Archive

Posts Tagged ‘RH Bill 5043’

serial plagiarist Senator Tito Sotto plagiarizes AGAIN in his september 5 speech, this time robert f. kennedy #rhbill

September 5, 2012 40 comments

this just exploded once again on twitter just a few hours after senator sotto delivered his 4th and last privilege speech at the senate floor just today. apparently senator sotto, the hero plagiarist of the anti rh bill advocates and the serial plagiarist in the philippine senate  did it AGAIN today. this time he plagiarized the last part of his speech from a speech by the great Robert F. Kennedy, “Day of Affirmation Address” speech delivered on june 6, 1966.

abs-cbn’s TV Patrol reported tonight that senator said the english parts were just “texted to him by a friend”. also of interest was his answer to senator jinggoy estrada’s question to him if there was any part of his speech was plagiarized. sotto replied there was none and the way he made sure of that was he delivered the speech in filipino.

of course he lied. his speech did contain plagiarized parts.

sotto also probably thinks translating it to filipino is not plagiarim.

here is the side by side comparison of the speeches we got from here : https://twitter.com/ChiliMedley/status/243281155581935618

the above pic was posted by Michel Eldiy (@ChiliMedley)

senator sotto’s speech todayhttp://anc.abs-cbnnews.com/articles/605/sen-sottos-turno-en-contra-speech-on-rh-bill-parts-3-4-as-prepared-for-delivery/

speech of robert f kennedy herehttp://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/RFK-Speeches/Day-of-Affirmation-Address-news-release-text-version.aspx

the plagiarized parts of the kennedy speech is on paragraph #34 (at around the last 1/4 of the speech; the paragraph starts with:  “Give me a place to stand,” said Archimedes….” ) of the kennedy speech while sotto said them on the second to the last paragraph of his speech (last paragraph is “Maraming salamat po.”)

PDI article, september 6:

Sotto does it again, channels Robert F. Kennedy in Filipino

 By 

Did Robert F. Kennedy know how to speak Filipino?

This appears to be the gist of Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III’s defense amid new allegations of plagiarism after he delivered the fourth and last part of his “turno en contra” speech against the reproductive health bill.

It took bloggers less than two hours to find out that Sotto did it again.

A tweet from a certain Michel Eldiy at 5:30 p.m., more than an hour after the Sotto speech, triggered online discussions on the supposed intellectual dishonesty of the senator.

“Not true that last part of Sotto’s speech is original. See Day of Affirmation speech of Robert Kennedy in 1966 in South Africa,” said Eldiy, who goes by the Twitter handle, “ChiliMedley.”

She then tweeted a link to the Kennedy speech and later compared it with the speech of Sotto.

Sought for comment, the senator said: “It was texted to me by a friend.

“I found the idea good. I translated it into Tagalog [Filipino]. So what’s the problem?” Sotto told the Philippine Daily Inquirer when asked about his reaction to the fresh accusations.

“Ano? Marunong nang mag-Tagalog si Kennedy? (What now? Does Kennedy now know how to speak in Tagalog)?” he added.

In a separate text message, the senator lamented that proponents of the RH bill were nitpicking

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/264818/oops-sotto-did-it-again

news article from abs-cbn, september 5.

Sotto’s last speech copied from Kennedy?

by Jojo Malig, ABS-CBNnews.com
Posted at 09/05/2012 6:57 PM | Updated as of 09/05/2012 6:59 PM

MANILA, Philippines –  Did Senator Tito Sotto, who has been accused of plagiarism, copy yet again from someone else in the last part of his “turno en contra” privilege speech against the reproductive health (RH) bill on Wednesday?

Social media users called out Sotto anew, accusing him of only translating parts of a speech originally delivered by the late US Senator Robert F. Kennedy.

de la salle university professors support the rh bill – “rh bill is pro-life”

September 4, 2012 2 comments

THE RH BILL IS PRO-LIFE — Statement of DLSU Individual Faculty Members

by RH Bill Portal on Friday, August 31, 2012 at 8:20pm ·

We, the undersigned Faculty Members of the De La Salle University, acting individually, and with reasoned conviction, cognizant of our role in society as champions of enlightenment and in pursuit of our mission to create a haven for critical Christian thinkers committed to serve society, particularly the poor, assert that:

