HB 5043: Bane of prudes, conservatives and old maids

This is a republishing of a journal post from last year—yes, I'm still raging about this bill, and boy, oh, boy, can I talk the ear off of anyone who'd listen regarding this. I've mostly left the article intact, adding minor comments here and there, and cleaning up the layout somewhat for this blog. For comparison, here is the original, much more impassioned post: [http://neilsantos.livejournal.com/48235.html]

I still haven't sent this off as a reply to everyone who was CC'd on the original email, preferring instead to trust that my aunt doesn't know how to go do a Web search for me, or that she'd have any reason to think that I disagree with her, at all (like most religious nutjobs, they believe everyone in their family share their sentiments).

Contrary to nutjob thinking, people like me care about familial ties, and I would rather fume than let this be cause for major awkwardness at family reunions.

Before going into the rest of the post, I'd like to point out how this single email and its absurd claims neatly encapsulate, for me, the lunacy and idiocy of the religious right-wing, and why I believe they are a menace to society. They care not if anyone gets hurt with their malicious spreading of lies and half-truths, as long as they win the day.

I realize that I am preaching to the choir at this point, and have refused to hold back on ad hominem attacks. As mentioned earlier, I'm rather passionate about our rights in general, and this bill in particular, and I was fuming like hell when I originally wrote this.

One of my intentions in republishing this article here is to try and goad myself intro writing a more respectable rebuttal, attacking the fallacy in the original word for word, if need be, in order to expose it for what it really is: a damnable sexist diatribe intent on spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt.

For now, on with the hatred.

I just got an email from an aunt; a forwarded message from their religious group, bashing House Bill 5043 (full text of bill). It’s agitated me to the point that I can hardly work. My hands are still shaking, actually.

The following are their "points" (such are they are), along with my comments.

The real agenda of HB 5043 is to seize by legislation most of the organs of the State and harness them to one system of beliefs and practices regarding population control that will provide a continuing source of revenue for its proponents and lobbyists even if it results into the adoption into our culture of foreign values on sex and promiscuity while undermining our moral and religious institutions of marriage and family solidarity.

I’d rather have them seize whatever it is they want through legislation, as opposed to the proliferation of pure trash such as this message, as well as the poisoning the minds of our youths by indoctrinating them at a very young age.

I mean, really, if Filipinos as a people are too stupid and/or lazy to do anything to prevent and/or counteract something really, truly stupid (like the elevation of Erap Estrada to the highest office in the land), then we deserve what we get. HB 5043, while not perfect, is a huge step in the right direction. There’s no evil in this (not that someone, at some point, won’t find a way to derive evil from this bill), as these bigots are claiming. They’re simply jealous that there are people in power who actually understand the need for such a bill, and that they actually have the balls to buck religious persecution (unless they back out, which means their balls have shriveled up).

What they actually want is that they be the ones to "harness most of the organs of the State to their system of beliefs and practices regarding population control" (or lack thereof). While we’re in the same boat (I too, want to do harness &c. and HB 5043 is pretty close to what I want), I admit it openly, while they have to hide behind hypocrisy.

Also... really? They’re afraid of "[adopting] foreign values on sex and promiscuity"? REALLY? This is classic theist behavior: pretending history extends only to the point that validate their theses. Does nobody in this group remember that less than 400 years ago, we "adopted" foreign values on sex? Or do they really believe that the Philippines sprang forth as a Christian nation from the very beginning? Have they really forgotten that, little more than 2000 years ago, "Christianity" was a bunch of nutjobs walking the Middle East giving lectures on things no one wanted to be lectured on?

(Come to think of it, isn't that how they still are today? Less lecturing, more shoving unwanted shit down everybody's throat, but mostly the same thing.)

Oh, oh... How about the present? How about the fact that, suprise, surprise, there are more (lots more!) non-Christians than there are Christians in the world? And that Catholics are only part of the group known as Christians? Are you nutjobs really that myopic that you want your beliefs and only your beliefs respected?

Its proponents continue to foist the myth that population growth is the cause of the country's poverty when everyone knows that it is rampant graft and corruption. Countries with far bigger population than the Philippines are not poor at all. Today, the fastest economic growth are in China and India, two countries with the biggest populations in the world.

The bill’s proponents gloss over the recent concern over the negative impact in the sustainability of the economy and society of an irreversibly ageing population as experienced in many developed countries which strongly advocated population control then such as those in Europe and Japan.

WOW. Seriously?! It’s a myth that population growth is the cause of the country’s poverty? Really?!

