Rh Bill

St. Jude College School of Art Science and Education capital of the Filipinos A Term Paper Submitted as a Requirement For the cogitation Philippine Government and nature Submitted By Jim Waine C. Averilla Karissa Helene B. Salvador Submitted To Diosdado B. Lopega March 27, 20 HISTORYAccording to the Senate insurance policy Brief titled Promoting fruitful wellness, the history of productive wellness in the Philippines dates back to 1967 when leaders of 12 countries including the Philippines Ferdinand Marcos signed the resolving power of Population The Philippines agreed that the cosmos caper should be experienceed as the fountainhead element for long-term stinting development.Thus, the Population guardianship was created to uphold for a light family size norm and domiciliate data and services to lower impressiveness rates. Starting 1967, the USAID started shouldering 80% of the add up family supply commodities (cont washoutptives) of the country, which amounted to US$ 3 Million annu eachy. In 1975, the United States adopted as its policy the depicted object Security Study Memorandum 200 Implications of Worldwide Population process for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200). The policy gives paramount importance to great deal suppress sum of moneys and the promotion of contraception among 13 populous countries, including the Philippines to master fast macrocosm gain which they deem to be inimical to the socio-political and economic maturement of these countries and to the guinea pig interests of the United States, since the U. S. conomy volition require adult(a) and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, and these countries bath develop destabilizing op horizon forces against the United States. It recomm balances the US leadership to influence guinea pig leaders and that improved world-wide nominate for vulgarwealth-related efforts should be sought through increase emphasis on mass media and other cosmos stu dy and demand classs by the UN, USIA, and USAID. Different presidents had unalike points of emphasis. electric make Marcos pushed for a systematic distribution of contraceptives exclusively over the country, a policy that was called coercive, by its leading administrator. The Cory Aquino administration focus on giving couples the right to draw the number of children they prefer, while the Ramos administration shifted from state control to state tell apartment. Estrada used mixed methods of reducing fertility rates, while Arroyo focused on principal(prenominal)streaming innate family supplying, while stating that contraceptives argon openly sold in the country.In 1989, the Philippine Legislators delegation on Population and increase (PLCPD) was established, dedicated to the formulation of viable public policies requiring statute rectitude on population management and socio-economic development. In 2000, the Philippines signed the Millennium Declaration and committe d to detect the MDG goals by 2015, including promoting kindleuality reachity and wellness. In 2003, USAID started its phase come forth of a 33-year-old program by which leave office contraceptives were given to the country.Aid recipients much(prenominal) as the Philippines set almost the challenge to fund its own contraception program. In 2004, the Department of Health introduced the Philippines Contraceptive Self-Reliance Strategy, arranging for the replacement of these tangle withations with domestically provided contraceptives. In pordecadetous 2010, the political science announced a collaborative work with the USAID in implementing a comprehensive marketing and communications strategy in promote of family planning called May Plano Sila. Summary of criticismOpp unmatchablents of the snoot argue that (1) The worlds leading scientific experts brook resolved the come ins related to the circular and show that the RH peak is found on equipment casualty economics as the 2003 Rand Corporation memorize shows that at that place is little cross-country bear witness that population growth impedes or promotes economic growth. (2) The observance takes a bureau bound regime funds from treating umpteen an(prenominal) uplifted priority medical checkup examination and victuals needs and transfers them to fund objectively harmful and deadly devices.The latest studies in scientific daylightbooks and organizations show that the so-so(predicate) birth control pill, and the IUD be abortifacient to 100-celled human embryos they wipe out the embryonic human, who as such atomic number 18 human beings equally congruous of complaisance, making the charge unconstitutional. (3) US field of resume Defense Consultant, Li unitaryl Tiger, has shown a posteriori evidence that contraceptives take in de permiterious social effects (miscarriage, premarital sex, female impoverishment, founding fatherless(prenominal) children, teenage pregnancies, a nd pauperisation).Harvard School of Public Health scientist Edward Green observes that when bulk retrieve theyre made safe by exploitation condoms at least round of the condemnation, they actually require in essayier sex, in the phenomenon called risk compensation. on that point is evidence for increased risk of peckcer (breast, cervical, liver) as well as signifi asst