The Delusions of the Anti-RH Advocates

After the spouses Imbong filed a motion for a temporary order against RA 10354's implementation, another such similar action was filed by the Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines, Inc. or ALFI through lawyer and ALFI president Maria Concepcion Noche on the grounds "that (the RH law) allows the use of abortifacient devices (such as intrauterine devices) and the purchase of abortifacient substances using taxpayers' money." Second, that "(Republic Act) 10354 violates the right to religious freedom as it mandates health providers to provide reproductive (health) services even if (these are) against their religious convictions."

I will herein prove again, that these arguements are not only lame, baseless and absurd, it is already bordering on the psychotic-paranoid-delusional-immaturity scale.

On the first argument, that RA 10354 allows the use of abortifacient devices is clearly a manifestation that Ms. Concepcion has not understood the wording of the law, or cannot see in clear and level-headed manner (probably because her brain is swimming in a stew of dopamine induced delusions) that there are multiple statements in the said law specifically, constantly, categorically stating that it does not condone the use of abortifacient methods, to wit:

Section 2, paragraph 5:

"The State likewise guarantees universal access to medically-safe, NON-ABORTIFACIENT, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices...."

Clearly, unequivocally, the word non-abortifacient is stated. That is plain and simple. It goes without saying that neither does the law allow the purchase of such substances. PAMBIHIRA!!!

As if to underscore that RA 10354 is really serious about non-abortifacients, it is again stated in no uncertain terms in Section 3, paragraph d:

"The provision of ethical and medically safe, legal, accessible, affordable, non-abortifacient, effective and quality reproductive health care services and supplies is essential in the promotion of people’s right to health, especially those of women, the poor, and the marginalized, and shall be incorporated as a component of basic health care;"

Under Section 9, paragraph 1:

"The National Drug Formulary shall include hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies."

Once again, only non-abortifacient family planning drugs are allowed. HOW DIFFICULT IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND!!! 

As to the question, are Intrauterine Devices (IUD) abortifacient? Let us answer first what are IUD's. IUD's are "a small, T-shaped plastic device that is wrapped in copper or contains hormones." There are two types of IUD's. Hormonal and Copper IUD. The first releases a substance called levonorgestrel that prevent pregnancy for at least five years. The second is a wire that prevents sperm from reaching the ovaries and can stay in place for 10 years.

IUD's are inserted by doctors and must be monitored by them. Hormonal IUD can cause pregnancy in 2 out of 1000 women in the first year while for copper IUD, it is about 6 in 1000 women during the first year. IUD's are not 100% effective and therefore pregnancies can occur, and in those that do, it is because "the IUD is pushed out of (expelled from) the uterus unnoticed. IUDs are most likely to come out in the first few months of IUD use, after being inserted just after childbirth, or in women who have not had a baby."

IN SUCH RARE CASES WHEN A WOMAN DOES BECOME PREGNANT, IT HAS TO BE REMOVED (IUD) BECAUSE IT CAN CAUSE MISCARRIAGE OR PRETERM BIRTH (so there is a possibility that the fetus can be born - IUD's are not even 100% abortifacients!!!). Ms. Concepcion SHOULD CHECK HER FACTS FIRST BEFORE ASSERTING CLAIMS WITH NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS, IT SAVES HERSELF AND EVERYONE AROUND HER ORGANIZATION FROM THE EMBARRASSMENT OF GROSS IGNORANCE.

As to the second assertion of Ms. Concepcion, that RA 10354 violates religious freedom as it mandates healthcare workers to provide reproductive services against the religious convictions of the person is TRASH  to say the least! In Section 3, paragraph h it states:

"The State shall respect individuals’ preferences and choice of family planning methods that are in accordance with their religious convictions and cultural beliefs, taking into consideration the State’s obligations under various human rights instruments;"

Without a doubt, the individual's preferences are enshrined and ensured to be respected, that includes the person's religious beliefs and cultural inclinations. 

Why do we need to provide reproductive services to women and families? Because it is a human right, I have explained this thoroughly already in a previous post. Reproductive health is a public necessity because it has far-reaching and profound implications for society  - indeed, it affects the health and well-being of the family over the long term. Of course, the Catholic Church and its minions will not see it that way as they are consumed MORE WITH THE PRESERVATION OF A DOGMA RATHER THAN THE STARK REALITIES OF WHAT IT MEANS TO LIVE AND TO PROVIDE FOR A SECURE AND COMFORTABLE FUTURE FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY.