A Criticism of RH Law From a Historical Perspective
Today I am going to speak about a very hot, very recent and very controversial topic. From its first appearance as a bill until its passage into law, this thing had been under hot and fierce debates between the two opposing camps as well as nationwide rallies. The topic that I am referring to is the RH Law or the Republic Act No 10354 which is called the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012. This law was enacted last Dec. 19, 2012 and was signed into law two days after. Its passage was highly controversial and divisive among experts, academics, religious institutions and major political personalities.
But today I’m not going to speak about the topic in a medical point of view because I am not a medical practitioner nor in a legal/economic point of view because I’m not a lawyer/economist much more in a theological/moral point of view. But I can always relate and read history as well as you all too can, I suppose.
What is this law about? This law guarantees universal access to methods on contraception, fertility control, sexual education and maternal care. However, reproductive health initiatives did not just start a decade ago.
When was the law started? Historically, reproductive health initiative dates back to 1967 when Marcos signed the declaration on Population. The declaration denotes that population be considered as a major element for long-term economic development. This is the reason why the Population Commission was created to push for a lower family size.
Where does this drive to control the population, to lower the family come from? Well, it’s all American made. Tatak Estates!
In 1975, the United States adopted as its policy the National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200): Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interest. This NSSM 200 (popularly known as spearheaded by Henry Kisinger) suggested population measures and the promotion of contraception among 13 less developed yet populous countries namely India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, Turkey, Nigeria Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil and of course the Philippines.
The basic thesis of this study is: POPULATION GROWTH IN THE LESS DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LDC’s) IS A CONCERN TO U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY. Why, because the population growth of LDC will compete with the large and increasing mineral requirements of the U.S.
Why would U.S control the population of other countries? They want to stay as world power. The U.S. wants to continue world dominance. They know that number is power. More people, means more power. They know that the number of people is not causing widespread poverty. They know that the larger the population is, the more the implications in the US security – economic security, military security, political security and intellectual security. The US knows that they have to secure those areas in order to stay in power. They have to do all things, even to move heaven and earth just to stay in power. They would even control the population of other countries including the Philippines, by using the mask of curbing population problem and alleviating economic challenges. Very cunning!
So, they want control over us. They want sovereignty over us. They want to reduce our population from growing (sila lang ba ang may karapatang magparami? Hindi ba ito din ang pilosopia na ginamit ni Hitler sa mga Judio o Jews noong Holocaust? Hindi ba itong hakbang ng Estados Unidos ay isang Hitlerismo?) so what do they do is to give us free contraception, free pills and all other free abortifacient drugs to kill the next ones in the population– the unborn. Tapos magbibigay sila ng bilyon-bilyong pera para sa pagpatay ng ating mga kababayan na walang kalaban-laban.
Then our politicians will pass bills then laws (like RH law) because there are so much money from the US government and lobbyists. Bakit maraming pera sa usaping Population Control? Kasi nung inadopt ng US ang policy based from that NSSM 200 meroon ng mga nakalaang budget para sa mga ibat-ibang programa para sa pagbawas ng populasyon ng mga LDC’s. Meron pa nga goal by 2015, naaalala nyo ba ang MDG o ang Millennium Development Goal na makailan lang ay pinangunahan ni Hilary Clinton?
If we go back to the history of this law that I am talking about, if dissect its roots, we can say that the RH law is anti-Filipino because it is not the interest of the poor, the women and children or our economy’s security but the RH law is a law that considers the interest of the United States. The long and short of it all this is that– it is not PRO-LIFE or PRO-CHOICE. Historically, it is PRO-UNITED STATES.