QUEZON City, April 8, 2015—Several pro-life and pro-family group have joined forces in an attempt to convince the Philippine government to enforce the Reproductive Health (RH) Law as it was ruled upon by the highest court of the land.
In a document published on its website, Pro-Life Philippines lamented that pro-life and pro-family advocates have yet to see the issuance of definitive implementing rules and regulations of the RH Law that incorporate the changes that should have been made based on the Supreme Court (SC) ruling.
“We have made representations on various instances to the Department of Health but to no avail. Instead, we have been informed by our allies on the ground that contraceptives are being distributed, given out or applied to the unknowing public absent compliance to the requirements of the law that ensures that the methods, oral, mechanical or otherwise are non-abortifacient and are safe to the health of those who are subjected to the process,” the group says.
Led by Pro-Life Philippines, the alliance is scheduled to deliver their manifesto to the Department of Health (DOH)-Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during a prayer rally on April 10, Friday, across the FDA compound in Alabang, Muntinlupa City, inviting interested parties to bring rosaries and placards, and take part in the event.
“We have likewise seen and were told that Implanon, a known abortifacient are now being implanted on our women under dubious circumstances and under imposed conditions. The same is true with the continuous application of intrauterine devices on our women without the appropriate information about the risks associated with its use,” it adds.
‘Less than appropriate’
According to Pro-Life Philippines, Congress passed the RH Act under what it describes as “less than appropriate and acceptable procedures” and was signed into law on a largely similar circumstance.
It further notes that following a series of petitions and arguments, SC’s decision stresses RH Law is “not unconstitutional.”
“While in many instances we disagreed with the way this law was impressed upon the people as legally legitimate, though morally infirmed, socially damaging and fundamentally risky to vulnerable individuals, we respected the inevitable,” the group explains.
However, Pro-Life Philippines points out state imposition was delimited given that the judiciary made it clear religious freedom and the exercise of one’s free will remained paramount and cannot be abridged.
The group says some of the points SC has emphasized are as follows:
• respect for parental supervision over the rights and welfare of their children;
• spousal consent on the use of contraceptive technologies;
• free exercise of conscientious objection of medical and allied health practitioners over state sponsored reproductive health methodologies;
• strict adherence to processes involved in the licensing and accreditation of contraceptive technologies ensuring that the same are not abortifacients nor with abortifacient properties and will not pose any risk to the health of its users;
• free and informed consent of those who are the subject of reproductive health programs.
To read the whole text, visit http://www.prolife.org.ph/?p=6821. (Raymond A. Sebastián/CBCP News)