SC justice calls contraceptives 'poison' that can harm unborn children

(Updated 3:30 a.m., 24 July 2013) As the Supreme Court resumed debates on the controversial RH law on Tuesday, opponents of the law seem to have found an ally in Associate Justice Roberto Abad, who described hormonal contraceptives as "poison." Abad said manufacturers of contraceptives themselves have admitted their drugs can "prevent the normal function of a  woman's body." There are currently 14 petitions questioning the constitutionality of the Responsible Parenthood and  Reproductive Health Law (RH Law), with six intervenors or those who are not petitioners but wanted to participate in the case. The SC's 15 magistrates started hearing oral arguments against the law early this month. The majority of the justices voted last week to delay indefinitely the implementation of the law while it hears opposing arguments. Abad was among those in the majority, but had not been as vocal as other justices until Tuesday's session. During the second round of oral arguments on the controversial law on Tuesday, Abad read portions of an information sheet for a contraceptive with a warning about its use once a woman is pregnant. Abad said this means a child can be harmed, adding that "contraceptives attack healthy ovaries to make them dysfunctional. Court needs only common sense not medical experts to know this." "It would appear these government-sponsored contraceptives as admitted by their manufacturers are not altogether safe," he added, asserting that hormonal contraceptives are "poison." Cabral: No science behind that Former Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral, who attended the oral arguments, told GMA News Online that Justice Abad simply misinterpreted the information on side effects of contraceptives. "It is not true that oral contraceptives are harmful to ovaries of women in general. There is no science behind that. Maybe he misinterpreted the data that he read," said Cabaral, who supports the RH Law. She added that oral contraceptives only prevent the release of eggs from the ovaries, and that possible side effects of the contraceptives are outweighed by the benefits. "The approval for drug use is based on whether the benefits of the drug outweigh the risks attending to the drug. And the same is true for oral contraceptives," Cabral said, adding that anyone without a medical background should not interpret medical issues. "My comment is in the problem that when you do not have a medical background, you are not competent enough to interpret what you read," she said. "Contraceptive mentality" Meanwhile, an anti-RH Law lawyer claimed that the law will "inundate" the country with contraceptives and promote a "contraceptive mentality" among Filipinos. Luisito Liban, so far the second lawyer to criticize the law before the SC magistrates during the SC oral arguments, claimed that the law would allow the government to "harness its entire machinery... supposedly to reduce maternal death and probably controlling population growth. But they have ignored more important and pressing problems [the law would bring]." "It is part of the government's strategy to indundate, to promote and flood the country with contraceptives and develop a contarceptive mentality among its population," said Liban. Liban also emphasized that the law's provision requiring the teaching of sex education in schools was "discriminatory" and violate a person's right to equal protection of the law. Liban had earlier agreed to tackle how the law allegedly violates the right to religion, right to free speech, academic freedom, and "proscription on involuntary servitude." "Mandatory sex education will violate parents' right to rear and educate children for civic duty and for the development of moral character," Liban said. He said the mandatory teaching of sex education in public schools would lead to students' discrimination "because they will have to bear the additional burden of additional topics in school." Even in private schools, where sex education would be optional according to the law, parents and their children would be "exposed to possible unequal protection." "The law says a private school has the option. So some may adopt it and some may not. People in the same group may be treated differently," he said. Inconsistent with 'Daang Matuwid' Asked by Associate Justice Arturo Brion if he thought the RH Law was consistent with the Aquino administration's "Daang Matuwid" anti-corruption campaign, Liban said: "I don't think so. A 'Matuwid na Daan is a path that will lead you to a path that is something bright and promising." For his part, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen stressed the separation between state and church. "You cannot expect this court, a secular one... to declare as unconstitutional a law based on the view of religion," Leonen said. "We can't declare it unconstitutional for the Catholic Church." Meanwhile, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno dwelled on Liban's criticism of the law's P2-billion budget allotment for reproductive health measures. "The SC is not the decision maker on the resource allocation of this government," she stressed. Sereno said Liban seemed to want a utopian society based on the arguments he presented against the law. "[What you want is] a path of a completely natural method... that does not promote an alien lifestyle, a way of life that chooses only natural means of family planning that does not promote alien culture," Sereno said. The chief justice observed that the lawyer wanted a "culture that continues to hope that somehow masses of poor will be able to find a savior among their ranks so that their families can be saved and be brought to the middle class." True Catholics Liban claimed that the government, through the RH Law, was "exposing people into potential harm which I call institutionalizing risks." Sereno however said that everything in life has risks. The chief justice asked Liban what he thought of Catholics who do not find anything wrong with the RH Law and continue using contraceptives. "Women who profess to be Catholic but agree to using contraceptives are not practicing Catholics," Liban responded. "How can we ever say he is truly Catholic? How can one say he is Christian when he does not believe in Christ," he added. Liban added that he and the other petitioners "are speaking on behalf of true Catholics." "If we concede that all men have the right to life and right to health... all should be treated the same way [but] there could be a problem if Congress choose to cherry pick and do so in a very obvious way that you see that serious problems are not taken care of," he said. Sereno then adviced Liban, "A political solution is to get more people like you and elect that to Congress so that the right priorities would be placed where you see fit." Sereno also disagreed with Liban's claim that the RH Law was "arbitrary." She said the law does not force students to attend sex education classes. "I don't think the Department of Education will be as arbitrary as to say, 'You will fail if children refuse to attend sex education class.' I don't see coercion here. What we see here is [only] a policy direction... which will only happen after consultation," Sereno emphasized. RH Law's 14-year journey Officially known as “The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012,” the law seeks to provide improved public access to natural and artificial family planning options, better maternal care, and youth education.   The Catholic Church has strongly opposed the law, which was first introduced in Congress 14 years ago.   The Senate and the House of Representatives separately ratified the bicameral conference committee report on the controversial Reproductive Health Bill last Dec. 19.   Under the new law, the government will promote programs that allow couples to have their desired number of children with due consideration to the health of babies and women. Resources will also be made available to parents in accordance with their personal and religious convictions.   It also aims to inform young people between the ages of 10 to 19 years old about reproductive health issues and responsible teenage behavior, among other things.   President Aquino had certified the controversial measure as urgent after it narrowly passed the crucial second reading in the House of Representatives in mid-December.   In a matter of days, both the Senate and the lower house finally voted on the approval of the bill, which Aquino quietly signed into law minus the customary photo opportunity with the bill’s main proponents. – with Marc Jayson Cayabyab/VVP/HS/KBK, GMA News