The acceptable clarificatory amendments which President Aquino proposed to the RH bill (House Bill No. 4244 on “Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development”) which he endorsed as a priority administration measure to the Congress did not water down nor dilute the bill since its salient features have been retained.
The President himself rejected the insinuation that Malacañang watered down the RH bill as he explained that the principal provisions remain intact like freedom of informed choice, promotion of all medically safe, legal and effective methods of contraception, sexuality and reproductive health education among the young and adequate government funding.
In fact, the Office of the President did not anymore craft its own version of a responsible parenthood bill and instead endorsed for priority enactment HB 4244 which the President considered “more comprehensive”.
The proposal of the President to delete the provision on the “ideal family size of two children” has been previously submitted voluntarily by RH authors to the Committee on Population and Family Relations for adoption as committee amendments.
The following amendments suggested by Malacañang are acceptable to the RH advocates in the House of Representatives:
(1) Deletion of the phrase “sexual orientation” in the provision against discrimination found in the “Declaration of Policy” since non-discrimination based on “sex” is already encompassing;
(2) “Funding support to promote natural methods of family planning” considering that all forms of family planning which are medically safe, legal and effective are to be promoted, with the modification that funds will be appropriated for modern-natural family planning methods consistent with the primary condition of effectiveness and as required by acceptors;
(3) The requirement for accredited health facilities to provide a full range of modern family planning methods will be made optional to “hospitals owned and operated by a religious group” to respect religious beliefs;
(4) Mandatory age-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education shall start from “Grade 6” instead of Grade 5;
(5) The teaching of values formation is modified by the phrase “with due regard to religious affiliation” in deference to religious beliefs; and
(6) The qualification that the liable public official who prohibits or restricts the delivery of legal and medically safe reproductive health care services shall be one who is “charged with duty to implement the provisions of this Act”. EDCEL C. LAGMAN