Well, obviously, China and India have NO graft and corruption whatsoever. Oh, and glossing over facts? How about China’s one-child-per-family policy? That’s, well, still IN EFFECT AT THE PRESENT? And, really? Using India as proof that countries with *huge* populations aren’t poor? *REALLY?* Do any of these morons even bother watching NatGeo and/or Discovery? Or the *NEWS*? Sure, India’s economy is growing. But, then again, when you hit rock bottom, there’s hardly any place to go but up.

But, then, I suppose I should be convinced, since Europe and Japan are going back on their support of population control, then I’m obviously wrong. But... hold on... Aren't most countries in Europe (it's not a country, you moron) and Japan, like, total economic powerhouses? So, if what these nutjobs are claiming is true, they got to that point with population control? By the way, I’d like some actual evidence on this, please. Maybe links to news items? Instead of just claiming some bullshit that you haven’t backed up. Because, googling for 'japan population control' produced http://christianparty.net/zpg.htm, yet another piece-of-trash article that, however, says Japan has NOT legalized birth control pills.

You religious nutjobs really should try to get your acts together.

The bill’s proponents are silent over the fact that Thailand, which had the same number of reported AIDS cases in 1991 as the Philippines, after embarking on a nationwide campaign for 100% condom use to prevent transmission of AIDS had 570,000 HIV cases and 58,000 deaths by the end ot 2003 while the Philippines, which did not have such a program, only had 9,000 infected cases and 500 deaths.

Sooo... Since the Thai government embarked on a nationwide campaign for 100% condom use, it had to have been at that level, right? Because, as it is with the Philippines, we all stopped polluting when the government embarked on a clean air campaign, right? Oh, wait. We didn’t. Oh, also, in case the idiot author doesn’t know, HIV can be transmitted through other means that condom usage can’t help. Like drug use. Which these religious nutjobs seem to be partake in on a regular basis (I can’t explain their delusions any other way).

And, again, why can’t I find any papers on this supposed rise of Thai infections even with the condom program? How come all I can find are papers on how the Thai program reduced infection rates by up to fifty percent?

And why aren't you comparing HIV rates per country on separate years? You know, historical data: something that's needed by any treatise that wants to convince its readers, and not just assume that their audience are all a bunch of non-thinking automatons ready to do the bidding of the One True Church? Did the author use to work for FOX News?

> It is the result of promiscuity engendered by “safe” sex. They forget that what counts is “responsible” sex.

Apparently, in the author’s mind, being responsible precludes being safe. And that, because people know about safe sex, they can do it all the time. I love sex as much as the next guy, but, really, there are only so many positions you can actually enjoy doing it with. Would I do it every day, all day long, if I didn’t have to worry about anything else? Sure! But, here in the real world, there are other things you have to keep in mind. Like earning enough money to bring food to the table.

A battlecry of the bill’s proponents is that it gives people the freedom of choice. But, Filipinos have that freedom of choice now. Contraception is not forbidden or its use penalized. On the other hand, HB 5043 oppressively takes away that freedom of choice from those who oppose the bill out of faith, ethics or medical safety reasons.

Sure, right now, contraception isn’t forbidden or penalized. But how long would that be, if they had their way? The Roman Catholic church already expresses its disapproval of contraceptive methods aside from the inaccurate calendar method, no? Anyway, no one’s threatening to lock up religious nutjobs (much to my dismay), and I’m pretty sure they’d want blood if that ever happened. I mean, come on: they’re overreacting this much over a simple bill insuring that people aren’t left clueless, the way they are now. What’s so bad about that?

AS EMPLOYERS, we should not be compelled to provide free reproductice [sic] health care services, supplies, devices and surgical procedures (including vasectomy and ligation), to our employees, and be subjected to both imprisonment and/or a fine, for every time that we fail to comply as provided in Section 17 of HB 5043. (see Definition of Reproductice [sic] Health and Rights Section 4, Paragraph g, Section 21, paragraph c and Section 22 on Penalties).

Let’s examine this claim. The author makes it sounds as if the bill is pressuring employers into doing something, and cites key sections.

Section 4, paragraph G says: "Reproductive Health Care--refers to the availability of and access to a full range of methods, techniques, supplies and services that contribute to reproductive and sexual health and well-being by preventing and solving reproductive health-related problems in order to achieve enhancement of life and personal relations." then goes on to list elements of reproductive (somebody get the author a spell-checker) health care.

