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: 00:42:07 08/02/12 Thu
Author: IMRD
Subject: August 2, 2012 news

http://www.malaya.com.ph/index.php/news/nation/9881-rh-vote-tension-rises


RH vote tension rises
Palace makes no bones about Aquino’s support
•
•
Details
Published on Thursday, 02 August 2012 00:30
Written by WENDELL VIGILIA
By A Web design Company
View Comments
THE leading advocate of the reproductive health bill at the House yesterday told the Catholic Church that Congress cannot be threatened into enacting its teachings and beliefs.
Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, principal author of House Bill 4244, also slammed the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines for announcing that it is banking on at least 140 congressmen to vote against the measure on Tuesday next week.
“Congress cannot be threatened to legislate the dogma of the dominant church because this would violate the constitutional ban on non-establishment of a State religion or church and the prohibition of using public funds for religious purposes,” he said as he maintained that RH authors and advocates “have the numbers inside and outside the Congress.”
A bishop said Tuesday that a survey conducted by the prelates in their dioceses showed 140 House members are against the RH bill.
Lagman also said the “favorable” forecast made by bishops on the plenary voting “mocks the independence and individual consciences of congresspersons whose constituents overwhelmingly favor the enactment of the RH bill as documented by empirical and periodic surveys.”
The bishops, he said, seem to forget that “the miracle of life should not result in the death of the mother, and the quality of life of children must be enhanced by empowering parents, couples and women to freely and responsibly determine the number and spacing of their children.”
Lagman reminded Church leaders that legislators are fully aware of the realities on the ground –“the gripping mass poverty spawned by an inordinately huge population growth rate because couples and women in the marginalized sectors do not have access to correct reproductive health information and effective supplies and services.”
Minority leader Danilo Suarez, in a press briefing, asked the House leadership to allow everyone to ask questions before putting the bill to a vote.
He also appealed to the majority bloc for a conscience vote instead of resorting to a party vote to ensure the bill’s passage.
Suarez denied talks his withdrawal of support to measure is tied to his rift with Lagman, the former minority leader who initially refused to relinquish his post for Suarez who claimed that they had a term-sharing agreement.
Suarez said he changed his mind after realizing that having an RH law might lead to an older population, like in Japan and Singapore which have a low population growth.
Suarez said Pampanga Rep. Gloria Arroyo, a staunch opponent of the RH measure, did not personally ask the opposition to vote against the measure although she had said something to that effect in jest.
“Biruan lang…she said, `O, yun RH ha?’ Biruan lang yun nung hindi pa masyadong serious yung sakit niya,” he told reporters.
Suarez has also written Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. to inform him that he and some other opposition congressmen are withdrawing their support to the measure.
The others are Orlando Fua of Siquijor, Mohammed Hussein Pangandaman of Lanao del Sur, Elmer Panotes of Camarines Norte, Nasser Pangandaman of the party-list group AA Kasosyo, Catalina Bagasina of the Association of Laborers and Employees party-list, Reena Obillo of Una ang Pamilya party-list, and Pastor Alcover of Anad party-list.
Fr. Melvin Castro, executive secretary of the CBCP’s Episcopal Commission on Family and Life, said Arroyo is welcome to join the prayer rally being organized by the Church at the Edsa Shrine in Quezon City on Saturday.
“Regardless of the political party or affiliation, every single vote versus the RH bill is welcome for us,” he added.
Presidential sister Kris Aquino, in a chance interview at the sidelines of the commemoration of the third death anniversary of former President Corazon Aquino, said she has been receiving anti-RH/RP bill text messages from Archbishop Socrates Villegas whom she described as a close friend.
She said she suspects the messages are meant for her brother.
“Very close talaga kami kay Archbishop Soc, and noong binasa ko medyo ako napaisip talaga. Pero I’m not married anyway so it doesn’t involve me in a personal way…I’m sure kaya lang naman niya sinabi sa akin para ipaabot kay PNoy. Care ba niya sa opinyon ko, ‘di ba? So finorward ko naman lahat,” she said.
Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said House members should think of the future of their children in deciding whether to support or oppose the RH bill.
“This should not be a vote as to whether will I be reelected if I don’t vote on this bill or not. It should be a vote on the future of our country and the future of the children that we bring into the world… I hope the congressmen realize that this is a vote on the future of our nation,” he said.
He reiterated that Malacañang took into consideration “concerns” raised by the CBCP, when the Palace crafted the RP bill.
“Just to remind our Catholic bishops…There were several meetings held by the bishops and there were certain issues that they raised. And those were studied by the administration and they were incorporated into the responsible parenthood bill. I hope the bishops do realize that their concerns were noted by the President when we introduced the responsible parenthood bill to Congress,” he said. – With Gerard Naval and Jocelyn Montemayor

