RH Discussion: Derailed by “Damaso” episode
by Rupert Francis Mangilit and Ruby Shaira Panela
A health center carries a chart on modern birth
control methods. The RH bill aims to enhance information
dissemination and access to these and other reproductive
healthcare. (photo by Lito Ocampo)
In the thick of the exchange between the groups opposed to and in favor of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill, Intramuros tour guide Carlos Celdran held a one-man protest last Oct. 2. The actâstaging a protest inside the Manila Cathedral during a Mass while holding up a placard with the word âDamasoâ, the villainous friar of Jose Rizalâs Noli Me Tangereâcost him a night in jail. On the other hand, it got him Facebook fans and much media hype.
It could have helped provoke meaningful discussion on the RH issue. But Celdranâs act edged out of the media such developments as the quiet filing of the latest version (HB 3387) of the RH bill by Gabriela Party-list Reps. Luzviminda Ilagan and Emerenciana de Jesus, as well as other bills with similar provisions.
Gabrielaâs version brings the number of RH bills currently pending at the Lower House to six. A Senate version filed by Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago (SB 2378) is likewise pending. The upsurge in Congressâ interest in an RH bill, a bill that never prospered since its first filing in the 11th Congress, reflected public sentiment: a 2009 Pulse Asia survey found that six out of 10 Filipinos want an RH bill passed.
Even with the initial support of a number of congressmen, the RH bills filed in both chambers prospered only to a Second Reading in the 14th Congress. Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile admitted that the Senate did not have the time to discuss it, while Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, a proponent of the bill in the last Congress and in the current one, said he did not believe the House leadership of the 14th Congress was committed to it.
What the press missed
The press reports did not only miss the filing of the RH bills, they also failed to address the pertinent issues concerning reproductive health. For one, not many viewers and readers understand why a reproductive health policy is necessary.
As explained in the bill, reproductive health concerns not only the capability to produce offspring but also the freedom âto decide if, when and how to do soâ, and equal access among men and women to these choices.
Matrix: Reproductive Health Bills filed in Congress
A sound reproductive health policy affects a countryâs efforts at overall development. The country lags behind its targets for the Millennium Development Goals according to the MDGâs 2010 report. Child mortality in the Philippines remains high, at 25 deaths for every 1,000 live births; and maternal deaths, 162 in every 1,000 deliveries.
Beyond population control, Ilagan, in an interview on ABS-CBN News Channelâs Headstart, said, â[the bill] takes the whole range of services the government should provideâ for Filipinos, who, as a result of poverty (and consequently, lack of access to costly reproductive healthcare) and the general inadequacy of basic services, have no access to the means of managing their reproductive health.
RH: a fad or a policy?
Currently, access to informed choice on reproductive health matters is illusory, Lagman said. Part of the reason lies in the governmentâs inconsistency in implementing a family planning policy.
The 2007 Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism report âPresidents and family planningâ looked into the inconsistencies of the family planning policy, either as a result of Catholic Church opposition or of some presidentsâ conservative stance. The last administration was purposely conservative on the RH issue, reportedly to appease the Catholic Church. In fact, now a Pampanga representative, former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is still supporting efforts to thwart an RH billâs passing by co-authoring Parañaque Rep. Roilo Golezâ HB 13 (âProtection of the Unborn Child Act 2010â).The bill excludes artificial family planning methods among the birth control options couples may adopt.
President Benigno Aquino III is pro-choice as far as family planning methods are concerned, including artificial contraception. This sits well with Present Health Sec. Enrique Ona, who is promising a âpopulation policy that prevents abortion and unwanted pregnancies,â but not with the Catholic Church. Alarmed by Onaâs statement, the Catholic Church expressed its opposition to Aquinoâs emerging RH policy in the media and in the pulpits.
From excommunication to Damaso
Last Sept. 30, the Philippine press reported that the CBCP President Nereo Odchimar said Pres. Aquino might face excommunication for his support for artificial methods of birth control. (âAquino faces threat of excommunicationâ, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Sept. 30; âExcommunication Awaits Aquino over Contraceptivesâ , Manila Bulletin, Sept. 30; âAquino faces church ousterâ, The Manila Times, Oct. 1)
Two days later, an Inquirer article titled âChurch says all a miscommunicationâ reported, Catholic news service UCAN (Union of Catholic Asian News) also carried the story with the headline: âBishops threaten Aquino with excommunicationâ.
The CBCP, however, âbacktrackedâ. That very night, the news programs TV Patrol, 24 Oras and Bandila carried Odchimarâs denial. But TV5âs Aksyon still reported the alleged excommunication threat without referring to the CBCP denial.
It was all a mistake, said the PDI in another report. The transcript of the paperâs interview with Bishop Odchimar, conducted through the Catholic station Radio Veritas, supposedly unintentionally deleted the word ânotâ from the sentence: âRight now it is [not] a proximate possibility.â ( The Inquirer provided a transcript; CMFR requested a copy from Veritas, but the station declined).
Only the Inquirer reported the error; the other reports focused on the CBCPâs âbacktracking,â but not on the omission of the word ânotâ in the transcript. As a result, the reports were out of context, with some of the media still soliciting reactions to the excommunication that apparently never was.
Some articles also appeared in which Odchimar said that he did not say Aquino would be excommunicated. (âCBCP: No threat vs Noy; it was a miscommunication,â Inquirer, Oct. 2; âCatholic bishop denies threatening to excommunicate Aquinoâ, Times, Oct. 2; ââNoynoy is President not only of Catholicsâ: CBCP head denies issuing excommunication threatâ, Star, Oct. 2; âCBCP head denies threat, Solons rally behind Aquinoâ, Daily Tribune, Oct. 2)
Meanwhile, the Oct. 2 banner story of the Manila Bulletin (ââExcommunicationâ hit: Senators back Aquino, Pacquiao sides with Churchâ) focused on the rationale of the RH policy, especially Santiagoâs bill, while reporting the arguments of the Church and others opposed to the bill.
The reported threats of excommunication against Aquino and of civil obedience by Catholic groups had led to Celdranâs protest. He claimed that he wanted the clergy to know what Filipinos were thinking, and that included their support for an RH bill. What media did, however, was to focus on the act itself., and forgot what it was meant to convey.
While reports on television and print would mention the six RH bills, none attempted to report their contents. Reports also lacked reference to the history of the Church-government debate from the time of the Population Control to the now more well-rounded RH policy.
Versions of the reproductive bill are one in seeking accessible reproductive health education and medical care by mandating insurance coverage for all reproductive health disorders (including related cancers and HIV/AIDS); providing RH supplies and education in hospitals, lying-in facilities and health centers; and even, ensuring pregnant womenâs safety and job security in workplaces.
But more salient are the provisions in the bill that refute one of the Churchâs main arguments against the RH bill: that it tolerates or even promotes abortion. In the billsâ statements of principles is the disclaimer that nothing in the bill contradicts any provision in the Abortion Act. Also, a provision states that mandatory reproductive health education from Grade 5 shall include the âproscription and hazards of abortion.â
The RH bill is also clear with using safe and legal methods of birth control. It was pointed out in an Inquirer editorial (âDefinitions,â Oct. 5) and on ANCâs Strictly Politics that abortifacients should not be confused with contraceptives, which prevent conception. The editorial wrote: â[F]or what human life is there to terminateâŠwhen it has not been conceived in the first place?â
Bandwagon
On the columnistsâ front, the discussion on the RH bill was overshadowed by the tendency of some to jump on the bandwagon of praising the act and the hero rather than explaining his cause. But while the better-known columnistsâamong them Rina David, Conrado de Quiros and Krip Yusonâfocused on making a hero out of Celdran, some focused on the actâs context. The critical points were actually raised in a number of editorials and columns (See the Starâs Oct. 2 editorial âMedievalâ, Alex Magnoâs First Person column: âThreatsâ and CMFR Deputy Director Luis Teodoroâs Vantage Point column âBetter than Nothingâ in BusinessWorld, Oct. 1-2).
Television tried to make up for the shortcomings in its news reports by providing platforms for discussions on the issue in their public affairs programs. While ANCâs Strictly Politics (Oct.5) had representatives from the government, womenâs groups, and RH critics, ABS-CBNâs The Bottom Line had Bishop Deogracias Iniguez answering questions from RH supporters and critics. ANCâs Truths devoted an episode to unsafe abortions as a desperate resort by women who do not have access to birth control methods. Aksyonâs âJournalismoâ, TV Patrolâs âBayan mo Ipatrol moâ and âANCAlertsâ pages in Facebook and Twitter allowed social network users to post comments on RH.
[New Post] RH Discussion: Derailed by “Damaso” episode – via #twitoaster httpss://www.cmfr-phil.org/2010/10/19/rh-d…
Media coverage on Reproductive Health: “Damaso” episode overshadows RH Bill: httpss://www.cmfr-phil.org/2010/10/19/rh-d…
RT @cmfr: Media coverage on Reproductive Health: “Damaso” episode overshadows RH Bill: httpss://www.cmfr-phil.org/2010/10/19/rh-d…
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by CMFR and CMFR, CMFR. CMFR said: [New Post] RH Discussion: Derailed by "Damaso" episode – via #twitoaster httpss://bit.ly/c9gPCX […]
[…] CMFR’s article “RH Discussion: Derailed by ‘Damaso’ episode” (October 19, 2010), written by Rupert Francis Mangilit and Ruby Shaira Panela, is a welcome […]
[…] And although Celdran’s stunt did raise awareness of the bill, it did not raise the level of debate on it. Going by a report by the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, attention was focused on personalities and not on the bill itself. […]
[…] Derailed by “Damaso” Episode by Rupert Francis D. Mangilit and Ruby Shaira F. Panela […]