Section 21 (Prohibited Acts), paragraph C says: Any employer who shall fail to comply with his obligation under Section 17 of this Act or an employer who requires a female applicant or employee, as a condition for employment or continued employment, to involuntarily undergo sterilization, tubal ligation or any other form of contraceptive method.</q<

What the hell is the author blabbering about? The bill FORBIDS employers from forcing their beliefs on an employee. That is, if you’re a religious nutjob who wants to channel a queen bee, a prospective employer CAN’T force you to commit to a contraceptive method. Also, nowhere does it say that company is REQUIRED to provide ligation and vasectomy to employees--that’s for health care providers (hospitals, HMOs, clinics). So, unless you run a health care providing business, you’re off the hook on this one.

The paragraph also cites section 17 (Employer’s Responsibilities). The first paragraph, says: <q>"Employers shall respect the reproductive health rights of all their workers. Women shall not be discriminated against in the matter of hiring, regularization of employment status or selection for retrenchment."</q>

This is bad? After decades of fighting for equal rights, are women really going to just bend over and take it up the ass (pun only midly intended) when it comes to reproductive rights?

The second paragraph says: "All Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) shall provide for the free delivery by the employer of reasonable quantity of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers, more particularly women workers. In establishments or enterprises where there are no CBAs or where the employees are unorganized, the employer shall have the same obligation."

Ah. This is the clause that bugs them. They don’t want to pay for additional medicines and medical equipment. They would rather you suffer, or that the birthrate continue to explode, than pony up the money. But really, let’s examine this... How comfortable would you be, asking the company nurse for a three-pack of condoms? Not very, I’m sure. What about pills? Injections?

How about... cough medicine? You’d have no trouble with that, I’m sure. You see, it’s kind of like this, except, instead of cough medicines, it’s a contraceptive pill. The keyphrase in this paragraph is "reasonable quantity". The bill, as I understand it, is not saying you should provide all your employees with their daily contraceptive needs. But, say, a female employee forgets her pills at home one day, she should be able to get one from the company nurse, so that her efforts aren’t wasted for that month. However, if you're the company goat who does everybody behind closet doors, you should NOT be given condoms whenever you ask; instead, you should be referred to counselling, so that you’ll learn how to have, eherm, "responsible" sex.

The author apparently believes that just because religious nutjobs everywhere would rather die than use a condom, then everybody should be denied access as well.

AS HEALTH CARE SERVICE PROVIDERS, we do not want to be subjected to imprisonment and/or fine, if we fail to provide reproductive health care services such as giving information on family planning methods and providing services like litigation and vasectomy, regardless of the patient’s civil status, gender (our Constitution and laws distinguish according to “sex” and not “gender” as now stated in HB 5043 which could lead to a blurring of the natural distinction between men and women), religion or age/minors included. (Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Letter a, paragraphs 1 to 5 and Section 22 on Penalties).

Wow. For one thing, it sounds as if the bill wants to allow 5 year old kids to undergo ligation (NOT litigation, you moron) or vasectomy. For another... really? Why do religious nutjobs think that not talking about something makes that something not real? HOMOSEXUALS, BISEXUALS, TRANSSEXUALS AND OTHER *SEXUALS ARE REAL AND THEY TRULY WALK AMONG US. In any case, for the matter of this bill, it doesn’t matter which way one leans, as we’re mostly talking about biology, which only differentiate between whether, as Greg House puts it, your sex organs dangle or your sex organs are aesthetically pleasing.

Let’s examine section 21 of the actual bill for the facts on who it's for, shall we?

For bigots who would rather mislead you, through either plain out lying or creative truth-telling, about the rights given to you by the bill.
Deals with bigots who’d like to withhold from you something because you haven’t told your spouse.
For bigots who’d rather maintain they high-and-mighty thrones rather than help minors (here’s where horrid-sounding part quoted above comes from) who’ve been sexually abused, even if someone from the DSWD or a DSWD-certified parties backs up their claim.
For bigoted miscreants who deliberately withhold, and bigoted idiots who’re too stupid to provide, health services as mandated by the bill (as per the Labor Code, PD 79 and LGC of 1991); see #2.
For (what else?) bigots who withhold what the bill promises you because they don’t agree and/or approve of your:
- Civil status (Living together, outside the sanctity of marriage? Good luck with that.)
- Gender or sexual orientation (and here’s the part the author’s blabbering about re: the distinction between sex and gender)
- Age (so, when I’m old, you don’t want to look at my penis because it repels you?)
- Religion (so, if I were a health care provider, I can’t withhold drugs from even the most obnoxious bigoted religious hypocrites (is there any other?))
- Personal circumstances (doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor; remember this, as I’ll discuss a point about it later)
- Nature of work (if this wasn’t put in, bigots will use it as an excuse to not provide help to prostitutes)

So, if you’re none of the above things, what should you be worried about?

AS SPOUSES, we do not agree that our husband or wife can undergo a ligation or vasectomy without our consent or knowledge. (Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Letter a, paragraph 2)

Ligation and vasectomy are medical procedures. Kind of like removing your appendix. I actually wish it were illegal to have your appendix removed without the consent of your spouse. And then, I wish it explodes! You’ll be left in the ER writhing in pain until your (very likely) nutjob of a wife comes to the sign the forms.

In any case, if your spouse would do something this major (because, unlike an appendectomy, this actually is rather major) without telling you, then you have bigger problems than this bill. Possibly something that could be used for divorce. Oh, wait. You religious nutjobs disapprove of that, as well! You’d rather have rules bind you together than actual love. But that’s another post entirely.

AS PARENTS, we do not agree that our children from age 10 to 17 should be taught their sexual rights and the means to have a satisfying and “safe” sex life as part of their school curriculum. (Section 12 on Reproductive Health Education and Section 4 Definitiion [sic] of Family Planning and Reproductive Health, paragraph b,c, and d). We do not want POPCOM and DedED [sic] to be solely responsible for the curriculum without regard to our faith and our cultural and ethical standards on individual responsibility and accountability that we want to impart to our children.The POPCOM will teach our children the so-called facts and myths about sex and sexuality. Sex education will be taught without regard for the different stages and readiness of each child to receive such information. Our children from age 10 will be taught that it is their right to have a satisfying and "safe" sex life and how to use and apply family planning methods. Our moral and religious beliefs regarding issues like "responsible" sex, contraception and abortion will be challenged in the classroom without our guidance as parents.

(I’ll no longer mark mispellings with '[sic]' for I’ve grown sick of them.)

Hrm. Author must be reading a different bill, as I don’t see anything regarding <q>"the means to have a satisfying and 'safe' sex life"</q>. (What the hell is it with the author’s preoccupation with the word "safe"?)

In fact, as it goes on, this treatise gets more and more bizarre. And by bizarre, I mean filled with lies and contradictions.

For one thing, the author says NO to POPCOM and DepEd being "solely responsible" formulating the sex ed curriculum. I’d say wait until they try to include something actually unacceptable before reacting, but, with these nutjobs, the whole subject matter is unacceptable. So I fall back on the old hit them with a non-sequitur attack: You’re okay with the DepEd being solely responsible for everything else in your childrens' curriculum, right? And, really? Individual responsibility and accountability? Then why blame the problem of the country on the supposed graft and corruption of other people?

Now, see that huge block of text that’s emphasized strongly? This is what I’m talking about when I said the whole thing gets more and more bizarre--the bill itself proves the author’s statement false. To wit, from the first part of section 12 (Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health Education):

Recognizing the importance of reproductive health rights in empowering the youth and developing them into responsible adults, Reproductive Health Education in an age-appropriate manner shall be taught by adequately trained teachers starting from Grade 5 up to Fourth Year High School.

And from the last part:

In support of the natural, and primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth, the POPCOM shall provide concerned parents with adequate and relevant scientific materials on the age-appropriate topics and manner of teaching reproductive health education to their children.

In the elementary level, reproductive health education shall focus, among others, on values formation.

Non-formal education programs shall likewise include the abovementioned reproductive Health Education.

How the author can even derive "[teaching] without regard for the different stages and readiness of each child [in receiving] such information" from those paragraphs is a mystery. It says so, right in the bill, that the subject matters will be taught "in an age-appropriate manner ... by adequately trained teachers starting from Grade 5 up to Fourth Year High School." Now, the author would perhaps have been justified in questioning how they’re going to define "age-appropriate". Personally. I’d be worried that they’d end up being candy-assed about it and teach kids about condoms only in their senior year of high school—in a lot of cases, a couple or so years too late.

Instead, the author claims that there will be "[no] regard for the different stages and readiness of each child". It’s almost as if the author read the bill with a filter filled with long-held prejudices and a huge helping of bigotry—and, knowing religious nutjobs, that’s probably the case.

Also the claim that their "moral and religious beliefs regarding issues like 'responsible' sex, contraception and abortion will be challenged in the classroom without our guidance as parents" holds no water, either. Unless, of course, you’re the type of parent who would rather send their kids to a school that reinforces their contempt for people who don’t share their bigotry, therefore letting the school effectively do their jobs for them. In any case, why is the author afraid of the challenge? Afraid that their long-held beliefs would prove to be not merely antiquated, but inaccurate and/or just plain wrong? Why would there be no guidance from them? Do all religious nutjobs send their kids of to some boarding school overseas where they'd have no contact for as long as their kids are studying?