increase of risk for heart attack and stroke for electric current users of oral contraceptives. The increased usage of contraceptives, which implies that many babies argon un expected, leave ultimately lead to much abortion the orrelation was shown in a scientific journal and ack forthwithledged by pro-RH leaders, (4) Peoples license to access contraceptives is non restricted by both opposing law, being available in family planning NGOs, stores, etc. The country is non a welfare state appraisepayers cash should non be used for soulal practices that are harmful and immoral it can be used to info rm sight of the harm of BCPs. (5) The penal victuals constitute a violation of free choice and conscience, and establishes religious persecution.chairwoman Aquino express he was not an author of the bill. He to a fault say that he gives full support to a firm population policy, educating parents to be trus devilrthy, providing contraceptives to those who collect for them, but he refuses to promote contraceptive use. He verbalise that his position is much than aptly called responsible parenthood rather than reproductive wellness. economical and demographic premises The Philippines is the 39th most densely populated country, with a density over 335 per squared kilometer, and the population growth rate is 1. % (2010 Census), 1. 957% (2010 est. by CIA World Fact Book), or 1. 85% (20052010 high variant foreshadow by the UN Population Division, World Population Prospects The 2008 Revision) coming from 3. 1 in 1960. The 2010 total fertility rate (TFR) is 3. 23 births per woman, from a TFR of 7 in 1960. In addition, the total fertility rate for the richest quintile of the population is 2. 0, which is around wiz third the TFR of the forgetfulest quintile (5. 9 children per woman). The TFR for women with college education is 2. , about half that of women with except an basal education (4. 5 children per woman). Congressman Lagman states that the bill recognizes the verifiable link amongst a spacious population and beggary. Unbridled population growth stunts socioeconomic development and aggravates leanness. The University of the Philippines School of Economics presented twain papers in support of the bill Population and Poverty the Real Score (2004), and Population, Poverty, Politics and the fruitful Health gamin (2008).According to these economists, which include Solita Monsod, Gerardo Sicat, Cayetano Paderanga, Ernesto M. Pernia, and Stella Alabastro-Quimbo, rapid population growth and high fertility rates, especially among the poor, do exacerb ate poverty and make it harder for the government to character it, while at the resembling time clarifying that it would be extreme to ruling population growth as the principal front of poverty that would justify the government resorting to draconian and coercive measures to deal with the problem (e. g. denial of basic services and subsidies to families with much than than two children). They illustrate the nexus amidst rapid population growth and poverty by analyze the economic growth and population growth rates of Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines, wherein the first two grew much rapidly than the Philippines due to lower population growth rates. They punctuate that the experience from across Asia indicates that a population policy cum government-funded family planning program has been a critical complement to sound economic policy and poverty step-down.In Population and Poverty, Aniceto Orbeta, Jr, showed that poverty incidence is higher among big families 57. 3% of Philippine families with seven children are in poverty while wholly 23. 8% of families who piss two children live below the poverty threshold. percentage of population living below poverty line (2003). Darker areas mean more poverty. Proponents argue that smaller families and wider birth intervals resulting from the use of contraceptives allow families to vest more in each childs education, wellness, nutrition and eventually knock down poverty and hunger at the mansion household level.At the national level, fertility reduction cuts the cost of social services with a few(prenominal)er people attending schooling or seeking medical care and as demand eases for housing, transportation, jobs, water, food and other natural resources. The Asiatic Development Bank in 2004 likewise listed a large population as one of the major causes of poverty in the country, together with weak macroeconomic management, employment issues, an at a lower placeperforming agricultural welki n and an unfinished land reform agenda, governance issues including corruption. Criticism of premisesOpponents refer to a 2003 study of Rand Corporation, which concluded that there is little cross-country evidence that population growth impedes or promotes economic growth population neutralism has in occurrence been the predominant school in thinking among academics about population growth for the last half-century. For example, the 1992 study of Ross Levine and David Renelt, which covered 119 countries over 30 years (vs UP study of 3 countries over a few years). The RAND study likewise express that a large population can promote growth given the right fundamentals.Thus, they refer to the HSBC 2012 projection for 2050 that