“The intent of the RH
Bill is to uphold the Constitution and in no way tolerate or allow
abortion to come in through the back road or behind the scene,”
stressed Cayetano, principal sponsor of Senate Bill No.2865, or the
proposed ‘National Reproductive Health Act of 2011.’
One provision that has
been questioned by RH Bill opponents is Section 3, the measure’s
‘Guiding Principles for Implementation,’ particularly paragraphs (i)
and (j), which read:
“Section 3, (i) While
this Act does not amend the penal law on abortion, the government
shall ensure that all women needing care for post-abortion
complications shall be treated and counseled in a humane,
non-judgmental and compassionate manner.
“Section 3, (j) Each
family shall have the right to determine its ideal family size,
Provided, however, That the State shall equip each parent with the
necessary information to all aspects of family life, including
reproductive health, in order to make that determination.”
Concerns about these
provisions were articulated on the Senate floor by Majority Leader
Senator Vicente Sotto III at the continuation of the chamber’s plenary
debates on SBN 2865 last week. After raising issues on the alleged
‘sinister motives’ of non-government organizations (NGOs) in
supporting the RH Bill, Sotto also warned how these groups could take
advantage of supposed ‘openings’ in these provisions to push for
legalized abortion.
“To me, they are
pushing for this bill because they will inculcate in us that certain
means of abortion are medically safe procedures, feasible, and will
eventually be considered legal. Parang ganoon po ang dating. Ang
kinakabahan po ako, mayroon po tayong bukas na mga pintuan doon sa
ating RH bill na version,” Sotto said.
Interpreting Section
3, paragraphs (i) and (j), he asked: “Now, Mr. President, if enacted
into law, will this mean that if a certain family wants only two
children but the mother will become pregnant, the State shall equip
that parent with the means to abort the child?”
To which Cayetano
replied: “There is nothing here [in paragraph (j)] that says abortion
will be given as an option to a family. That is absurd, that is not a
logical conclusion.”
“Mr. President, I have
to say I think the answer is obvious. We [sponsors] made it very clear
that it is not. So let us not read into the bill what is not in the
bill. I have made it very clear in the sponsorship speech in the
provision that preceded this section [Sec.3, paragraph (i)], it is
very clear. So let us not read into the bill what is not in the bill.”
Cayetano then
proceeded to explain SBN 2865’s provision mandating medical care to
women suffering from post-abortion complications [Sec.3, paragraph
(j)]. She drew a parallel situation: When in a shootout, a pursuing
cop who shoots and hurts an escaping criminal would still be
duty-bound to bring the latter to a medical facility to receive
emergency care in order to save his life, or the cop would face
possible charges himself.
“In fact, if a police
officer or a medical officer treated [the criminal] inhumanely, they
would be called upon for their inhumane and unethical conduct,” she
emphasized.
Relating her analogy
to several documented reports where women with post-abortion
complications had been denied of emergency medical care in certain
hospitals, she continued: “It shocks me that there are people who
believe that women who have gone through an abortion need to be
treated like criminals because they have committed an act which is
defined as a crime in our country.”
“In fact in many
hospitals they are treated badly, they are pushed around to the side.
In fact, some of them will bleed to death because they will not even
be attended to, to punish them for that crime. And I will fight for
the right of this woman to have the care that she needs because the
emotional, psychological trauma that goes through to have an abortion
is something that we, who have not been through an abortion, can never
understand and she deserves that from the State.”
On this point, Sotto
agreed: “Yes, Mr. President, I do agree. As a matter of fact, I will
be by the Sponsor’s side in defending that woman.”
To which Cayetano
replied: “Then we have no problem.”
Rounding up her
clarifications on the two provisions raised by the Majority Leader,
Cayetano reiterated that she and SBN 2865 principal author Sen. Miriam
Defensor-Santiago were open to amendments from other senators to
further strengthen the bill at the proper time.
“Mr. President, before
we proceed, may I just put on record that we do appreciate the
provisions that the Majority leader pointed out which may possibly be
misinterpreted. We would like to put on record that I personally, as
the Sponsor of the bill, believe that it is part of the legislative
process that these provisions which our colleagues feel may be lacking
in strength or clarity be strengthened.
“So at the proper time
we will be more than happy to accept the amendments by the Majority
Floor Leader or any other of our colleagues to strengthen the bill,
which they believe may be subject to misinterpretation. Thank you,”
she concluded.
