http://www.rappler.com/nation/54946-supreme-court-rh-law-constitutional
Please refer to the article linked above for the basis of this rant post. I don't normally voice out my opinions on public issues as I try to maintain as neutral as I can but this is just carzy. Just to get it out there, yes, I am an RH Bill supporter. Everybody should have access to reproductive health services - particularly the poor and the the women of our country. These are not mere band aid solutions but are actually long-term solutions that can better maternal health and the health of Filipinos in general, not to mention the inflation in our population. There has already been much debate about this and the poor are being stuck in the middle because politicians aren't even prioritizing their needs. The poor are asking for reproductive health services. They need family planning and contaception. This could be the way to actually help our society. You shouldn't be allowed to bring someone in the world and not be able to provide for him/her. It just isn't fair to label the RH Bill as Anti-life because it has its grounds in preserving life. If a child is t be brought up into this world, he/she should be able to live and not just subsist. That means allowing the child to have a family that can provide for his/her needs and allow him/her to grow. After seeing the ammendments made to the bill, I just couldn't stand it anymore. Ano pa ang pinaglalaban nitong bill na ito? Tinanggal na ang mga kinakailangan upang ito'y maging isang epektibong sangkap sa pag-unlad ng ating lipunan.
Section 7-B provides access to family planning and RH services to minors who have been pregnant or had a miscarriage without a parental consent -- pero minors nga ang pinaka nangangailangan nito. nakita nyo na ba ang teenage pregnancy? isn't it about time that the youth take responsibility into their own hands? especially since they are directly involved in this?
Section 23-A-1, which punishes RH providers regardless of their religious belief who fail or refuse to dissiminate information regarding RH services and programs. -- therefore pwedeng hindi nila ibigay and walang penalty for it? everybody should have a right to these services and it is not one man's place to take that information away.
Section 23-A-2-i, which allows a married individual not in a life-threatening case to access RH procedures without the consent of the spouse. -- daheck they're two individuals, they are mature adults who can make decisions for themselves and p.s. hindi mo katawan yung sa asawa mo pls lang
Section 23-A-3, insofar as it punishes an RH provider who fails to refer any non-life-threatening case to another RH provider -- so you can not give that person RH services? edi ano pa point? wala nang magbibigay kasi 1) magastos 2) hindi naman nila pinaniniwalaan in the first place.
Section 23-B, insofar as it punishes any public officer who refuses to support RH programs -- that basically takes all the opportunities from the poor who actually need it because their local government units are the ones who are supposed to fund for these in the first place. ano na ngayon incentive ng pulitiko mamigay ng RH services? hindi na nga ito priyoridad ng karamihan, kinukunsinte pa ito ng gubyerno na siyang pangunahing dapat pinaglalabanan ang mga karapatan ng kanilang sinasakupan
BASICALLY HUGAS KAMAY LANG LAHAT ITO. IPAPASA NYO FOR THE SAKE OF PASSING IT SO THAT THE ISSUE COULD BE LAID TO REST BUT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DEVELOPMENT EVEN AFTER SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE LOBBIED FOR THIS BILL. IT IS DIFFICULT TO REASON WITH PEOPLE WHO CANNOT SEE PAST THE TIP OF THEIR NOSES. HINDI KAHIT KAILAN UUNLAD ANG BANSANG ITO HANGGANG MATUTUNAN NG PULITIKONG UNAHIN ANG PANGANGAILANGAN NG KANIYANG NASASAKUPAN. THE WHOLE POINT OF GOOD GOVERNANCE IS LOST IN THIS. THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POWER NOW HAVE NO BACKBONE ENOUGH TO FIGHT FOR WHAT IS RIGHT, TO FIGHT FOR WHAT IS JUST. THERE IS SO MUCH INEQUALITY IN THIS COUNTRY AND STUNTS LIKE THIS ONLY MAKE THE RIFT THAT MUCH HARDER TO BRIDGE. -_-
I am very annoyed if it isn't obvious enough. -_-