http://opinion.inquirer.net/33859/the-church-gma-and-the-rh-bill

The Church, GMA, and the RH bill
By: Randy David
Philippine Daily Inquirer
9:50 pm | Wednesday, August 1st, 2012
9:50 pm | Wednesday, August 1st, 2012
Tweet
As Congress prepares to vote on the controversial Reproductive Health bill, all eyes are focused on the bishops of the Catholic Church. They have done everything to thwart the passage of the bill, including intense person-to-person lobbying for every legislator’s vote. There is no surprise there: the Church has taken a strong position against artificial contraception. And Church leaders are within their constitutional right to campaign against the bill which, among other things, intends to allocate public funds to make contraceptives available to those who may want them but can’t afford them.

What is more interesting to watch, in my view, is the extent to which our politicians will assert their independence from the clerics’ clout. The RH bill will be a test of how far the nation’s political system has achieved operational closure from religion. It will give us an indication of the state of our institutional modernity.

If the Catholic Church were like other religious groups that command their flock to vote as one for church-selected candidates during elections, the RH bill might probably not even get to first base. The bishops would not hesitate to collect political debts from politicians they support. But, thank God, the Church as an institution does not and will not do such a thing, and Catholics themselves do not want their bishops and priests to tell them whom to vote for. That is as it should be in a modern society.

The modern Church, in my understanding, recognizes the freedom of conscience of every individual. It sees itself primarily as the educator of consciences. As such, its role is not to tell a person what to do in every instance, but to try to shape her conscience so that she can make her own decisions in a morally informed way. With or without the RH bill, contraceptives are widely available for purchase, and Catholics do find themselves consulting their consciences on whether to use them or not. This freedom of conscience is not diminished when contraceptives are made available for free.

Still, Church leaders believe that even if the government’s intended program is not compulsory and is explicitly against abortion, the bill nevertheless promotes sexual promiscuity and an “antilife” attitude that could easily slide into an acceptance of abortion. These are issues that cannot be settled on neutral ground, for they rest ultimately on adherence to certain moral principles. We cannot fault the Church for insisting on its convictions and for expressing these in the public sphere.

But all citizens have every right to demand that their legislators listen not only to voices from the religious system but, as well, from the other sectors of society. This is enshrined in the Constitution. The political code is different from that of religion: government’s primary function is to determine what the common good is according to established political practice, not what is in conformity with the divine will as interpreted by any religion.

The doctrine of the separation of church and state is not violated when religious leaders attempt to influence public policy. Every institution or sector of society seeks to do that. Rather, it is breached when the political system resolves state matters on the basis of religious arguments and affiliations. This happens, for example, when a president vetoes or shelves a law on the ground that it violates his/her own religious conviction.

The RH bill made no progress under the previous administration mainly because then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would not allow it. Today, as representative of Pampanga’s second district, she said she still would vote against it—not because this is what her constituents tell her but because this is what she believes. This dogmatism endeared her so much to the Catholic hierarchy during her presidency that it became extremely difficult for the bishops to criticize her rule. Our Constitution says we live under a political order where our elected leaders are supposed to represent not their respective religious communities or persuasions, but their broader political constituency. Unfortunately, this is not how it has worked in our society.

[ 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.