  • The right to life is a fundamental Christian tenet that finds full meaning when combined with the inherent rights of humans to a decent, safe, and productive existence as well as to an all-round development. Thus, beyond protecting the very important right of the unborn, it must extend to a recognition that a life that is weighed down by poverty, sickness, and social inequality – now compounded by environmental stresses – deprives humans of agency to transform themselves and the world for the common good.
  • A key dimension of the democratic ideal at the core of our community and country is the promotion of pluralism and diversity. In a society marred by great imbalances of power and wealth, the freedom that comes with choice has become a privilege. Empowering the poor and the marginalized, women in particular, requires opening up opportunities for their self-actualization. In this modern day, it is alarming that death from childbirth continues to claim 4,500 women every year or about 12 every day. Lack of access to quality and affordable reproductive health services and timely information as much as poverty has kept many women from finding their own voice, exercising their basic rights, and taking their place as full members of society.
  • The current population level, ranged against the level of our physical, environmental, and natural resources, is only one – albeit important – factor to the worsening quality of life of Filipinos. While our population growth rate has declined somewhat below the two percent threshold, it is still higher relative to the increase in the incomes of families in the 7th to the 10th decile groups – the segment of the population with the highest proportion of those living in absolute poverty as well. Here, among these groups, the quality of life is severely compromised due to an increase in population.
  • Part of a meaningful celebration of life itself is the affirmation of the inherent moral standing of every human being, who has the capacity to make reasoned decisions, guided both by moral and ethical considerations, as well as by scientific truths and conventions. The ability to make moral judgments, however, requires knowledge and information, and for those living in materially constrained circumstances, requires further support from the society. The capacity to provide that support now rests with the State and its instrumentalities.

Our belief in the above mentioned premises leads us to express support for the Reproductive Health Bill in both houses of Congress as a much needed step toward the attainment of a just and democratic society which celebrates life at its fullest range and quality. Our support to the RH Bill is grounded on the following convictions:

  • Enacting the RH Bill into law would strengthen the capacity of the State to assist women and their partners to make informed choices, thereby helping them to become healthy and responsible parents and attain a life of quality for themselves and their families. This is achieved by providing women and their partners, particularly the poor, with information and other forms of reproductive health support, including safe and affordable methods that do not violate the Constitutional provision declaring as illegal abortion and, by implication, the sale and promotion of abortifacient birth control technologies. Read more…

ateneo upholding academic freedom : “The university has its own purposes which cannot be subordinated to other objectives”

September 3, 2012 Leave a comment

 

Understanding Catholic universities

by: fr joaquin bernas sj

In discussing Catholic universities one must  begin with Canon 808 of the Code of Canon Law which says: “Even if it really be Catholic, no university may bear the title or name Catholic university without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority.” In that technical juridical sense, the Ateneo and almost all other institutions in the Philippines, save one perhaps, which are publicly regarded as Catholic, are not in juridical terms Catholic. But are they Catholic in any other sense?

Even Canon 808 suggests that institutions which do not have the ecclesiastical title of Catholic can in fact be “really Catholic.” The appellation of Catholic can come from various sources. It can come, for instance, from its origins as founded by various religious orders of men and women. That in fact is how most Catholic institutions in the Philippines started. The appellation also comes from what in fact they do. For this reason these institutions are recognized as affiliated with the Church even if not “canonically Catholic.”

It must also be said that a canonical title is not the litmus test for being truly Catholic. Pope John Paul II in fact looks for more in a Catholic university. In a speech before Catholic universities in the United States, both canonically recognized and not, he said:

“A Catholic university or college must make a specific contribution to the Church and to society through high-quality scientific research, in-depth study of problems, and a just sense of history, together with the concern to show the full meaning of the human person regenerated in Christ, thus favoring the complete development of the person. Furthermore, the Catholic university or college must train young men and women of outstanding knowledge who, having made a personal synthesis of faith and culture, are both capable and willing to assume tasks in the service of the community and of society in general, and to bear witness to their faith before the world. And finally, to be what it ought to be, a Catholic college or university must set up, among its faculty and students, a real community which bears witness to a living and operative Christianity, a community where sincere commitment to scientific research and study goes together with a deep commitment to authentic Christian living.

“This is your identity. This is your vocation. . . .  The term ‘Catholic’ will never be a mere label, either added or dropped according to the pressures of varying factors.”

Briefly, a Catholic university is not just an institute for teaching catechism.

