has had a very strong “family planning” policy since 1962. Now they are concerned about the consequences they have wrought. One of the officials, in his opening remarks stated outright that the current population situation ‘is not sustainable.’” Notice the upward trend from 2008 to 2010: this suggests that Korea could be attempting to reverse the trend, learning from its previous mistake. The question is, will they succeed?

h. The TFR of Iran is already below replacement level: 1.77 as of 2010. Journalist Vahid Salemi (2012) reports that “in a major reversal of once far-reaching family planning policies, authorities (of Iran) are now slashing its birth-control programs in an attempt to avoid an aging demographic similar to many Western countries that are struggling to keep up with state medical and social security costs.”

i. The TFR of  China is already below replacement level: 1.54 as of 2010 (Index Mundi, 2011). In February 2008, Zhao Baige, Vice Minister of the National Population and Family Planning Commission of admitted that the government is planning to shift from a one-child to a two-child policy “because it is damaging the economy and creating a demographic time bomb” (The Times Online, 2008 as quoted by Jill Stanek).

j. Rich countries have instituted subsidies to encourage child bearing but to no success; their populations remain moribund. The table below shows titles of news articles that show the desperation of these countries that have reached “below replacement” level in bringing back a demographic spring:



k. France, Russia, Germany, Singapore, South Korea are just five of the growing number of countries that are offering incentives for women to have more babies (See Table above). The effects of these incentives have been mixed at best: total fertility rates went up as more women gave birth to babies earlier than they would have to get the “baby bonuses” but remained below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1. In 2004, Joseph Chamieconcluded that the efforts of countries to raise fertility rates will not be enough to bring them back to replacement levels. In 2011, Tomas Sobotka gives a similar conclusion for Europe on the impact of fertility incentives: “The overall effects of policies on fertility rates is limited and exaggerated expectations on their potential is unfounded.”

l. Chapman University professor and Forbes Magazine journalist, Joel Kotkin (2012) explains that, sadly, “there may not be too much the bureaucracies can do immediately to address these problems. Clearly adding more degrees per capita or bringing in more foreign expertise, as is common in Singapore and Hong Kong, has not addressed looming baby shortage… More difficult still will be shaping attitudes that restore the primacy of family that propelled these societies in the first place.”

m. And what is the reality in the Philippines so far? In 2100, our population will begin to take the shape of an inverted pyramid which means that less and less young people will be supporting more and more older people (Philippines, 2010).



n. The Pontifical Council for the Family (1996) states that “the social and economic effects of demographic imbalance are already of concern to some governments. A higher proportion of elderly people makes heavy demands on the social welfare services. At the  same time a shrinking workforce is under greater pressure to sustain the welfaresystem through taxation. A further effect of the demographic phenomenon of the”inverted pyramid” is the loss of intergenerational wisdom and experience .” The last

highlighted paragraph means that the learning that comes from the sharing of wisdom andexperiences among different generations will be greatly diminish, if not disappear.

7. It fails to consider that historically, an aggressive push for contraception has always preceded legalization of abortion. In the process, and ultimately, it is the woman who suffers.

a. The psycho-sociological studies of George Akerlof (1996, 1998), show strong empirical evidence that thewidespread use of contraception has several social ills including abortion

b. In his book, the philosopher, Donald DeMarco (1999) cited figures from studies made in some countries in Europe that showed how among couples who had the habit of contracepting (England) or right after contraception was fully legalized (Sweden) or where contraception “was almost unrestricted” (Switzerland), abortions were much higher. The figures in these studies show compelling evidence that “increased contraception does not reduce the incidence of abortion… (but instead) tends to establish a contraceptive mentality, which in turn, leads to more abortion.” (Italics provided in the original quote.)

c. Rhonheimer and Murphy (2010) further argue that a more serious consequence of the contraceptive mentality that arises from the use of contraception is how abortion “intentionally, can become… (just one more) means of contraception.” (Italics provided in the original quote.) This happens when, “one who is in favour of abortion out of a contraceptive mentality would not be in the least disposed to discuss whether an embryo or a fetus is a human being; he would simply dispute this – despite all evidence to the contrary – our would consider it irrelevant and ignore the issue.”

d. Of contraception and abortion, Alvare (2011) quotes the economist, Timoty Reichert (2010) as saying that both are “complementary forms of insurance that resemble primary insurance and reinsure one. If contraception fails, abortion is there as a fail-safe.” He further demonstrates how the data support Reichert’s theory. “His theory predicts a rise in the resort to both contraception and abortion until ‘equilibrium’ levels of sexual activity are reached after which abortion rates should remain ‘constant.’ This is what happened after abortion was legalized in 1973 (about 8 years after the Supreme Court declared access to contraception a constitutional right). Then beginning in the late 1980s and continuing to today, abortion rates began to decline, and then to stabilize. Needless to say, women not only most often pay the financial costs, but also the physical and psychological costs of abortion unduly” (Alvare, 2011).

e. The authoritative gynecology textbook Clinical Gynecologic Endocrinology and Infertility (Fritz and Speroff, 2010) affirm the direct relationship between contraception and abortion: “However, the need for abortion services will persist because contraceptive failures account for about half of the 1.2 million annual induced abortions in the U.S.”

f. Wyser-Pratte (2000) shows one way that abortion can become “legal” in her very revealing arguments. “RU-486, or mifepristone, can work as a contraceptive, as an emergency contraceptive, or as an abortifacient. It has the potentially to dramatically increase the privacy of procreative choice. For this to happen, RU-486 must fall under the protection of contraception law rather than the law of abortion. Contraception law constitutionally guarantees access to contraception, including emergency contraception. RU-486, because of its many uses blurs the line between contraception and abortion. Used within the first nine weeks of pregnancy, RU-486 offer a sare and more private alternative to surgical abortion. Although it has received FDA approval, RU-486 has unresolved legal status in this country. The law needs to embrace this new technology and protect women’s access to it under the law of contraception. Without such protection, RU-486 may not be available to women, thereby limiting women’s privacy and liberty interests regarding procreative choice.”


8. It fails to see that the contraceptive lifestyle destroys the family and promotes undesirable sexual behaviour, both antithetical to genuine Filipino values.

a. According to Nobel prize winner George Akerlof (1996, 1998), who combines the study of economics and psychology, wide contraceptive use leads to more premarital and extramarital sex, more fatherless children, more single mothers, more poverty, more abortions; and also a decline of marriage, less domesticated men, more psychologically troubled adolescents, more crimes, more social pathology and poverty. Many other studies reached the same conclusion.

b. The contraceptive mentality has plagued China long and hard, as it was promoted with savage ferocity from the highest levels of government through its one-child policy. However, in February 2008, Zhao Baige, Vice Minister of the National Population and Family Planning Commission of China “revealed that there is concern at the highest levels that the policy is already tearing apart the fabric of society” (The Times Online, 2008 as quoted by Jill Stanek). China, one of the biggest practitioner and promoter of the contraceptive mentality and its practice, has finally admitted one of the most profound effects of the contraceptive mentality: the destruction of society.

c. Professed liberal and Harvard Director for AIDS Prevention, Edward C. Green (2009) in answering the question why the promotion and use of the condom did not succeed in lowering HIV/AIDS in Africa, said, “One reason is ’risk compensation.’ That is, when people think they’re made safe by using condoms at least some of the time, they actually engage in riskier sex.”

d. Crisostomo (2012) reports, “HIV/AIDS cases will rise by 14,000 this year, according to projections by the Department of Health (DOH).” She further reports, quoting Gerard Belimac, program manager for the department’s National AIDS/Sexually Transmitted Infection Prevention and Control Program, that most of these case are people between 15- 39 years old who “were often educated about HIV/AIDS and knew how the virus was transmitted… (yet) still engaged in risky practices.” Even without the RH Bill and the free distribution of condoms, risky behavior is proceeding at an alarming pace.

e. However, authentic Filipino values as regards sexual practice are not even anywhere near “risky sex.” Filipinos value chastity and it is unfortunate that “at present where the cultural revolution is slowly seeping into Tagalog culture, chastity becomes less valued” (Tabbada, 2005). Thus, aside from talking about the rise of “risky sexual behavior” in the country, we ought to be talking also (and more so) about socially unacceptable sexual behaviour such as pre-marital sex and extramarital sex.

f. OFWs working in North America or Europe are very much aware of rampantpremarital sex among adolescents in their respective host countries. It is taken forgranted that chastity is an old-fashioned virtue that young people can no longer practicebecause of the sexually permissive environment in which they live. Deep within, theseOFWs— especially mothers who left their children behind— are still hoping andpraying that their daughters and sons continue to value chastity and do not go theway of adolescents in many Western societies.

g. Ramos (2008) reports that there has been an “alarming rise in teenage pregnancies noted.” This fact actually proves the case for the loss of the culture of chastity among our youth which is at the root of the teenage pregnancy problem. Extending Green’s “risk compensation” hypothesis to heterosexual sex among teens, it is easy to see how the accessibility of contraception can only lead first, to more pre-marital sex and then, possibly, to teenage pregnancy. Thus, the availability of contraception lessens further the value of the traditionally Filipino culture of chastity.




11 A good number of the economic and demographic arguments in applicable sections of this handbook were taken from an updated version of de Vera, Roberto (8 September 2 012) “Economic and Demographic Aspects of the Reproductive Health Bill: A Question and Answer Primer.”



Share via email
One Response to “Handbook of truths behind the RH Bill-SOCIO-ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS”
  1. To all loyal believers of Christ Jesus specially the priests, sisters and lay people

    Let us never get discouraged and disappointed in our endeavour to counter all acts of evils in whatever forms like the RH Bill, obligatory vaccination etc. in order to annihilate the human race in the process. Let us always remember that the TRUTH who is Jesus should be our utmost focus. HE is absolute! We should not compromise our faith with anything that will perish.We just have to do all that we can if not to stop but at least counter every evil intentions underneath evil and even seemingly good moves. By this efforts, we will know that it is the will of God if things happen not because we have not done what we would have done otherwise.
    Let us work hard and pray hard!

Leave A Comment