News:

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

CBCP STATEMENT ON THE DIVORCE BILL -

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

Where Fr. Bernas is right and where he’s wrong

opinions

By Francisco S. Tatad

In a column on the Reproductive Health Law (PDI,July 29), our esteemed constitutionalist-friend Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S. J. complains  about having had to listen for 10 long hours (on the Internet) to the less than “scintillating” oral arguments on the validity of the RH Law before the Supreme Court en banc.

Many who sat through the July 9 and July 23 sessions felt the same. But the petitioners’ counsels could not have shortened the proceedings.  At the opening, I spoke for  eight minutes, without any interpellation; but Prof. Maria Concepcion Noche  of Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines, Inc. had five hours of it  after speaking for 22 minutes.  On July 23,  Luisito Liban of Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc. had five hours also, after speaking for 20 minutes.

The wonder of it all is that on either occasion neither Noche nor Liban nor any of the Justices had to answer the call of nature. But I had to excuse myself at least thrice while Prof. Noche held the floor.

Fr. Bernas predicts  Sections 11 and 12 of Article II of the Constitution “will play a starring role” in the arguments.  He focuses on the second sentence of  Sec. 12, which provides: “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and the strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception…”

“In my earlier writings,” he writes, “I have taken the position that the earliest that life begins is at the moment of fertilization. This is enough to justify the prohibition of abortion clearly repeated in the RH Law. But it says nothing about what to prohibit before life begins.

“This brings us to the use of contraceptive methods.  There are those who argue that contraception kills life.  That is true if the contraceptive methods used have the effect of expelling a fertilized ovum. You don’t kill life that does not yet exist. Those who argue that contraceptives currently in the market kill life must be able to point to the precise contraceptive devices that are abortive.  A sweeping generalization is irresponsible.”

Contraceptives are artificial methods or devices used before, during or after coition to prevent conception.  Some could be abortive, and Fr. Bernas is simply being reasonable when he says anyone who says contraceptives kill should be able to show which contraceptives do.

But the constitutional issue is not whether contraceptives are abortifacient or not, but rather whether the State should provide contraceptives at all. My position is that under Sec. 12, the State is prohibited from providing contraceptives, whether abortifacient or not.

Fr. Bernas observes correctly that the Constitution “makes no specific prescription” on how to protect the unborn from conception. An enabling law is needed to provide the specific measures.  But I believe he errs when he suggests that just because the Constitution “says nothing about what to prohibit before life begins,” the State is free to provide contraception.

It is beyond dispute that the positive duty of the State to “protect the life of the unborn from conception” (undefined for now) carries with it the negative duty not to do anything that will “prevent conception.”  Unlike the positive duty, this needs no enabling legislation.  Anything that will harm the unborn, or that will prevent conception, the State cannot do.

This is precisely what I tried to point out in my opening  statement.  “The State cannot function as the protector of the unborn on the one hand, and as the source of contraception on the other; it cannot be the protector and preventer of conception at the same time.”

Were we to hold the opposite view,  then only the embryo that survives the State’s program of contraception would be entitled to  the State’s (undefined) protection. We would then have to  read Sec. 12 as follows: “It (the State) shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception,  which (or who) shall have survived the State’s program of contraception.” Should the program prove to be 100 percent effective,  the State could end up having no  unborn embryos “to protect.”

We would have created a monumental absurdity, which could extinguish

altogether the right to life of  future generations (our Constitution uses the word “posterity,” which means “all the descendants of a person in a direct line to the remotest generation”)—a right enshrined in constitutional law and international law, and recognized by the Supreme Court  in Opusa v. Factoran.

Thus, whether or not the  State can lawfully prevent a single baby or an entire generation from being conceived or one solitary mother or a generation of mothers from conceiving is, at bottom, the prejudicial question.  If the State can do that while claiming to remain “the protector” of the life of the unborn, then we shall have gone beyond the pale of reason and abolished the first principle of speculative reason—the principle of non-contradiction.  It would be pointless to be talking about rights at all; we should be talking only about power—the power of the powerful.

But if we can agree that the State can never be the protector and the preventer of conception at the same time,  then there would be no need to prolong this conversation.  The entire RH Law falls apart, and there would be no need to assail its constitutionality  on any other ground, even though there are indeed so many other grounds.

fstatad@gmail.com

Source: http://cbcpforlife.com/?p=11313

August 1, 2013 | Filed under: Independent Articles,News Articles | Posted by: mongladz

 

 

*********************************************************

Pro-Life Philippines Foundation, Inc is a non-profit, nationwide organization that functions as an Educational body coordinating pro-life groups, providing information on life issues it also functions as a political and legislative lobby group that advances the principles and policies with the pro-life and pro-family cause.

“What  Can One Person Do?

Every Single person, in his own little way, can do alot to save a life”

+Sr. Mary Pilar Verzosa, RGS

Foundress, Pro-life Phil. Fdn. Inc.

Sept.24, 1944-Sept.9, 2012

 

We need your help!

PRO-LIFE PHILIPPINES exists mainly because of the overflowing of your donation supporting our programs and services.

PRO-LIFE PHILIPPINES counts on your support to continue operating.

Take inspiration from knowing that for every peso you give, your a part of the mission of SAVING LIVES ONE STEP AT A TIME.

 

(Pro-Life Philippines Foundation Inc. is a Donee Institution. We will issue a Certificate of Donation for tax deduction purposes upon your request.) For more info call us at 7337027 / 7349425 / 09192337783

 

VISIT OUR WEBSITE: www.prolife.org.ph

 

 

 

Share via email
Leave A Comment