VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 21:03:09 11/22/12 Thu
Author: IMRD
Subject: Nov 23, 2012 news

http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Opinion&title=Contraception-is-not-a-human-right&id=61866

Contraception is not a human right

8 0 22 34


Trade Tripper
Jemy Gatdula


THE NEWS currently being gloated over by the pro-RH Bill advocates (including their too fawning pro-RH media) is the United Nations Population Fund’s declaration in its annual report "The State of the World Population" that: "Family planning is a human right." Unfortunately, aside from playing up the non-news, pro-RH advocates and their media cohorts also distort it.
RELATED STORIES


Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "Contraceptive faith"

Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "Really no to the Kasambahay Bill"

Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "Defending the faith"

Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "The Philippines’ last battleground"

Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "Bangsamoro at any price"

Notably, the UNFPA’s annual report actually used the term "family planning" as a human right. Not "birth control." Not "contraception." Those are three different things. But pro-RH advocates and media immediately headlined their articles to give the impression that the UNFPA is stating that "birth control" or "contraception" are the human rights. This is outright misleading.

Nevertheless, assuming the UNFPA actually did mean "birth control" or "contraception," such pronouncement is not legally binding and should never be interpreted by the Philippines (or by any individual official or citizen) as a mandatory requirement for the country to provide contraception to anyone.

It must be emphasized that the UNFPA, a subsidiary organ of the United Nations (and, hence, obviously NOT the United Nations) is not authorized to make international law. Any declaration that it makes is merely for its own internal purposes, with regard to the objectives handed down by the UN.

International law is made by the States themselves (and, to a certain extent, other "subjects" of international law) through the execution of treaties or by the making of a custom (which requires State practice and "opinio juris").

Presently, no international custom exists making "contraception" a human right. And as Meghan Grizzle (in her "White Paper on Family Planning," March 2012; see http://www.wya.net/advocacy/research/WYA%20Reproductive%20Health%20White%20Paper.pdf) shows: "No international human right to any particular form of family planning supply or method is enumerated in international human rights treaties. The only international human rights treaties that explicitly mention family planning are the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the Convention on Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Despite claims from UNFPA and the World Center for Reproductive Rights that there is a right to contraceptive information and services, no international human rights treaty even mentions contraception."

Activists love resorting to arguing that international human rights law is sui generis. Which is nonsensical. It is sui generis because international human rights law focuses on individuals rather than States (as other international law fields tend to do). But it does not excuse international human rights law from overriding the nature of international law itself, sovereignty, democratic processes, or genuine human rights such as "religious liberties." Even international human rights law does not permit un-elected bureaucrats, such as those in the UNFPA (or the WHO), to make international law.

And thus, as Ms. Grizzle rightly emphasizes: "International law clearly does not create a right to contraception; States are thus not required to provide contraception."

Furthermore, while "family planning" has indeed been mentioned in some international instruments, we refer again to Ms. Grizzle: "Family planning is not synonymous with contraception, and calls for family planning methods and services should not be construed as calls for contraceptives alone."

True. "Family planning" could mean a lot of things. It is not limited to contraception. Family planning could include abstinence. It could include "natural family planning" or NFP (which is espoused by the Catholic Church). To this must be considered the fact that, as I pointed out in two previous articles ("Contracepting Common Sense," Aug. 23, 2012; "Contraceptive Faith," Nov. 16, 2012), countless medical studies and lawsuits show us that contraceptives are dangerous not only to women but also for their children. Yet, on top of that danger, oral contraceptives also come with a 7% failure rate, a 15% failure rate for condoms, compared to the almost 0% failure rate for NFP.

The absurdity of UNFPA’s position is best summed up by Marcus Roberts of Mercatornet: "How do we reduce infant mortality throughout the developing world? The normal person’s answer: improve health services, water and food supplies. The UN Population Fund’s answer: increase contraception so that the infants are not born. No births, no infant mortality. What a perfect solution."

What makes UNFPA’s stand worse, however, according to Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse of the Concerned Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute, is that it seeks to encourage States to force "believers around the world to give up their deeply held, long-established religious convictions." And, contrary to the impression spread by the media, many women believe -- correctly -- that, rather than contraceptives, their religious faith is an actual "human right" that must be protected.

Indeed. To believe that a human right could be created distanced from natural law is ridiculous and dangerous. Natural law leads us to know our human nature and our rights are precisely based on protecting that nature. Creating a so-called "right" that turns its back on natural law will ultimately lead to the debasement of the human being.


http://www.journal.com.ph/index.php/news/national/42037-rh-bill-is-anti-women-cbcp

RH bill is anti-women-- CBCP
•
•
Published : Friday, November 23, 2012 00:00
Article Views : 41
Written by : Lee Ann Ducusin

AN official of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines on Wednesday said the controversial Reproductive Health Bill is anti-women because it does not answer the primary concerns of Filipino women and mothers.

Fr. Melvin Castro, executive secretary of the CBCP-Commission on Family Life, issued the statement as he refuted criticisms that the Church’s stand against the proposed measure is anti-women.

“They (pro-RH bill advocates) are claiming that we are against women and that because the leaders of the Church are men and old. If there is one institution that supports the welfare of women, it is the Catholic Church,” Castro stressed.

“The truth is if RH bill becomes a law, those who will be affected by this are the women. It will take away from them their being a mother,” he said.

