(the burning and brave exposé)
The above-mentioned position paper recently publicized this year (2011) has been signed by faculty, students and alumni of the University of the Philippines. For Internet access to signatories and references go to http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/upiansonrhbill/
What’s the exposé? First, it concluded saying: “We urge the legislators to dump the contentious and flawed Reproductive Health bill and to pass more bills strengthening the Filipino family, protecting its citizens against the risks of contraception, defending the scientific fact that conception begins at fertilization, providing essential medicines for the main causes of death, making quality education more accessible to Filipinos, and providing more jobs.” Quoting from the 1966 Nobel Prize winner Simon Kuznets’ research which argued that a more rapid population growth, if properly managed, will promote economic development through a positive impact on the society’s state of knowledge. And deducing from an Asian Development Bank report: “Two factors were reported to drive the creation and sustenance of a middle class a) stable, secure, well-paid jobs with good benefits and b) higher education. And so, why not create more bills that will strengthen these two factors instead of channeling out limited funds to contraception and sex education?”
In the nation of Thailand which has been hailed as the model for condom promotion, the result has been the highest incidence of the HIV AIDS cases. Moreover, the human papilloma virus (HPV) infection, by far the most common STD (sexually transmitted disease) and a risk factor for cervical cancer among other diseases, is not prevented by condoms because HPV spreads through skin-to-skin contact, unlike AIDS, and condoms cannot cover all possible infected skin – a fact that is not commonly known. Why spend millions to buy condoms when they are shown to increase incidences of STDs? Oral Contraceptive Pills (OCPs) have been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as Group 1 Carcinogens.
Conclusion by the Position Paper: “Our main argument boils down to this: that it is the State’s duty to order society by promoting the well-being of its citizens. Thus, it is a disservice to legislate what constitutes harm to its people.”