the Philippines exiting be 6teenth largest providence due to its large growing population, and those whose populations are decreasing get out suffer decline. In his Primer which critiques the bill, Economist Roberto de Vera refers to Nobel prize winner S imon Kuznetss study which concludes that no clear association appears to exist in the present stress of countries, or is likely to exist in other developed countries, between rates of growth of population and of product per capita. Julian Simon compared parallel countries such as North and South Korea, East and West Germany whose birthrates were practically the same but whose economic growth was consummately different due to different governance featureors. De Vera says that similar conclusions have been arrived at by the US National Research Council in 1986 and in the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) Consultative merging of Economists in 1992 and the studies of Hanushek and Wommann (2007), Doppelhoffer, Miller, Sala-I-Martin (2004), Ahlburg (1996), etc.The other Nobel Prize winner who expressed the same view is Gary Becker. De Vera also states that from 1961 to 2000, as Philippine population increased almost tierce times, poverty decreased from 59% to 34%. He stressed that the more probable cause of poor families is not family size but the limited schooling of the household head 78% to 90% of the poor households had heads with no high school diploma, preventing them from getting proficient paying jobs.He refers to studies which show that 90% of the time the poor want the children they have as facilitateers in the raise and investment for a secure old age. Instead of aiming at population decrease, De Vera stressed that the country should focus through education on changeing in on a possible demographic dividend, a period of rapid economic growth that can happens when the labor force is growing fleet than the dependents (children and elderly), thus reducing poverty significantly.In a recent development, two authors of the reproductive Health snoot changed their stand firm on the plannings of the bill regarding population and development. Reps. Emerciana de Jesus and Luzviminda Ilagan wanted to delete three provisions which state that gender equality and women empowerment are central elements of reproductive health and population and development, which integrate responsible parenthood and family planning programs into anti-poverty initiatives, and which name the Population rush as a coordinating body.The two party-list representatives strongly state that poverty is not due to over-population but because of inequality and corruption. Opponents also refer to the didactics of the Federation of on the loose(p) Farmers that history teaches about the economic advantages of a large population, and the disadvantages of a smaller population. The Wall Street Journal in July 2012 said that Aquinos promotion of a reproductive health bill is jarring since it could lead to a demographic trap of too few workers.The Philippines doesnt have too many people, it has too few pro-growth policies. Opposing the bill, Former Finance Secretary Roberto de Ocampo wrote that it is unfeignedly disingenuous for anyone to proceed on the premise that the poo r are to hellish for the nations poverty. He emphasized that the government should obligate the tenet of first things first and focus on the root causes of the poverty (e. g. poor governance, corruption) and apply many other alternatives to solve the problem (e. g. giving up pork barrel, raising tax collection efficiency).They also point to the five many factors for high economic growth and reduction of poverty shown by the 2008 Commission on Growth and Development headed by Nobel prize winner Michael Spence, which does not include population control. Status Legislature On 31 January 2011, six different bills were consolidated into a single RH Bill which was whence unanimously approved for plenary debate by the tolerate citizens committee on Population and Family Relations. On 7 February 2011, the bill was scheduled to go before the raise Appropriations commissioning. 6 February 2011 the bill was endorsed by the raise Appropriations mission with amendment and referred ba ck to the Population Committee for finalizing the language. President and Cabinet President Noynoy Aquino during the presidential campaign said that it confounds him why he is always associated with the RH Bill and reiterated that he is neither an author nor a co-author, much less did he sign the committee report regarding the bill. He said that he will fully support the crafting of a firm policy that will address the serious problem on population. At the same time, Aquino said that insubstantial contraception was a matter of choice and conscience and that health professionals who burgeon forth people into using conventionalized contraceptives should be penalized. As a Catholic, Aquino said he himself was not promoting artificial contraception but gestates that the government should be able to provide it to Philippines who ask for it. Aquino stressed Im a Catholic, Im not promoting it. My position is more aptly called responsible parenthood rather than reproductive health.Acco rding to Rina Jimenez David who is pro-RH, during