The priest also took a swipe at some big business organizations supporting the controversial population control measure.

“These businessmen just want to reduce your maternity leave,” he said.

The church official also frowned at Senator Pia Cayetano, RH bill principal author, that primary health care services should include contraceptives.

“It’s a painful point made by the principal author... disappointing. We have to discuss more about this. This is not what our people and women need,” he said.


http://manilastandardtoday.com/2012/11/23/pro-rh-solon-hits-selective-quorum/

Pro-RH solon hits ‘selective quorum’
By Christine F. Herrera | Posted on Nov. 23, 2012 at 12:01am | 421 views
Tweet2
House leaders came under fire on Thursday for being able to muster a quorum only when Palace-backed bills need to be passed but fail to do so when action needs to be taken on other important measures such as the Reproductive Health bill.
“There was a quorum on Monday because Congress passed the K-12 bill on third and final reading. But on days when no key Malacañang-backed bill is to be discussed, we hardly see the plenary hall being filled,” said Kabataan Rep. Raymond Palatino.
“Time is ticking, and yet House members are missing,” he added.
Palatino supported the view of Pangasinan Rep. Kimi Cojuangco, who accused House leaders of delaying the passage of the RH bill.
The lack of a quorum in the plenary, he said, was slowly killing key legislation that was up for second and third reading.
Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago raised similar concerns about delays in the Senate and urged President Benigno Aquino III to certify the RH bill as urgent so that mothers’ lives could be saved.
“We are hoping the President will be as compassionate to the RH bill as he was with the sin tax, which we have passed,” said Santiago in an interview after delivering a speech at Far Eastern University.
In seeking the President’s intercession, Santiago said they might run out of time because Congress adjourns on Dec. 21 for the Christmas break.
“Unless the President certifies it as urgent, it may be possible that again… the RH bill might fail to get even a vote on the Senate floor,” Santiago said, noting that the measure has been through 15 Congresses but has yet been put to a vote.
“We want a genuine division of the Senate, who are in favor and who are against the RH (bill),” she said.
Earlier, Cojuangco engaged House Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II in a word war on the social network Twitter, asking pointedly why he had not calendared any deliberations on the RH bill.
She also said Gonzales had discouraged her from pushing for the RH bill, which could be re-filed and repackaged “if ever, in the 16th Congress.”
“I was flabbergasted and said so why are you leading Manong Edcel [Rep. Edcel Lagman, sponsor of the RH bill] along? Why are you saying something different in front of Speaker [Feliciano] Belmonte?” she said in her Twitter account.
“I can’t accept this!!!… I kept this to myself for a few days but decided yesterday that I couldn’t handle this kind of blatant politicking anymore. No way will I keep quiet.”
But Gonzales denied Cojuangco’s accusations and advised her to “keep her mouth shut.”
Gonzales said they couldn’t tackle the RH bill when there were not enough warm bodies on the floor to declare the presence of quorum.
“RH has been included in the agenda, in the unfinished business. If they know a better parliamentary way in dealing with this, I dare them to do it, anytime,” Gonzales said.
Both Cojuangco and Palatino urged House leaders to compel members to attend sessions, even when Palace-backed bills were not on the agenda.
“Many representatives are not even appearing in plenary,” Palatino said.
On Tuesday, after the K-12 bill was approved, the House had a historic low attendance, with only 70 members responding to a roll call during the plenary session. The session was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. due to a lack of quorum.
“The chronic absenteeism of my fellow legislators could spell doom to important legislation such as the RH bill,” Palatino said.
In the eight days since Congress resumed sessions on Nov. 5, a quorum was reported only on Nov. 19.
With 13 session days left before Congress goes on a Christmas break and 15 session days before the campaign period begins in February, Cojuangco and Palatino fear the RH bill will die a natural death. With Macon Ramos-Araneta, Maricel V. Cruz and Maricel V. Cruz

http://www.malaya.com.ph/index.php/entertainment/160-news-flash/18353-same-time-next-year-for-rh
Same time next year for RH?
•
•
Details
Published on Friday, 23 November 2012 00:00
0 0 0 New

By A Web design Company

0 Comments
‘It looks like the Reproductive Health bill will not make it this year in the House of Representatives.’
UNLESS President Aquino acts soon and persuades (how about the 188 who signed the Corona impeachment) and there’s no sign that he will, it looks like the Reproductive Health bill will not make it this year at the House of Representatives.
Pangasinan 5th District Rep. Kimi Cojuangco, staunch RH bill advocate, let the cat out of the bag when she said in her Tweeter account that majority leader Neptali Gonzales II told her to forget about the RH bill as it would be repackaged in the 16th Congress.
Gonzales has said that the passage of the RH bill may have to wait a little longer because they need at least 141 pro-RH lawmakers to be present in order for the bill to be voted upon.
So there you go.
The controversial measure that pits the Catholic Church against advocates of responsible parenthood has been derailed basically due to two reasons: politics and perennial lack of warm bodies whenever the measure is being tackled.
But why is it that, according to a party list lawmaker, that some congressmen attend sessions only when there is pressure from their political parties but do not show up on days when no key Malacañang-backed bill is to be discussed?
This year’s reason is election fever (do these legislators believe there is a Catholic vote?). Or maybe pork barrel releases are dependent on an attendance sheet kept by somebody named Butch. Or another campaign promise gone the way of all campaign promises. The sure answer to win a cigar is all three.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.