Further, in the same speech, John Paul II emphasized the importance of academic freedom:  “As one who for long years have been a university professor, I will never tire of insisting on the eminent role of the university, which is to instruct but also to be a place of scientific research. In both these fields, its activity is deeply related to the deepest and noblest aspiration of the human person: the desire to come to the knowledge of truth. No university can rightfully deserve the esteem of the world of higher learning unless it applies the highest standards of scientific research, constantly updating the methods and working instruments, and unless it excels in seriousness, and therefore in freedom of investigation.”

It is in this context that Fr. Jose “Jett” Villarin has defended what the Ateneo professors have been doing. At the same time, this is the measuring rod according to which Ateneo professors, and other professors of Catholic universities, must examine their individual consciences. Similarly, those who criticize them must meet them in the context of the field of expertise from which they write and not only in the limited context of the Baltimore Catechism.

One might also ask, is Father Jett being faithful to the teachings of the Society of Jesus? We Jesuits tend to disagree among ourselves about almost everything. As an Italian saying goes, Tre Jesuiti, quattro opinioni. Perhaps cinque or even more. But I think if we surveyed the opinion of Jesuits in school work we will find them overwhelmingly in agreement with the words of the superior general of the Jesuits, Fr. Peter-Hans Kolvenbach in an address titled “The Jesuit University in the Light of Ignatian Charism.” He said: “Far be it from us to try to convert the university into a mere instrument of evangelization or, worse still, for proselytizing. The university has its own purposes which cannot be subordinated to other objectives. It is important to respect institutional autonomy, academic freedom, and to safeguard personal and community rights.” Father Kolvenbach goes on to insist that there is no inherent schizophrenia in the identity of a Jesuit college or university. “In a Catholic university, or one of Christian inspiration, under the responsibility of the Society of Jesus, there does not exist—nor can there exist—incompatibility between the goals proper to the university and the Christian and Ignatian inspiration that should characterize any apostolic institution of the Society of Jesus.”

Father Jett told me at supper that Archbishop Chito Tagle, at the wake for Jesse Robredo, condoled and commiserated with him (probably with a wink!) as he parries the slings and arrows coming his way from “loyal Catholic catechists.”  Jett can take it. He is young and was valedictorian of the same Ateneo college batch as Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

CBCP answers fr joaquin bernas on rh bill via print ad at philippine daily inquirer

August 31, 2012 2 comments

this was published as a 3/4 page print ad at today’s philippine daily inquirer on page 11.  it is a direct reaction to the articles that fr. joaquin bernas, a jesuit has been publishing in his column in the same newspaper on the rh bill.

fr. bernas is a prominent filipino jesuit in the country respected and admired by all for being one of the country’s most authoritative on philippine law. fr. bernas teaches law at the ateneo law school and was a member of the constitutional convention that drafted the current constitution of the country. fr. bernas is often called by the courts and other lawyers for his opinion on matters of law.

we have printed here many of the important articles fr. bernas has written on the rh bull. (click here : https://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/?s=bernas)

this is the first time that the cbcp has directly answered fr. bernas on his views on the rh bill. fr. bernas has been publishing his views on the rh bill for many months now without a reaction from the cbcp. we give an explanation on this “sudden” reply by the cbcp to fr. bernas.

the print ad reply of the cbcp must have been triggered by the recent controversy that is still brewing right now on the ateneo professors’ stand on the rh bill. 192 ateneo professors have recently released a statement saying they support the rh bill and are calling for congress to immediately pass it into law. this is the thrid time that the ateneo professors have released such a statement but this one was different in that a large number, 192 in all have signed on to the statement. the first statement of the ateneo professors only had 60 professors signing up (“catholics can support the th bill in good conscience”)

read relevant articles on the ateneo professors support on the rh bill here: (click to read)

a bigger controversy was sparked when a permanent member bishop of the CBCP called for the ateneo to investigate the ateneo professors for their stand on the rh bill and said that they should be sanctioned, in fact fired from their jobs for their stand. the bishop also said catholic schools that do not teach the stand of the church on the rh bill should lose their “catholic” status.

the very next day the bishop made the threat of removing the “catholic status” of the ateneo and asking for the ateneo to fire the professors from their jobs, fr. jett villarin, president of the ateneo de manila university published an open letter to the ateneo community at the ateneo website.

