I was happy to have seen most  of the RH-bill debate aired on ABS-CBN  last Sunday evening. It was a live and lively debate.

Just a few minutes before the end, the IPASA (pro-RH) had 35 percent  of the votes and the IBASURA  (anti-RH)  had 65 percent of the votes.

We had a brownout in our place just before the end, but I was told that the final tally remained that way. And so it should have.

Clearly, the pro-RH participants were getting trounced roundly, and they were visibly getting irritated (pikon). Cong. Roilo Golez scored very convincing points, especially when he pointed out former Health secretary Cabral’s admission that birth-control pills caused breast cancer.

He used statistics effectively also against Cong. Edcel Lagman who  showed unsportsmanlike behavior with an ad hominem argument against Congressman Golez, refusing to face and answer Golez’ arguments.

The voting results which Carlos Celdran readily dismissed (naturally!) because their side lost proved my point, which I have often said: When people know what the  RH bill contains, they will go against it. It’s most fatal flaw is the provision that would  make the government an agent of widespread dissemination of all contraceptives, traditional and modern.

Once it is known by people that many of these contraceptives like the pill, IUD, injectables, and implants are, in fact, abortifacients, they will reject the bill. The bill will  have a chance of passing and will be less objectionable if it makes explicit that pills and devices that prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum or dislodge it from the maternal womb  an embryo will not be allowed and will be forbidden by the government.

If the proponents of the bill agree to that, they will be showing themselves sincere when they claim that the bill does not promote abortion. All protestations by the proponents of the bill that the bill does not countenance abortion sound hollow when at the same time the bill they are proposing  provides for the government distribution  as essential medicines of  so-called contraceptives that prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum or dislodge it if is already implanted in the maternal womb.

On the other hand, I must also issue a corrective to the anti-RH  people. Sometimes their arguments are so couched that they appear to be saying: “Go on! Just keep on giving birth! The more people, the better for our country!” 

That is not the position of the Catholic Church in the Philippines. The Second Plenary Council of the Philippines stated the official position of the Church  when it said that responsible parenthood means that parents should indeed be generous in giving birth to new offspring, but they should strive to bring into the world only those children whom they can raise up in a human way.

Responsible parenthood  does not only mean no contraception. It means also responsible procreation. That is why the Church proposes natural family planning    for those couples who for the time being or for an indefinite time should not  yet bring forth a new human life.

Some pro-RH people have a point when they tell the anti-RH people that we must find effective means of helping couples limit temporarily or indefinitely the number of their children. Deciding to avoid procreation can also be an act of responsible parenthood.

The Church should help with natural family planning couples who wish not to procreate and at the same time do not know how to avoid pregnancy in a moral way.  If the Church truly believes that NFP is the only moral way to avoid pregnancy, then she must teach her children NFP.

In the meantime, let the anti-RH people keep on instructing the  people on the objectionable features of the present RH bill. But let them also promote responsible parenthood in the full sense of the term.