the Women Deliver Philippines Conference held September 2010, small Soliman, Aquinos Secretary of Social Welfare and Development, said that choice and access be the keystone of the Aquino governments policy, reiterating the administrations support for the unfinished reproductive health bills. On celestial latitude 2010, the Cabinet and the CBCP agreed to have a joint campaign providing full education on the advantages and risks of contraceptives, natural and artificial family planning and responsible parenthood.They have established a technical foul working group for this draw a bead on. They also agreed that government will not be an instrument to enforce or violate the conscience of the people about these issues. However, by April 2011 the President has given his full support to the entire RH Bill in a speech at the University of the Philippines and promised to push for its sack upage even at the risk of elision. Compromis e and alternativesSenate President Juan paramour Enrile, Congressman Roilo Golez and Buhay party-list separately filed bills that seek to restrict abortion and birth control use. These bills have been seen either as a nullification of the RH Bill, its alternative, or as a way of achieving unity among the populace, since the RH Bill proponents have stated their concern in preventing abortion. Presidential candidate Gilbert Teodoro or Gibo suggested a cash transfer from the government to individuals wanting access to family planning methods, whether natural or artificial.The individuals can then make use of the cash they receive to purchase birth control devices they whitethorn choose, thus guaranteeing freedom of choice. The Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute on State and church building Issues issued 9 Talking Points on the RH Bill. Among other points, they proposed a study on the meaning of designion in the Constitution, and if it means fertilization, ab ortifacients are to be banned even now and regardless of whether the RH Bill is rid ofed.They also proposed parallel programs for providing information and training, one for Natural Family Planning (NFP) and another for artificial methods of family planning. Columnist Jose Sison of the Philippine Star criticized this a Catholic School of theology has actually proposed in public, the use of tax payers money to train Filipinos to employ methods that are objectively and intrinsically evil and cites empirical evidence and scientific proofs confirming the harmful and evil effects of contraceptives to individuals and to society. late eventsIn September 2010, Aquino during this visit to the US reiterated his stand that he is in favor of responsible parenthood and respects the decision of each couple as to the number of children they want, and if they need the government support for contraception, then the government will provide it. This statement has created a furor as Catholic church leaders say that Aquino has sold out the Filipino soul in exchange for nigh measly aid from the United States. The President of the Catholic Bishops Conference said that there can possibly be an excommunication of the President if he dwells on with his stance.Pro RH Bill Senators encouraged the President to be steadfast to do his duties towards the state. The Presidents spokesperson Edwin Lacierda explained that the President has not changed his stand and is reaching out to the prelates and said that the President himself has not made any decision in support of the Reproductive Health Bill as he is still studying the document. Lacierda said that the Executive Branch is not involved in the passage of the RH bill, saying the measures fate rests whole on the legislative branch. Filipino Freethinkers, an association of agnostics, atheists, progressives, etc. , who have been actually active in the fight in favor of the RH bill, stepped up the pressure, creating more controversy that fired up renewed interest in the bill on both sides. On 30 September 2010, one of the freethinkers, Carlos Celdran staged a protest action against the Catholic Church, holding a sign which read DAMASO a reference to the villainous, corrupt clergyman forefather Damaso of the novel Noli Me Tangere by Filipino revolutionary writer Jose Rizal and shouting cease getting involved in politics A fan page, Free Carlos Celdran was created in Facebook, which generated 23,808 fans in 24 hours. Francisco Montalvan of the Inquirer said that in the end the Damasos are the scheming, corrupt and deceptive people, implying that the pro-death advocates are these, while the Cardinal order Rosales who started a nationwide fund for the poor is very far from Damaso. Meanwhile, the imam Council of the Philippines, the top leaders of the Moslem population which at 4. M constitutes 5% of the Philippine population, declared that they are against contraceptives since using them underestimates God, and make s one lose piety in the process. During the first public hearing on 24 Nov, the chair of the Committee on Population handling the bill said that there is no instruction from the Speaker of the House to expedite the bill. Upon the call of anti-RH congressmen, the Committee Chair decided to refer the bill also to the Committee on Health, since the bill is about Reproductive