Making the RH law succeed
The Supreme Court (SC) has finally spoken on the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health (RH) Law, at least most parts of it, which has now paved the way for its immediate implementation.
Although some look at the SC decision as a “dilution or watering down” of the law, I don’t think there’s really a significant diminution of the strength of the law; most of its provisions can still be implemented with the main deliverables or desired outputs still achievable.
It’s the classical example of how one looks at a half-filled glass—either half-filled or half-empty. In fact in this case, the SC decision was like filling the glass up to four-fifths or 80 percent of its content, and that should be enough cause for celebration.
The law, even with some provisions stricken out, should be able to significantly impact the nation, specifically with regard to one of its major problems—increased maternal and infant mortality.
I’m sure many of us are bothered by the recent news of an increasing rate of teen pregnancies. Aside from reducing maternal and fetal deaths, the RH law can also help educate the youth and hopefully empower them with the knowledge they need to prevent them from making the wrong decisions with their uninformed curiosity regarding sex. A recent survey has shown that almost one-third of our youth are already engaged in unprotected sexual activities, and one in 10 Filipinas aged 15-19 is already a mother. Some women become grandmothers in their 30s.
The SC justices should be commended for their humility when they chose not to express an expert opinion on “when life begins.” This is the central issue in the debate whether or not contraceptives may be considered abortifacients. Even the medical experts could not agree as we discussed in a previous column, so how can nonmedical professionals, despite their wisdom, be expected to give a credible stand on the issue?
Reconciliation
However, the justices are experts on what the Philippine Constitution states and all the rights and freedoms it guarantees. One may say that the SC’s decision to declare some provisions of the controversial law unconstitutional, as a reconciliation of the RH Law with another guaranteed basic right—that is the Freedom of Religion. Constitutionalists would perhaps label it as a “benevolent neutrality/accommodation.”
Under the benevolent-neutrality theory, the “freedom to carry out one’s duties to a Supreme Being is an inalienable right, not one dependent on the grace of legislature.” So legislation should not compel a free individual to do something which is diametrically opposed to his/her religious convictions. Legal experts say that religion should be looked upon with benevolence and not with discrimination or hostility.
However, this same orientation for accommodation should also be accorded those who are pushing for the law for the medical exigencies that it aims to address.
We just can’t hope that the problems of increased maternal and infant mortality and alarming rate of unprotected casual sex, especially among the youth, would be resolved by gentle reminders and moral suasion. Obviously, there is an urgent need of the nation to implement an RH law that will protect our youth from making bad choices.
I talked to a few young women in their early 20s who are RH advocates and it’s interesting to hear their insights. They noted that some original provisions of the law were declared unconstitutional on the basis of “upholding the family as the basic unit of society.” To them, this sounds a bit incongruous since the youth themselves who make the bad choices are not in a position to raise a family themselves. They’re still financially dependent on their parents and other relatives; and many of them are not emotionally ready to raise families responsibly, they told me.
So, they see the law as something which could protect them from making bad choices and to guide them in the event that they make the mistake. “We are optimistic that the implementation of the RH law will uphold the family as a basic unit of society by educating and preparing the youth who will someday lead their own families,” they said.
Religious conviction
We hope that the striking down of some provisions of the RH law will not punch a hole in the law which anti-RH doctors and advocates would exploit. The SC decision prevents the law from imposing penalties on doctors and healthcare professionals who do not carry out some of its provisions due to religious conviction. This requires utmost good faith, which I’m sure most will exercise. But the few who will not should not forget that we doctors have sworn by the Hippocratic Oath to help the sick to the best of our ability and judgment.
If a doctor is convinced that a form of treatment or procedure is for the best interest of the patient, but one is also pulled back by one’s religious beliefs, the patient’s decision should be respected after discussing the case with her thoroughly. And if she decides to do so, she should be referred to a hospital or facility which can render her any of the prescribed RH treatments or procedures.
We finally have a law that will address our problems on reproductive health. Whether one is for or against the law, one should give it a chance and do one’s share to make it succeed rather than do everything to make it fail.
