president noynoy aquino’s miscommunication on the rh billl during SONA 2012 – is he anti-children? #rhbill
yes, president aquino in his 2012 SONA did mention the rh bill but phrased it as “responsible parenthood” (read more om this one from here: http://wp.me/pnw03-1Bm)
this was what aquino said in his SONA:
Matibay po ang pananalig natin kay Secretary Luistro: Bago matapos ang susunod na taon, ubos na ang minana nating 66,800 na kakulangan sa silid-aralan. [Applause] Ulitin ko po, next year pa po ‘yan; 40,000 pa lang this year. Ang minana po nating 2,573,212 na backlog sa upuan, tuluyan na rin nating matutugunan bago matapos ang 2012. [Applause] Sa taon din pong ito, masisimot na rin ang 61.7 million na backlog sa textbook upang maabot na, sa wakas, ang one is to one ratio ng aklat sa mag-aaral. [Applause]
Sana nga po, ngayong paubos na ang backlog sa edukasyon, sikapin nating huwag uling magka-backlog dahil sa dami ng estudyante. Sa tingin ko po, Responsible Parenthood ang sagot dito. [Applause]
I have great faith in Secretary Luistro: Before the next year ends, we will have built the 66,800 classrooms needed to fill up the shortage we inherited. The 2,573,212 backlog in chairs that we were bequeathed will be addressed before 2012 ends. This year, too, will see the eradication of the backlog of 61.7 million textbooks—and we will finally achieve the one-to-one ratio of books to students.
We are ending the backlogs in the education sector, but the potential for shortages remains as our student population continues to increase. Perhaps Responsible Parenthood can help address this.
aquino mentioned in his SONA within the context of the potential risk of an increasing number of the student population overwhelming or negating the education department’s efforts at filling up the backlog needs of students. the education sector has been plagued for decades of a lack of schools, classrooms, chairs and even books. aquino in this SONA said the education secretary is now on an aggressive move to erase the backlog. aquino was warning that population growth, the number of new entrants or children into the education system need to be kept at a lower growth rate, otherwise the education agency will not be able to erase the backlog.
this is population control. and one can argue it is being anti-children.
population control is not necessarily a bad thing. reducing birth rates is population control. families deciding to have less number of children or the married couple agreeing to a specific number of children is population control on a family level. we all do it, why shouldn’t the state encourage it?
population control becomes bad when the state dictates on its citizens to a certain number of children couples will have , or when citizens are forced into it like the way china does it which has a 1 child policy per family.
the rh bill has no such provision. number of children a couple will have is left to the couple’s discretion. the state in the rhbill will simply provide couples the means and information on how the couple can achieve their desired family size.
but there is the risk of interpreting aquino’s statement on the rh bill within the context he said it as being “anti-children”, that aquino does not want couples to have too many children that will have the effect of overwhelming the state’s efforts on the zero backlog on education.
the rh bill is not anti-children. in fact the rh bill is from the perspective of the parents, the married couple not children. the rh bill empowers the woman, the couple and the family into giving them the tools, education and service to enable them to successfully meet their desired number of children and age spacing of their children.
rh bill advocates knew what aquino meant. to a large extent the anti rh bill groups also knew what the president meant. they know it so well that they have reacted badly to the mention of the rh bill in the SONA. in fact CBCP has already launched an attack on aquino one day after the SONA.
malacanang apparently also knew what aquino said, actually what aquino failed to say and that is the reason why they felt compelled to clarify what aquino said during the SONA.
PNoy backing same RH Bill in CongressBy Willard Cheng, ABS-CBN NewsPosted at 07/24/2012 4:07 PM | Updated as of 07/24/2012 10:48 PMMANILA, Philippines – Malacañang said President Aquino was referring to the same consolidated bill on reproductive health (RH) now pending in Congress when he made a pitch for the passage of the responsible parenthood bill in his State of the Nation Address (SONA).
Deputy Presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said the draft bill submitted by the Palace has been consolidated with the version being pushed by advocates of reproductive health in Congress.
It has the title “An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development, and for other purposes.”
The Palace, however, prefers to use the shorthand “Responsible Parenthood bill” in referring to it.
The measure was included in the list of the administration’s priority bills during the meeting of the LEDAC.
“Ang punto po ‘non, ang dulo po ‘non, na-consolidate na po ‘yung anim na pending (bills) in Congress sponsored by Representatives (Edcel) Lagman, (Janette) Garin, (Arlene) Bag-Ao, (Walden) Bello, (Rodolfo) Biazon, (Augusto) Syjuco, (Luz) Ilagan, and (Emmi) De Jesus… into House Bill 4244. Ang title po nito, ‘An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development, and for other purposes.’ So ‘yun na po ‘yon. It has been consolidated with the pending bills,” Valte said.
“The bill submitted by the Palace took into consideration the dialogues that our officials had with members of the Church and also with members of pro-RH advocacy groups. So ‘yun na po ‘yung dulo niya. It’s House Bill 4244.” She added.
The Palace reiterated the President’s position on responsible parenthood. Valte said:
“First, the President is against abortion. This is a reiteration of the President’s position that he has, time and again, enunciated even from the campaign when he was running for president.
“Second, the President is in favor of giving couples the right to choose how best to manage their families so that in the end their welfare and that of their children are best served…
“Thirdly, the President is of the position that the state must respect each individual’s right to follow his or his conscience and religious convictions on matters and issues pertaining to the unity of the family and the sacredness of human life from conception to natural death.
“Fourth, in a situation where couples especially the poor and the disadvantaged ones are in no position to make an informed judgment, the state has the responsibility to so provide.
“And, lastly, in the range of options and information provided to couples, natural family planning and modern methods shall be presented as equally available.”
Asked if the President’s mention of the bill serves an endorsement for its passage, Valte said, “The members of Congress are free certainly to have their own interpretation of what was said by the President. But the President did mention Responsible Parenthood and that refers to the version that the Palace submitted during the LEDAC and to the one that was consolidated.”
Valte said there are no discussions yet if the Palace wants to certify the bill as “urgent.”
this incident demonstrates the importance of good communication and specificity specially on speeches of national importance by the president of the country.