fr. villarin in his letter did not say the ateneo professors will be given any sanction, will not be fired from their jobs and instead he even appreciated the efforts of the ateneo professors at forwarding their stand on the rh bill. the ateneo president also reiterated that as a catholic school, the ateneo is anti rh bill but respects the individual stand of the professors which was contrary to the university’s stand.

some things on the CBCP statement:

  • we find it strange that the name of fr. bernas is mentioned in this statement posted at the CBCP for Life website but has been deleted in the print ad released at the Philippine Daily Inquirer. we wonder what the reason is for that change.
  • this statement admits the CBCP stand against the rh bill is not based on theology,  “It is also good to point out that the church teaching regarding contraceptives is not based on Faith or revelation”.
  • it confirms our view that the CBCP’s opposition on the rh bill is based on Humanae Vitae, the encyclical pope paul VI released in 1968. (click to read here: Humanae Vitae encyclical – the catholic church’s basis for it’s stand on birth control)
  • it specifically basses its objection on “natural law”
  • humanae vitae and natural law while talke about by the church are not infallible and not dogma. a pope need to declare a church teaching to be infallible or dogma. no such thing has been done for both.
  • infallible encyclicals or dogma need to be followed by all catholics. it is a sin for catholics not to follow them.
  • since humanae vitae and natural law are not infallible and not dogma, catholics can treat these only as guidelines or food for thought. they have the freedom to follow it or not.
  • the above has been the position of fr. bernas and the ateneo professors.

(note : highlights are mine)

Defense of the Stand of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines on the House Bill 4244 (Reproductive Health Bill)

Bishop of Antipolo defends the CBCP.

One of the main reasons, if not the main reason, why the Catholic Church is against the House Bill 4244 (Reproductive Health Bill or Responsible Parenthood Bill) is that the bill directs the government to promote contraception and to give free contraceptives to people. According to Father Bernas, SJ (Sounding Board, Philippine Daily Inquirer, May 23, 2011), this opposition of the Church is against religious freedom. He says that, because of religious freedom, “the state should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their beliefs nor may churchmen compel President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief.”

First of all, by opposing the RH Bill, the Catholic Church is not moving for the ban of contraceptives (the non-abortifacient ones), although she would be happy if these contraceptives were banned. At present, in the Philippines, anyone can buy contraceptives from drugstores and even from some “convenience stores”. What the Church is against, I repeat, is that government should promote contraception and provide free contraceptives to people. Therefore it is wrong to say that the Church wants the government to “prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their religious belief” and that the Catholic churchmen are compelling “President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious beliefs.” What the church does is to try to convince President Aquino and our senators and congressmen not to enact a law that directs the government to promote contraception and provide free contraceptives to people.

It is also good to point out that the church teaching regarding contraceptives is not based on Faith or revelation, although it is confirmed by our Faith. This church teaching is based on natural law, which we know through natural reason. By studying through correct reasoning the nature of the human person, we arrive at this teaching regarding contraception. All human beings, Catholic or not, are obliged to act according to right reason. By the efforts of the Church to go against the RH Bill, the Church is not imposing her religious beliefs on others. She is trying to stop a bill which is against natural law, a law which all human beings, Catholic or not, should follow. The RH Bill, judged from the principles of natural law, is against the good of the human person and the common good. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its “Doctrinal Note regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life” tells us that all citizens, including Catholics, have the right “to base their contribution to society and political life – through the legitimate means available to everyone in a democracy – on their particular understanding of the human person and the common good.” In a democracy, any group of citizens has the right to campaign and lobby so that what they consider to be good for the country are enacted into law and what they deem to be harmful for the country are not enacted into law.

Read more…

senator sotto’s legacy- sotto makes it to New York Times on the rh bill

August 30, 2012 2 comments

the honorable senator tito sotto has made it to the big apple, at least at the New York Times on the speeches he has been making on the rh bill at the senate floor. we think this piece by miguel syjuco is an excellent piece that gives very good snapshots of the legacy of the senator at the philippine senate.

sotto’s latest rant on the rh bill at the senate floor gave us these:

  • sotto thinks he is immune from criticism and disagreement from social media netizens. sotto in his latest rant at the senate floor practically spent 99% of this speech complaining about how he has been criticized for his plagiarized speech.
  • not only that, sotto has threatened to pass a bill to stop or control bloggers and netizens from social media.
  • president noynoy aquino also makes speeches and he also gets criticized by social media netizens but we have not heard the president complain, much less threaten netizens of censorship. sotto apparently feels otherwise.
  • he spent 99% of his speech complaining about the criticisms and disagreements thrown at him by social media netizens, the balance 1% he spent on one sentence, at the very end of his speech – he asked the senate to remove from the senate records the plagiarized parts of his speech that he delivered on the floor.
  • to this date, sotto has not admitted he has plagiarized parts of his speech but now we wonder why he needed to ask the senate to remove parts of his speech from the senate record.