AS CITIZENS, we do not want to be subjected to imprisonment and/or pay a fine, for expressing an opinion against any provision of this law, if such expression or opinion is interpreted as constituting "malicious disinformation" (Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, paragraph f and Section 22 on Penalties). If HB 5043 is passes, we could be imprisoned for simply sending this email. An oppressive way to stop any opposition.

In this case, the author is SPOT ON. The email under scrutiny SHOULD (if it doesn’t already) constitute ‘malicious disinformation’ about the intent or provisions on the bill (that’s actually how Section 21.e is worded). How could it not, when every point it claims to make can be shot down with an Internet search and a little brain work? Expressing one’s opinion is normally not a problem; if you don’t like what someone else is saying, simply don’t listen. However, expressing an attack in the guise of an opinion, with the intent of spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt is just plain irresponsible. (If this is how you express your opinion, I’ll bet anything you’ve never had anything even resembling the ‘responsible sex’ you claim to prefer.)

We also do not agree to the provision which reclasifies contraceptives as essential medicines (Section 10) and appropriating limited government funds to reproductive services instead of basic services (Section 23). It is outrageous to consider pregnancy a disease.

Contraceptives are essential to bring down a burgeoning population, which is, at the very least, indirectly responsible for the spread of disease, worsening poverty levels, increasing illiteracy and dangerously diminishing resources in this country, and, even the world. The author’s next sentence validates my point: Limited resources can only support so many number of people, and even supposing we can get rid of graft and corruption entirely (pretty much impossible), we’d still be left with limited resources. We wouldn’t need as much money in basic services if there weren’t as much people; a truism that, apparently, goes beyond the author’s understanding.

As for your other declaration, that it’s outrageous to consider pregnancy a disease, I have several points to make. One, nowhere does the bill even imply that, so stop making it look like it’s out to eat your babies. Two, just because contraceptives are to be considered ‘essential medicines’ doesn’t mean that they’ll be used to prevent a disease. Vitamin and mineral supplements are considered medicines, and, as with contraceptives, they can be used to prevent a ‘medical condition’. In case you didn’t know, people have been referring to pregnancy as a ‘medical condition’ since before even the First World War, so don’t get your knickers in a twist.

Third, you would rather have a family of eight, living under a bridge, have another baby? Who’ll either die within the first two months, or die having pretty much lived the same way his parents did? It’s easy to think that it’s okay to just keep on having kids when you have a steady job that you probably hate, earning enough money to buy things you don’t really need. But what about those who consider one meal a day a luxury beyond luxuries?

Fourth, have you or anyone you love ever been raped? It may strike others heartless to think so, but a lot of rape victims who end up being pregnant with their attacker's progeny end up (understandably) hating the seed in their wombs. Most of them go through the pregnancy to conclusion, then bearing a baby they never wanted and/or could ever love. It’s easy for someone who lives a sheltered life to say that it'll only take time before the mother feels a connection to her baby, for many victims, this never happens. The baby then grows up feeling unwanted, unneeded and unloved. And maybe ends up writing trash that’s not even fit to be filler for a tabloid.

Twisting the contents of a bill that's hoped will provide medical and educational assistance to those who need it but can't afford it, to support a basically untenable position and in the name of fear for a barely-understood (by the author) concept, is just plain sad.

It's obvious, from the tone of the manuscript, to the key points the author keeps coming back to, that the main fear these nutjobs have is of the idea that, with knowledge of safe sex comes promiscuity. That may be true of sex-starved religious nutjobs, but, believe me when I tell you that promiscuity, safe sex or no, is going to stay. Sex is great, and once people have tried it, they’re going to do it as much as possible, as often as possible, with as many people as possible. The only thing that'll help prevent the spread of STDs is the knowledge of safe sex.

And, no, don’t start blabbering about abstinence. We’ve tried that before, and while it may have worked for your era (doubtful; how many supposedly decent families started out with a child conceived out of wedlock throughout history?), people are learning that yours is not the only way. And, no matter how hard you hope and wish and pray, there’s no turning back the clock (which is obviously what all you nutjobs want).

In closing, I leave you with a quote from Robert A. Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress:

Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws—always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: “Please pass this so that I won’t be able to do something I know I should stop.”

Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them “for their own good”—not because speaker claimed to be harmed by it.