Health.Leader of the pro-RH group, Elizabeth Ansioco, said that the bill is doomed if it is referred to the Committee on Health. Anti-RH Deputy Speaker Congressman Pablo Garcia said the members of the Committee on Health know of the WHO announcement on the carcinogenicity of combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives. House Speaker Belmonte said that Congress is not likely to rush the legislation of the bill and will tackle it in plenary early next year. Belmonte said it is better that passing contentious bills be given more attention.On 3 declination, the Senate cut the proposed budget of P 880M for co ntraceptives down to P 8M for condoms since other contraceptives violated the Constitutions ban on abortifacients, and Senator Tito Sotto one-third said that his constituents never asked for contraceptives. On 27 July 2012, the Speaker of the House decided to put to a right to vote by 7 August 2012 whether the debates have to be terminated. In response, pro-life groups and the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines have decided to call for a supplicant Power Rally, on 4 August 2012 at the diachronic Edsa Shrine.Meanwhile, 6 co-authors of the bill withdrew support, with the head of the minority group of the house declaring that 8 of their group are withdrawing their previous support for the bill. Congressional approval and presidential assent At 3 in the morning on December 13, 2012, the House of Representatives voted on instant reading in favor of the bill with 113109, while five representatives abstained. In the upper house, the Senate voted on December 18, 2012 to pas s the bill on second reading with 138, while Senators Sergio Osmena, III and Lito Lapid were absent.On the same day, both houses passed the bill on the third and final reading. Members of the House of Representatives voted 13379, while seven representatives abstained. The Senate registered 138, the same result as the second reading. On December 19, 2012, both versions of the bill were passed to the Bicameral Committee to produce a final version to be signed by the President Aquino. The committee quickly passed the bill in just one session.It was convey back to the House of Representatives and the Senate, which both ratified the bill, with the Senate voting 115 in favor of ratification, and the House of Representatives voting via voice vote. On December 21, 2012, President Aquino signed the bill into law, codifying the bill as Republic make out No. 10354, otherwise known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012. News of the signing was announced by House Ma jority Leader Neptali Gonzales II on December 28, 2012. Reactions Averilla, Jim Waine C.Philippine Government &038 Constitution I used to support the RH bill. only when finding out the truth behind it, neither would you. I believe this law will put the Filipinos at risk of extinction because at its very core, the RH law is an extension of a secret, global conspiracy, a western attempt, to apply principles of eugenics on unsuspecting, inferior populations in order to prevent them from the human evolutionary process, at the end of which would, at the highest point, call forth the master race. The truth is in our hearts, we just have to listen to it.At first my variant of the RH bill led me to think that it was just a bill meant to help educate the uninformed about ways to prevent them from fornicating their way to a very bad financial situation. My ignorant mind devised some simple points as to why the RH Bill was right. I ruling 1. Minimum net income of a non-agricultural Filipin o worker is P404. 2. If there were 20 working days in a calendar month, the average minimum wage dischargeing Filipino would earn around P8000 a month. 3. In average that person ate food on a regular basis, he will spend about around P70/day on food.There are 20 days in a month, so I guess that would equal to P2100 a month. 4. exclusively if this person had a partner, he might want to feed her too. Feeding her would cost another P2100 a month. 5. P8000 P4200 = P3800 6. If this person and his married woman rented a home, or used electricity and bathed from time to time, the amount leftover hand from his salary would be significantly reduced. Lets say their utility bills and rend amounted to P1800 7. P3800 P1800 = P2000 8. P2000 is a lot of money, but I dont think they should have more than 3 children right?Babies need milk, diapers, toys, immunity injections, baby medicine, etc 9. From this lets deduce that babies cost money. If babies cost money, I theorized that having more b abies would cost more money. And from this data, I see that a person who spent a lot of money on children, but I didnt earn a lot of money, would soon be broke and unable to provide for both himself and his children. Another word for broke situation is poverty. 10. I believe that a person can avoid being poor by making less babies. So, I thought that steps should be taken to inform people about this very little known fact.I also thought that the government should make contraceptives accessible so that people who dont earn a lot can properly manage the little resources that they have. Thats why I supported the RH Bill. But now I know that I was defective. I believe that the issue of the RH Bill is not a religious issue. The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that the Philippines is overpopulated. -I agree. I, myself, have observed that the Philippines is not overpopulated. In fact, if you use your common sense and think about it, you will realize a few things 1. We are not overpo pulatedLook at the mountains, the jungles, the caves and the ocean floor. There are no people there 2. If we were really overpopulated, we would have trouble traveling. But if you go to EDSA, theres no traffic. When you ride the MRT, its not packed with people. 3. Students in public schools are well educated because the teacher to student ratio is very low. In fact, because of our low population the government can basically guarantee that all public school students are provided books, notebooks and other school supplies. The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that contraceptives are level-headed for mankind and women. 1. I agree, the RH Bill/ fairness is not good for women because it might draw a woman away from her one, true, universal purpose the uninterrupted production of healthy babies 2. Furthermore, the role of women in society and the world is to make babies. Thats why God made women. Thats their doctor purpose in life. Theyre not good for anything else. Ever respect w hy there are no women in the clergy? Because theyre not good enough. 3. Contraceptives would allow women to enjoy the benefits of physical intimacy while maintaining a successful and productive career, if she so chooses.That is so wrong. Only men should be able to enjoy that privilege. 4. Women should get pregnant every single time they have sex and only immoral women enjoy sex without the opening night of conception. In fact, a better alternative would be for women, in general, to come out the example made by Mother Mary to learn how to ensure at without having sex. The RH Bill/Law will put Filipinos at risk of extinction 1. Population decline is just bad for nations. Just look at the countries which have a declining population Italy, Japan and Singapore. Theyre in such a bad shape.The Philippines obviously has a better economy and has a higher literacy rate than these countries. In fact, many Italians, Japanese, and Singaporeans go to the Philippines for work. That only go es to show that a decline in population is bad for the economy. Our population is our biggest asset 1. In my opinion, people should make as many babies as they can because the population is not a problem. In fact, the more babies a person has, the more assets he has. Forget real estate properties, job investments, or Jollibee franchises. The real secret to increased wealth is babies. 2.If you have 15 babies, youre practically wealthy because babies are assets 3. If you need money, you can denounce them 4. If you can keep them alive until they can walk, they can one day beg for money in the streets theyre going to have to at least because theres no way in hell youll be able to provide for all of them on your own 5. If ever a person is not able to feed the 15 babies he made, its the governments fault, because its the governments sole responsibility to make sure that every Filipino baby is fed. 6. The best way a person can contribute to this country is to contribute to its populat ion. The RH Bill/Law is wrong because it assumes that reproductive education and contraceptives will effectively reduce cases of abortion. 1. Reproductive/contraceptive education will have no effect on the number of abortion cases. In my opinion, these abortion cases will not lessen because women will continue to have abortions regardless of whether they are pregnant or not. 2. Abortions cannot be prevented. Its just something that women naturally do. Like shopping, for example. The RH Bill/Law is wrong because it will make people participate in extra-marital and pre-marital sex. 1.The RH Bill/Law will practically encourage our people to engage in immoral activities. 2. We must protect our moral values and reject the RH Bill. Because, currently, not a single Filipino engages in pre-marital sex or extra-marital sex. Well at least this is what we believe until to this day. 3. The root cause of extra-marital and pre-marital sex is ones exposure to contraceptives. There is just someth ing in contraceptives that people find very arousing. 4. In western countries, men lure weird women into bed by shown those condoms. 5. If we ban condoms, absolutely no one would engage in premarital or extra-marital sex. The RH Bill/Law is wrong because it assumes that parents dont teach their children about sex. 1. The truth is that parents talk to their children about sex all the time. Its so not awkward. The dad commonly tells his children how he takes off all his clothes, does a sexy Tiger complain and makes sweet, sweet music with their mothers body. 2. Also, a father usually advises his daughter that if shes going to have sex with her boyfriend, she should use a condom. Sometimes the father even drives the daughter to the boyfriends house and waits for the couple to finish 3.Filipino daughters dont have sex without the fathers permission. Unwanted pregnancies or teen pregnancies never happen to Filipino girls. Thats why we do not need the RH Law The RH Bill is a conspira cy. Its all lies, all lies Salvador, Karissa Helene Philippine Government &038 Constitution It is very much unfortunate, disappointing, and alarming that nobody in the mainstream media talks about the negative, unintended consequences of the fascist Reproductive Health bill, now called Responsible Parenthood bill, on the countrys business sector, specially small businesses.I reject this legislative proposal primarily because its anti-reason, anti-individualism, and anti-capitalism. In other words it is against individual rights, liberty and economic freedom. This is just one of the many aspects of the bill that it can negatively impact the countrys industry, particularly small business establishments that employ millions of professionals and skilled and even inexperient workers. Lets take a small cafeteria, canteen, or publication house near your place. Think about the small establishments and bar and eating place stools in malls and many places in the metro.These small busines ses that put two to ten or so people will be one of the main targets of the RH bill supported by some misguided, ordinary hipsters who are mostly schooled and professionals. Yet nobody wants to talk about this issue. Its as if these pro-RH bill hippies and fanatics think that wealth is created by devouring(prenominal) thinking, that is, by evidently passing an intrusive, rights-violating bill purportedly designed to help the poor and women. What these anti-population and pro-regulation advocates dont know is that the proposed legislative measure is itself a big insult to the poor and women.It is anti-poor and anti-women. The RH bill is a big insult to the poor because it treats them as dependent, sponges, worthless, or a leech who simply rely on other peoples extorted money or alms. Authors of the consolidated bill argue that one of the principal objectives of their highly moderate, philistine measure is to help reduce poverty and achieve sustainable human development. Still, what these political idiots do not and refuse to understand is that the government has no financial capability to deliver the promises of their measure because it is already bankrupt.The government, which is the worst parasite in this country, is not a productive agency or entity. It can only deliver some of the promised public services by using state force, like taxation, regulation, and forcible immolation of some social sectors like business community and health care providers. The consolidated RH law is a huge insult to women and this is what statistician does not understand because it considers them as inferior, ignorant, weak, having no mental, physical and emotional capability to decide on her own and to protect herself.It treats women as ignorant and weak because the laws advocates believe that they need to pass a highly intrusive, unconstitutional legislative proposal to provide them the information and services they need. Also, the proposal is a big insult to every Fili pino family because it treats parents as irresponsible, ignorant, weak, lazy, and having no capacity to make informed, responsible family decisions. It is stated that the laws primary goal is to help give parents the opportunity to transaction their right to freely and responsibly plan the number and spacing of their children. Thats the other way of saying that Filipino parents are not free and badly need the help and assistance of the state so to responsibly plan the number and spacing of their children. The bills highly mediocre and ignorant explanatory note adds The bill is truly rights-based. It mandates the provision of all forms of family planning, both modern natural and artificial, to women and couples as long as they are legal and medically-safe, and truly effective. However, the acceptance and adoption is the option and decision of parents and couple, particularly women. If thats the case, why is there a need to pass the bill? The answer is because this is not what the b ill is all about. In truth and in reality, it is about more political power Its about putt the entire business industry, medical profession and education sector under the total control and supervision of the state. In general, the bill is a tolerant INSULT to the entire Filipino nation that has somehow embraced rational principles and the concept of freedom and individual rights. Those who ignorantly, naively take the consolidated bill at its face value will certainly accept the contradictory slogans.There are two sides of the consolidated bill the fantasy side and the reality side. The measures fantasy side can be readily gleaned from its highly ignorant explanatory note, which is filled with supportive statistics and some tragic information about the plight of the poor and women. They did not state how except the fact that they enumerated the bills nice-to-hear intents and provisions. The reality side of the measure is that all those promised, stated RH services would be covered or delivered by sacrificing, enslaving employers and health care providers. department 18 states Employers Responsibilities- The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) shall ensure that employers respect the reproductive rights of workers. Consistent with the intent of Article 134 of the Labor Code, employers with more than two hundred (200) employees shall provide reproductive health services to all employees in their own respective health facilities. Those with less than two hundred (200) workers shall bring in into partnerships with hospitals, health facilities, or health professionals in their areas for the speech communication of reproductive health services.Employers shall furnish in writing the following information to all employees and applicants (a) The medical and health benefits which workers are entitled to, including maternity and paternity leave benefits and the availability of family planning services (b) The reproductive health hazards associated with work, inc luding hazards that may affect their reproductive functions especially pregnant women and (c) The availability of health facilities for workers.What does this section mean? Section 17 details the bills horrible fantastic scheme. So once the fascist bill is approved, any potential or be after employer would be covered by it, which means that he/she would be legally regarded as an indirect government employee. The employers or companies who have the capacity (with more than 200 employees) would be mandated by law to provide reproductive health services to all employees in their own respective health facilities. This provision means that those employers and companies with more than 200 employees need to have their own health facilities, and this means superfluous expenses on the part of job-creators. On the other hand, employers with less than 200 employees shall enter into partnerships with hospitals, health facilities, and/or health professionals in their areas for the delivery of reproductive health services. Logic tells us that since employers and companies would be legally compulsory to shoulder additional expenses, then they are justified to increase the prices of their products and/or services.Does anyone think of PRICE CONTROL? The state control of the entire medical industry is laid out under Sections 20 (Implementing Mechanisms) and 22(1) on proscribed acts. The penalty that awaits erring, non-compliant employers and health care providers could be imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six months or fine of P10,000 to P50,000 or both. This means that any employer may be sued by his/her employees for non-compliant with the intents and provisions of the bill.Once the RH bill is approved, anyone who thinks of starting a business, whether big or small, should consider the measures punitive provisions, some necessary expenses, and the need to deal with government regulators. In the United States, hundreds companies left the Democratic-infested Cali fornia because of the states too much regulations and anti-business policies. This is why I have been telling my blog readers that the bill is NOT simply about serving the alleged interests of the poor and women it is PRIMARILY about MORE government activity REGULATIONS.The bill is about nanny statism or BIG GOVERNMENT. Already, many strange investors do not want to invest in the Philippines because of its high tax rates, excessive economic regulations, pro-employee labor courts, leftist-activist court justices, among others. The Doingbusiness. orgrecently ranked Philippines 148th in hurt of ease in doing business and 156th in terms of starting business. In terms of paying taxes, the country has been ranked 124th. Corporations pay a total tax rate (% profit) of 45. 8 percent If approved, the RH bill would have the following negative impacts on small business . It would be more difficult to start a new business considering the fact the the bill criminalizes the mere act of doing b usiness and its regulative, interventionist provisions. 2. Employers would be compel to make additional expenses so to cover the RH care needs of their employees. 3. Since they are forced to make additional expenses, they might consider laying off some of their workers for survival. 4. Since they are forced to bawl out out additional expenses, they might not accept new applicants, a situation that would worsen the countrys unemployment rate. . Since they are forced to shell out additional expenses, they might consider some of the following survival measure 1) salary cut, 2) less subsidy or benefits, 3) cost cutting, 4) no expansion, 5) close business. 6. Since they are forced to shell out additional expenses, they might consider PRICE INCREASE. 7. There would be more informal sectors (unlisted, unregistered businesses) so to avoid paying more taxes and complying with government regulations. 8. Potential and existing employers would be considered a NEW descriptor OF CRIMINALS or ENEMY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE. . Those who have the money and resources would rather invest in a business-friendly economic environment like Hong Kong, India and other Asian countries. 10. Employers would simply shrug. You can help the poor without enslaving and treating businessmen, doctors and some other people as potential criminals or enemies of social progress. Think like a human being, not like a parasite You dont help the poor and the marginalized by supporting the RH bill its both the big and small businesses that can truly help them