A Plagiarist’s Rant Against Birth Control

By MIGUEL SYJUCO Published: August 29, 2012

WHILE anatomically illiterate politicians in America babble about “legitimate rape,” a Filipino legislator opposed to birth control has been shedding crocodile tears in Parliament and plagiarizing speeches to bolster the case against reproductive rights.

On Aug. 13, the Senate majority leader, Tito Sotto, wept while addressing his assembled peers. The former actor told the Senate that birth-control pills, used by his wife in 1974, had led to the death of their newborn son a year later. The emotional scene shut down the day’s debate. It was the latest obstruction to passing a reproductive health law that has languished for 14 years.

Proponents of the reproductive health bill say it will address poverty, women’s rights, infant and maternal mortality, and overpopulation in a poor nation crowded with 94 million people. Though contraceptives are currently available, the general population can’t afford them. The bill seeks to offer natural and artificial birth-control options, reproductive health care and sex education in public schools.

Opponents, like Mr. Sotto and the powerful Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, saycontraception is akin to abortion. They claim the bill is an elitist and foreign conspiracy to corrupt a country in which 80 percent of the population is Catholic. They fear the erosion of family values, state intrusion on religious freedom, tacit approval of promiscuity and side effects of oral contraceptives.

Two days later, news that Mr. Sotto had plagiarized his speech spilled across blogs, Twitter and Facebook. Careful readers proved that he’d copied and pasted, without citation, large portions from as many as at least five online sources. Among them were the writings of Sarah Pope, who blogs as “the Healthy Home Economist”; a New York University Web site on the notable birth-control advocate Margaret Sanger; and an American activist named Janice Formichella, writing for Feminists for Choice. What’s more, the senator twisted their words for his own purposes.

Mr. Sotto forcefully denied responsibility rather than confessing and offering an apology. When Ms. Pope blogged her dismay at being plagiarized, the senator declared on Filipino TV: “Why would I quote from a blogger? She’s just a blogger.” His chief of staff, Hector Villacorta, told reporters that blogs aren’t copyrighted, governments are exempt from copyright laws, and parliamentary immunity protects the senator. Besides, the Philippines “plagiarized the U.S. Constitution,” he said. “Even our image was copied from God. We are all plagiarists.”

God, it seems, is also on Mr. Sotto’s side.

Read more…

unheard women of palawan speak on family planning & the rh bill

August 22, 2012 Leave a comment

the continuing saga of Sarah Pope, the blogger senator tito sotto plagiarized

August 16, 2012 Leave a comment

we will be aggregating posts on the blogs of sarah, (the healthy home economist) on the alleged plagiarism charge on senator tito sotto. these posts are available on these sites :

this will make it easier for everyone to appreciate the posts made so far on her sites.

notice : these are actual screen caps from her blogs, nothing added, nothing removed. and senator sotto – everything here is properly referenced and acknowledged. (ahem)

sarah posted these comments on her facebook page:

sarah was referring to this post by a certain atty. hector villacorta who claims to be the chief of staff of senator sotto.

caution : we have no way of confirming if the person who posted that on her site is really from atty. villacorta nor do we know if the atty is senator sotto’s chief of staff.

—-

here is the latest:

Sotto’s office admits copying US blog

by Jojo Malig, ABS-CBNNews.com
Posted at 08/16/2012 9:45 PM | Updated as of 08/16/2012 11:04 PM
MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) – Senator Tito Sotto’s chief of staff on Thursday night admitted that they copied the work of an American blogger in the lawmaker’s turno en contra speech on the reproductive health (RH) bill.

Atty. Hector Villacorta, in a message posted on the Facebook page of Sarah Pope, said it was the senator’s staff who lifted the content of the blogger’s work without attributing it to her.

Read more…

based on serious evidence, the RH Bill is pro-poor and authentically pro-life & pro-family – UP Economics Professors

July 30, 2012 1 comment

Population, poverty, politics and RH bill

 By: 

10:03 pm | Saturday, July 28th, 2012

The population issue has long been dead and buried in developed and most developing countries, including historically Catholic countries.

That it continues to be debated heatedly in our country merely testifies to the lack of progress in policy and action. The Catholic Church hierarchy has maintained its traditional stance against modern family planning (FP) methods, particularly modern (also referred to as “artificial”) contraceptives.

On the other hand, the State acknowledges the difficulties posed for development by rapid population growth, especially among the poorest Filipinos. But it has been immobilized from effectively addressing the issue by the Catholic hierarchy’s hard-line position, as well as the tendency of some politicians to cater to the demands of well-organized and impassioned single-issue groups for the sake of expediency.

Caught between a hard Church and a soft State are the overwhelming majority of Filipinos who affirm the importance of helping women and couples control the size of their families and the responsibility of the government to provide budgetary support for modern FP services.

Renewed impetus to the debate has been given by the public and political interest in the decade-and-a-half old bill on “Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development” (RH bill, for short). Unfortunately, serious discussion has been hampered by the lack of reliable information and the proclivity of some parties in the debate to use epithets that label the bill as “proabortion,” “antilife” and “immoral.”

There were a few aspects of the bill to which some groups have expressed objections, which the latest version has already addressed. In any case, the main thrust of the bill—“enabl(ing) couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have the information and means to carry out their decisions”—is something we strongly and unequivocally support. In what follows, we explain why.

Real score

The experience from across Asia indicates that population policy cum government-funded FP program has been a critical complement to sound economic policy and poverty reduction. Moreover, the weaker the state’s ability to tax and mobilize resources (including spending on the right priorities) is, the greater the negative impact on economic development of a rapidly growing population, which in every developing country is largely accounted for by the least educated and poorest segments of the population.

Owing to the lack of a clear population policy (RH/FP programs) besides just modest economic growth since the 1970s, our country sadly has fallen well behind its original Asean neighbors (Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia) in terms of both demographic and economic indicators. (See Table 1.)

Sadder still is the prospect that unless the RH (or responsible parenthood) bill is passed in Congress and swiftly implemented, our country will likely be overtaken even by its latecomer Asean neighbors (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar) in a few years time.

At the micro level, large family size is closely associated with poverty incidence, as consistently borne out by household survey data over time. In short, poor families are heavily burdened when they end up with more children than they want.

Official data from the Family Income and Expenditures Survey (FIES) since 1985 have unambiguously shown that poverty incidence is lower for families with fewer children but rises consistently with the number of children. (See Table 2.) Among families with one child only 2.9 percent are poor compared with households having nine or more children where 46.4 percent are destitute (FIES 2009).

Moreover, larger families make smaller investment in human capital per child—investment that is crucial to breaking the vicious chain of intergenerational poverty. Average annual spending on education per student falls from P8,212 for a one-child family to P2,474 for a family with nine or more children, and average health spending per capita drops correspondingly from P3,389 to P582 (FIES 2006 and Labor Force Survey 2007).

Read more…

congressmen who will vote for the rh bill in congress will get votes from the electorate

July 30, 2012 Leave a comment

these numbers are impressive – a high 71% of all catholics and a high of 68% of non-catholics are “in favor” of the rh bill. these people see that there is a need for the rh bill. congressmen who will vote for the rh bill in congress will be seen by the electorate as  not only listening to the people but also  providing for the needs of the people.

there is no ambivalence or doubt in the minds of the people – based on their own experience, they know how the rh bill can help them in their daily lives. unplanned pregnancy to them will disrupt their plans and ambitions for themselves and most specially for their family. they know that it is hard enough for them to get by with their meager income, having an unplanned pregnancy will make it even more difficult if not impossible.

these are catholics and they do know what the stand of the catholic church is on the rh bill. the 71% who agree with the rh bill are doing so with full knowledge that they are going against the wishes of the church. they see more urgency for the rh bill than what their priests are telling them.

voting for the rh bill in congress will earn the congressmen favor and in fact will get them elected in the upcoming elections.

president noynoy aquino’s miscommunication on the rh billl during SONA 2012 – is he anti-children? #rhbill

July 25, 2012 3 comments

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:

aquino:

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]

english:

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 Congress

By Willard Cheng, ABS-CBN News
Posted at 07/24/2012 4:07 PM | Updated as of 07/24/2012 10:48 PM
MANILA, 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.

 

 

%d bloggers like this: